> There are several problem with Audrey's proposal.
> Chiefly the stones are largely at two points. Of
> course the other stones might have been removed
> but this is assuming things not in evidence.
Are you referring to the two heaps of stones Dune is curious about? If so, they're not very far apart and how would that exclude an embankment?
> Another problem is that these are at some altitude
> to the river. Floods would get fairly close to
> this height but few would achieve it. This flood
> was warm muddy water that was barely moving at all
> and would pose relatively little threat to the
> cliff face.
Say what? Have you seen a flood? Do you know what river current is? A flood occurs because of too much water FLOWING. If it's not moving, it's a pond or lake. The Nile isn't a contained swimming pool wherein flood waters would just gently rise. How do you know if "this" flood was warm and barely moving? Are you saying the Nile is stagnant and has no current?
> Some of the stones are haphazard and
> simple erosion would not account for their
> placement unless they came down from above.
Isn't that what I said? The stones have washed/slid down. Sliding would cause haphazard, unless you expect they would neatly stack up.
> The fill just to the west of these stones would
> support Audrey's contention but then even the
> filled area is as fragile as the rest of the cliff
Then why do you suppose stone is used to reinforce 'fragile' (weak) areas in waterways? And what exactly was the condition of the cliff at the time those stones were placed? Was it a weak area that needed to be reinforced? Or was it solid and has since weakened? If so, what weakened it, what made it 'fragile'?