Minimalist wrote:I thought it was a lion's head originally?
I just find it interesting that the geologists (Schock and Reader) while quibbling over the date (and neither satisfying the Egyptologists in the process) use hard scientific principles to dispute the 4th Dynasty claims of the Egyptologists who, last I heard, were still hung up on Khafre building it because it is near the second pyramid which they think he built....for reasons which are as soft as the sphinx attribution.
Then you're either purposefuilly mischaracterizing the situation using a straw man argument or you're not listening very well.
Two different types of Khufu's name appear in worker markings in sealed chambers in the GP, there have been two different C14 assays of the site put5ing it squarely in the 4th Dynasty, and a record of shipments of stone found at an ancient port in Egypt recently explicitly mentions stones meant for Khufu's pyramid.
Minimalist wrote:Now I live in a desert and every summer we get a first hand look at what happens when there is a sudden cloudburst on a sun-baked desert landscape. There are amazing flash floods but they are exceedingly localized and last a very short time. Schock's case for sustained rainfall seems more credible.
This is an example of what I stated. Perhaps you should understand that, while Schoch uses rainfall to corroborate what he claims, his date is in no way based on such a thin line of evidence.
He bases his date for the sphinx entirely on subsurface weathering of bedrock in the Sphinx enclosure which is due to exposure to the air, and not affected by covering sands or any amount of rain. His use of rainfall (which BTW turns out to be more than was thought at the time of Schoch's paper) is purely serendipitous.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.