<HTML>Hey Claire -
> 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 :-)
I meant at Giza. Sorry for not being specific.
> 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.....
I'd agree with you about Schoch, until I read that stuff on his website about periodic influences of comets on ancient history, with meaningless dates misrepresented as "key" dates in ancient history. I also think it is a huge leap of faith for him to say that ONLY rainwater could account for the patterns he sees, and that therefore ONLY an unknown culture could have carved the Sphinx in ca. 7000-5000 BC. Hancock's synthesis is flimsy, to say the least.
> I know. But I'm still holding out just in case for earlier
> Sphinx - unconnected to this LC, but still exciting ~lol~
I admire your excitement.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
