<HTML>Garrett
>>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.
OK, but I thought, for example, that the pyramid builders complex at Giza was a recent discovery (well relatively recent) or is that just a function of repeats on the Discovery Channel? :-)
>>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.
I didn't realise that 4th dynasty material had been recovered from the enclosure - oops :-) Has material been recovered from each of the renovation periods?
Thanks
Claire</HTML>
