| May 6, 2024, 12:05 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 07, 2001 02:14PM |
<HTML>Garrett
Thanks for your reply. This is an interesting subject to me, but I am struggling because my lack of relevant background is imposing a limit here on my ability to make a judgement on the issue ~lol~
>>This, it seems to me, is a consistent and fatal problem with any "alternative" view of archaeological matters: it is constantly starved for evidence. That is why they resort to arguments from geology, from astronomy, from myths, from images, etc
I have asking anyone who will listen on these boards the same question – does the geological evidence trump the archaeological evidence or vice versa. Duncan provided the clearest answer; in his view the archaeological evidence trumps the geological evidence. What I don’t know is whether geology is a ‘hard’ science – do erosion patterns come down to interpretation – are they subjective? Or would 99 out of 100 geologists agree? (you put it alongside myths or images I note, although astronomy is also presumably a ‘hard’ science?)
Anyway on the evidence, Schoch, as you will be aware, sees it differently. He claims that there is scant evidence for the predynastic period. He states that :
“Very little excavation work has been carried out in the delta itself or in the valley, and for good reason: extreme difficulty. In the days before the Nile was dammed, the river’s regular flooding deposited an average of one millimetre of alluvial soil each year across the delta and the rest of the river’s flood plain, those deposits added up. In the past 10,000 years, the span between the traditional beginning of the Neolithic period and today, the Nile Delta and Valley have been progressively buried under eight meters, or a little more than twenty-six feet, of deposited soil. Removing an overburden of that depth poses great technical difficult. As a rule, archaeologists like their ruins better exposed, closer to the surface; it helps to know where to begin digging.
To complicate matters, the bed of the Nile in its lower reaches has shifted over the millennia, so that what is riverbank now may have been underwater a various times thousands of years in the past. Additionally, much of what was inhabitable coastline in Egypt several millennia ago now lies underwater.” (Voices of the Rocks)
So here I guess he is arguing that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence J
Moreover Schoch sees the archaeological evidence for the Sphinx being OK as circumstantial rather than definite.
>>(b) the rate of erosion is not known to be consistent (Schoch admits as much) and so it cannot be used "count back" to a specific date in a non-geologic timescale (that is, to a date in human history). Saying "this rock has eroded to this form over millions of years" is one thing, saying "this rock has eroded to this form specifically over the past 7,000-9,000 years (and cannot have doen so before or after)" is quite another.
I understand Schoch’s position, I think. :-) He is stating that the erosion is precipitation induced and therefore must have happened during a period of heavy rainfall. He rules out occasional flash flooding style rainful on geological grounds I note. He also carried out seismic work, as I understand it to ‘gauge’ rate of erosion. Since the last period of heavy rainfall was in the period of 7000 – 5000 BC and since this coincided with his seismic data, he used this as a best guess time frame. Specifically, in my view, he is certain that it was pre-OK times. Also of course he made comparisons with other OK tombs and did not find evidence of the same erosion despite it being from the same quality limestone.
Am I wrong in my interpretation? (this isn’t a rhetorical question btw)
>>Finally, back to Schoch. His method is also shown to be flawed when Occam's Razor is applied to it (recently parodied wonderfully by Michael Lehmann on the GH M
. As you know, Occam's Razor states that, given competing explanations, the one that requires the fewest unnecessary elements is to be preferred.
A while ago I started a thread on the GH MB about Occam’s Razor and the Age of the Sphinx debate – almost everyone who contributed had it the other way – they all felt that when Occam’s Razor was applied it would be applied not against the archaeological evidence but against competing geological explanations – and most concluded a ‘slam dunk’ for Schoch.
So my question is; don’t we compare geological evidence against geological evidence – Schoch versus Gauri for example, for Occam’s Razor?
Also, do I understand you correctly? Does archaeological evidence (in this case there is no slam dunk archaeological evidence?) trump geological evidence because geology is too blunt a tool?
Thanks for your help on this
Claire</HTML>
Thanks for your reply. This is an interesting subject to me, but I am struggling because my lack of relevant background is imposing a limit here on my ability to make a judgement on the issue ~lol~
>>This, it seems to me, is a consistent and fatal problem with any "alternative" view of archaeological matters: it is constantly starved for evidence. That is why they resort to arguments from geology, from astronomy, from myths, from images, etc
I have asking anyone who will listen on these boards the same question – does the geological evidence trump the archaeological evidence or vice versa. Duncan provided the clearest answer; in his view the archaeological evidence trumps the geological evidence. What I don’t know is whether geology is a ‘hard’ science – do erosion patterns come down to interpretation – are they subjective? Or would 99 out of 100 geologists agree? (you put it alongside myths or images I note, although astronomy is also presumably a ‘hard’ science?)
Anyway on the evidence, Schoch, as you will be aware, sees it differently. He claims that there is scant evidence for the predynastic period. He states that :
“Very little excavation work has been carried out in the delta itself or in the valley, and for good reason: extreme difficulty. In the days before the Nile was dammed, the river’s regular flooding deposited an average of one millimetre of alluvial soil each year across the delta and the rest of the river’s flood plain, those deposits added up. In the past 10,000 years, the span between the traditional beginning of the Neolithic period and today, the Nile Delta and Valley have been progressively buried under eight meters, or a little more than twenty-six feet, of deposited soil. Removing an overburden of that depth poses great technical difficult. As a rule, archaeologists like their ruins better exposed, closer to the surface; it helps to know where to begin digging.
To complicate matters, the bed of the Nile in its lower reaches has shifted over the millennia, so that what is riverbank now may have been underwater a various times thousands of years in the past. Additionally, much of what was inhabitable coastline in Egypt several millennia ago now lies underwater.” (Voices of the Rocks)
So here I guess he is arguing that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence J
Moreover Schoch sees the archaeological evidence for the Sphinx being OK as circumstantial rather than definite.
>>(b) the rate of erosion is not known to be consistent (Schoch admits as much) and so it cannot be used "count back" to a specific date in a non-geologic timescale (that is, to a date in human history). Saying "this rock has eroded to this form over millions of years" is one thing, saying "this rock has eroded to this form specifically over the past 7,000-9,000 years (and cannot have doen so before or after)" is quite another.
I understand Schoch’s position, I think. :-) He is stating that the erosion is precipitation induced and therefore must have happened during a period of heavy rainfall. He rules out occasional flash flooding style rainful on geological grounds I note. He also carried out seismic work, as I understand it to ‘gauge’ rate of erosion. Since the last period of heavy rainfall was in the period of 7000 – 5000 BC and since this coincided with his seismic data, he used this as a best guess time frame. Specifically, in my view, he is certain that it was pre-OK times. Also of course he made comparisons with other OK tombs and did not find evidence of the same erosion despite it being from the same quality limestone.
Am I wrong in my interpretation? (this isn’t a rhetorical question btw)
>>Finally, back to Schoch. His method is also shown to be flawed when Occam's Razor is applied to it (recently parodied wonderfully by Michael Lehmann on the GH M
. As you know, Occam's Razor states that, given competing explanations, the one that requires the fewest unnecessary elements is to be preferred.A while ago I started a thread on the GH MB about Occam’s Razor and the Age of the Sphinx debate – almost everyone who contributed had it the other way – they all felt that when Occam’s Razor was applied it would be applied not against the archaeological evidence but against competing geological explanations – and most concluded a ‘slam dunk’ for Schoch.
So my question is; don’t we compare geological evidence against geological evidence – Schoch versus Gauri for example, for Occam’s Razor?
Also, do I understand you correctly? Does archaeological evidence (in this case there is no slam dunk archaeological evidence?) trump geological evidence because geology is too blunt a tool?
Thanks for your help on this
Claire</HTML>
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
IAB | August 06, 2001 02:08PM |
|
Derek Barnett | August 06, 2001 02:18PM |
|
IAB | August 06, 2001 02:24PM |
|
Derek Barnett | August 06, 2001 02:43PM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 10:29AM |
|
JoeRoyle | August 07, 2001 10:47AM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 11:06AM |
|
ISHMAEL | August 07, 2001 09:02AM |
|
Katherine Reece | August 07, 2001 09:08AM |
|
JoeRoyle | August 07, 2001 09:54AM |
|
Claire | August 07, 2001 10:16AM |
|
JoeRoyle | August 07, 2001 10:29AM |
|
Claire | August 07, 2001 11:20AM |
|
Garrett Fagan | August 07, 2001 01:20PM |
|
Claire | August 07, 2001 02:14PM |
|
Garrett Fagan | August 07, 2001 03:18PM |
|
Claire | August 07, 2001 04:11PM |
|
ISHMAEL | August 08, 2001 09:29AM |
|
Claire | August 08, 2001 11:27AM |
|
ISHMAEL | August 09, 2001 08:01AM |
|
Litz | August 07, 2001 03:24PM |
|
Claire | August 07, 2001 04:19PM |
|
Greg Reeder | August 06, 2001 03:47PM |
|
Graham'O | August 06, 2001 04:04PM |
|
Joanne | August 06, 2001 06:13PM |
|
Greg Reeder | August 06, 2001 10:57PM |
|
Don Barone | August 07, 2001 05:36AM |
|
Greg Reeder | August 07, 2001 10:24AM |
|
Joanne | August 07, 2001 07:36AM |
|
Garrett Fagan | August 07, 2001 09:38AM |
|
Katherine Reece | August 07, 2001 10:15AM |
|
Joanne | August 07, 2001 02:19PM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 02:28PM |
|
Garrett Fagan | August 07, 2001 03:26PM |
|
Joanne | August 07, 2001 05:48PM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 10:41AM |
|
Garrett Fagan | August 07, 2001 12:45PM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 01:00PM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 10:37AM |
|
D.Przezdziecki | August 06, 2001 09:22PM |
|
Mattcarps | August 07, 2001 05:04AM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 10:53AM |
|
IAB | August 07, 2001 10:51AM |
|
Greg Reeder | August 07, 2001 03:32PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.