<HTML>Anthony -
A good question. However, archaeological dating techniques are interlocked. You can't take out one element, without addressing the domino-effect on the other elements in the nexus.
Thus, for instance, pottery type A is found in several contexts, some of which are datable undeniably to the 4th dynasty (let's say, some tombs with inscriptions in them that identify them as 4th dynasty tombs). If you then say that this other context (e.g., the Sphinx), which has pottery type A in it, is NOT 4th dyn., you have to explain how all the other contexts are also NOT 4th dynasty. Or you have to start raising baseless possibilities and levelling ad-hoc arguments to justify your case. That is special pleading, not argument. Context and consistency are key.
There is also the "architectural harmony" contextual argument, whereby the Sphinx is tied pretty tightly into the overall plan of the Giza monuments -- and even alternatives are now saying the pyramids are indeed 4th century. To argue for a non-4th dyn. Sphinx, you have to ignore that context too. It would be like saying that we accept that this cathedral is 14th century AD, but the baptistry, which is architecturally tied into the whole and has only 14th century material associated with it, is actually far older by millennia. Do you see the problem with that sort of reasoning? It is very ad hoc and ignores the overall context, which is key.
> What if some of the sites ARE prehistoric?
What if they aren't?
> Are we not guilty of throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater? Shouldn't we have two sets of data... that which
> is reliably dated, and that which is NOT? If the stack of
> "is not" gets too big, then we may be looking at a complete
> restructuring of the timeline.
This is where associated finds and context in archcaeology is all-important. Alternatives just seem to ignore these considerations, but they are vital. You can't ignore context. It's not some pedantic nit-pick. It's central to how hundreds of sites have been reliably interpreted. If you wish to throw the baby out out with the bathwater, ignore context in archaeological interpretation.
> How many dateless stone monuments/temples/buildings/causeways
> are there in the area?
I'm sure John or Mikey can answer this (and hasn't John addressed it in his article "The Wrong Question"?)
>
> Maybe we see them all as 4th Dynasty because some of the
> material is clearly 4th Dynasty... but that doesn't mean it
> all is 4th dynasty.
Well to argue that some bits aren't, you have to explain exactly why they aren't (and "it fits my case" is not good enough) and also address the domino-effect for interpreting the rest of the artifacts, which are securely 4th dynasty.
>
> If the erosion theory of Schoch holds up, then ALL these
> ageless structures may be prehistoric... and the sphinx is
> just the "clock" by which we can guage them.
Well, even GH and RB accept the 4th dynasty date of the pyramids. And if you start taking bits and pieces out and redating them to prehistoric times, you have to address the effects on the architectural context, as described above. You start levelling a multitude of ad hoc arguments for each case. It becomes a complete mess.
>
> This may be a case of misinterpreted evidence... not missing
> evidence.
Or not.
Best,
GF</HTML>
