<HTML>Hi Garrett
Thanks for the reply.
>>To my mind the real "pay-off" of the earlier Sphinx claims lies in the possibility of monument-building cultures far earlier then we currently think. But there is simply no evidence at all for that.
When are we currently thinking? Is Newgrange a 'monument'? (it's made out of stone!) Is that about 5000 years old or something? Colin Reader is within this bulpark. Jericho is evidence of building with stone isn't it? Are you talking about local to Giza? I haven't yet got round to the relevant research here I think :-)
The earliest repairs to the Sphinx are of OK style? Does Hawass argue that the 18th Dynasty repaired the Sphinx in OK style? Am I wrong on that? How would I apply Occams Razor to this - that OK style would be OK repair? ~lol~ You tell me........
>>That's why Colin Reader's moderate redating concerns me less than the fanciful imaginings of West or Hancock or Schoch
I'm finding that Schoch is distinctly different to JAW and Hancock here. Schoch I think is following his interpretation of the evidence with regard to the age of the Sphinx. I'm not clear about JAW - I think he is arguing for a much much older Sphinx for a variety of reasons and GH doesn't seem to present any specific argument for a Sphinx older than Schoch's proposal (in FOTG he argued that the pyramids and Sphinx were of a piece I think, but has since changed his mind about the dating of the pyramids - so I don't know where that leaves the Sphinx?) I'm not clear on why GH argues for an 10500BCE Sphinx specifically on the evidence - I've got confused along the way with that. I read his books a long time ago.....
>>Fact is, not a scrap of evidence has ever been produced for the LC, despite so vast a volume of inkshed spilt on the matter.
I know. But I'm still holding out just in case for earlier Sphinx - unconnected to this LC, but still exciting ~lol~
Claire</HTML>
