<HTML>Hi John
I guess the problem people have with Schoch is the same as your brother had with rainfall in Egypt, they say - oh but wait, what about the archaeology - perhaps?
Reader, as you know, attributes the weathering features to rainfall run-off. Schoch seems to think that only heavy rainfall over a longer period can account for these features. The enclosure and the Sphinx are composed of more that one quality of limestone, and the weathering isn't consistent, it is more severe for example on the west wall of the enclosure........etc etc
Lehner in his 1994 KMT article points out that Schoch cites Donald Coates, (presumably another geologist :-)) who states "similar appearing features may have [been] formed by different processes" - I'm NOT a geologist, but this is a bit of a spanner in the works for me. Is that true? Will your brother know? Can you tell me what he says when he's next back? :-)
I agree with you that these rainfall/rainfall run-off theories are very intriguing - to me they sound very persuasive. But I am aware that some very qualified individuals are more persuaded by the archaeological evidence - I need to be more familiar with this side before I can come to a fair final conclusion. Right now though, I'd vote for an earlier Sphinx ~lol~
Thanks John - did you read Voices in the Rocks - what did you think of that?
Claire</HTML>
