<HTML>Hi Garrett
The conclusion that I have reached is similar to this. JAW himself reveals that
<i>“Geologists at the University of Wales and at Oxford have assured me that under such circumstances, positive corroboration of the water erosion of the Sphinx may not be easy to obtain.”</i>
This is the trouble I think with the view that the geological evidence is stronger than the archaeological evidence, or in this case the Egyptological evidence. Ultimately both rest their case on a plausible interpretation of the evidence.
From what I can work out, geology is more equipped to make judgements over long periods of time rather than definite conclusions over relatively short periods. Also there still don’t seem to be many geologists attracted to the debate (although I can’t say I blame them J) I am surprised by the lack of support that Schoch has received – I had had the impression that he was well supported by geologists in his view. But where are they?
Meanwhile I think that Colin Readers contribution is intriguing – I’ll wait and see what happens. (Obviously I’m not qualified to distinguish between the geological views, although Gauri’s contribution has received some serious criticism, and I haven’t yet found any good retorts to the issues raised. As to precipitation weathering versus rainfall run-off – clearly I have no idea ~lol~)
I’m set to read more about the conclusions from archaeology next.
Thanks
Claire</HTML>
