<HTML>Based on the threads about the Sphinx below I was struck again and again by the argument that only geology can sort this out. Claire, for instance, said they should get the competing geologists to Giza and "sort it out once and for all" (or words to that effect). It seems to me that this is an erroneous position.
Geology is no more precise a science than archaeology. On the question of erosion patterns, two geologists can look at the same thing and draw different conclusions. I could see Schoch and Gauri looking at the Sphinx and sticking to their respective guns. (It is, to my mind, very little different from the way archaeologists can hold different views to explain artifactual assemblages.) Now in the case of the Sphinx, the more experienced geologists at Giza dispute Schoch, which counts for something but is hardly conclusive. They might yet be wrong.
So you have two choices: throw your hands in the air and grab a beer; or look for <i>other</i> ways to tackle the problem. That is where archaeological context comes in in this particular issue, since it is a geological proposition with distinct historical implications. And those implications can be tested.
The archaeology is clear: no pre-dynastic action on the Sphinx, but plenty of 4th dyn. and subsequent action attested. The argument that pre-dyn. material might yet turn up is no argument. Until it does actually turn up in significant quantity to show occupation and monument-building at Giza in that era, it doesn't exist. It's a possibility only. Like I've always said: archaeologists and history in general deal with what evidence there <i>is</i> not what evidence there <i>might be</i>. It is right and proper that they do so, or else history would be overwhelmed with endless speculations citing evidence yet-to-found as vindication. The power of the human imagination, after all, has to be respected.
It is a mantra of alternative authors that supporting evidence might turn up, or lies buried under mud, or ice, or underwater. Archaeology has been surprised before, and the experts have been wrong before. Absolutely. Agreed 100%. The difference is, the professional archaeologist does not write his books on the basis of what might turn up, but on the basis of what has actually turned up. Schliemann and Evans and all the other pioneers so often cited as models for alternative authors only published their revolutionary findings when they actually had the findings to publish, not before.
Now when, as at Giza (or Tiwanaku) you dig down to a level of bedrock (or alluvial mud), it is fair to conclude that no earlier layers are to be found, unless the inhabitants of putative earlier layers lived inside rock (or underwater). So when Claire asks "what to pre-dyn. layers show at Giza" the answer is "there are no pre-dyn. layers, just rock" (at least in the case of the Sphinx enclosure).
Thus, looking at the <i>totality</i> of the case, the geology is disputed (and leaning away from Schoch, IMHO) while the archaeology is clear-cut: no pre-dyn. monument-building at Giza, plenty of 4th dyn. and subsequent activity (even the houses and burials of the pyramid builders).
To me, this is a slam-dunk for the "conventional" side.
Garrett</HTML>
