<HTML>Michael,
don't fear for treading lightly - you have stated your case very well and very clearly. The way this whole issue developed for me is that I read about the weathering, took a look, thought "oh, it's run-off" and then concluded that the IV dyn date doesn't need revising. THEN I learned about the quarries and that really set the cat among the pigeons for me. Run-off could not have occurred after the quarrying. I then dug deeper and deeper and found more and more evidence to fit my model.
The one thing that came out of the research was just how circumstantial the case for the IV dyn Sphinx was/is. Many of the current advocates refer to Selim Hassan's work in the 1930's. This was the first modern archaeological clearance - he found lots of goodies in a firm archaeological context - even he concluded the link to Khafre was circumstantial - and he stated that in his report.
I also fear that the "IVdyn" context may have been used rather unwisely at times (this comes back to a separately posted point about clearance of the Sphinx enclosure without having found any ED artefacts). There are post holes and things in the bottom of the enclosure in which fragments of pot were found. The narative in the appropriate papers is loose - refering to the pots alongside terms such as "typical of" and "resembling". So statements like "shards resembling Old Kingdom pots" become, as a result of the prevailing IV Dyn context of the site, IV Dyn pots and the context is seen to be strenghtened!
This doesn't sit well. I am not claiming that these shards are ED - I don't have the evidence, but I think you can see the point I'm making.
As to Lehners comments in a KMT article - I'm pushed for time right now, I'll look them up and get back to you.
Col</HTML>
