<HTML>
Having apologized to Claire for my stupid error above, I now address her points:
I wrote:
> >>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
Claire wrote:
>
> There is a difference between dealing with what evidence
> there is and ruling out propositions on the basis that no
> evidence is currently available.
I reply:
Or is likely ever to be available at a site which has been dug to bedrock. It's not as if archaeologists left older layers undug and then proclaimed that there's no evidence. In fact, there are no older layers. Just rock. Concluding the the oldest material in the oldest layers represents the earliest human action at the site is therefore not some leap of faith. It is a logical conclusion from the evidence at hand.
Claire asked
>
> Why would you need
> to find something in the Sphinx enclosure?
Well, if you want to make arguments about the Sphinx from archaeological data, material from the Sphinx enclosure is as good as it gets. And there is such material available. It's 4th dynasty.
Best, contritely,
Garrett</HTML>
