<HTML>Hi John
I also enjoyed the Serpent in the Sky. And I think that JAW's assessment of the ARCE Lehner/Gauri project is pretty intriguing, recently (thanks John) I have had the opportunity to read some of the original report too.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the way the debate has gone on this board. Personally I've always been open to the idea of an older Sphinx, although only from a layman's perspective :-)
>>We've been treated to an academic argument as to whether geology is a precise science,
That was inspired by JAW himself, he discusses it in his book, under 'How hard is geology?'
>>archaeology triumphing over geology
I think this is legitimate, I have read many reviews of the issue, and often it comes down to, well the geology seems to suggest an older Sphinx, but the archaeology suggests a 4th Dynasty build........ My posts have been from a layman trying to understand how to resolve this.
>>You see JAW is a non-expert in egyptology
Who is 'you'? :-) Compared to me, he is quite definitely an expert! I would have thought being an expert would be a strength over a non-expert in anyone's book btw ~lol~
>>He introduced the brilliant Dr Robert Schoch to the debate and I'M sure we all agree this in itself is worthy of all our admiration. Thanks JAW.
Agreed. He's driven the whole debate on, time and again.
>>The archaeology is dodgy and circumstancial at best
I wouldn't say it was 'dodgy' from my reading. (although I have a lot to read!)
>>The geology is clear-cut and points to rain.
The problem is that it's not clear-cut. While Schoch makes one comprehensive case, Reader also prepares a different but equally comprehensive case. And on the other side, there are geologists who attribute the weathering to different processes. Adding to the difficulty are the professional disagreements over which strata various tombs etc are composed of, to my knowledge even the KVT didn't necessarily originate from the Sphinx enclosure. John, I think there are complex arguments on both sides!
The reason that this debate isn't yet settled is because both sides here have good cases. I think it's reasonable to explore both sides of the debate. In my view, that's all that's going on here. You can't dismiss a case unless you understand it, that's always been my opinion. So having understood JAW's case, I'm trying to appreciate that opposite case that frankly, is the prevailing view :-) It's no good only been aquainted with one side of an argument - you have to be able to advocate both sides in order to form a balanced judgement - again, just my opinion.
Thanks
Claire</HTML>
