<HTML>Garrett
If you are going to mention me by name then you could make an effort not to misrepresent me - especially if you are going to comment on that position :-)
I set out a series of positions to Michael - one explaining my previous position, one attempting to form an argument dealing with the geological evidence, one with the archaeological evidence. I asked Michael for comments and referred him to your posts in a previous thread. The only sentence in which I mention differing geological opinions would be;
"The type of weathering on the Sphinx is under dispute - some models require an older Sphinx, but some models allow the conventional dating. This geological debate is not settled. The positive archaeological evidence indicates a 4th dynasty carving. There is a lack of archaeological evidence to indicate an earlier carving. Therefore the proposition that best fits the known evidence is a 4th dynasty Sphinx."
However given that we have a geological debate regarding the weathering on the Sphinx it seems that further investigation by geologists is a requirement. I see the geological problem differently to you. I haven't been able to find geological arguments that refute Schoch. I can't find the Gauri explanation for the points raised by JAW or Coxhill or Schoch against his presentation of his case. These explanations are probably available, but not known to me. Further geological evidence could come to light (for example further seismic evidence) that changes the balance of evidence.
>>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 is not what evidence there might be. 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
There is a difference between dealing with what evidence there is and ruling out propositions on the basis that no evidence is currently available.
>>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).
When did I ask that in the thread below? Why would you need to find something in the Sphinx enclosure?
Cheers
Claire</HTML>
