<HTML>Ishmael
Technically we're on the same side here ~lol~
While you're on the subject could you help me out on something? One of the arguments I have come across is that no other momument has been dated using geology - that it is not a recognised method of dating anything. (well anything man made I guess). What do you think of that line?
>>Your fist statement, that the importance of an artifact to a particular dicipline governs which discipline has jurisdiction over its meaning, is nonsensical - as I am certain you know. Diciplinary relivance canot be used to determine who "trumps" whom.
So how would you determine it? (this isn't rhetorical!) Do you think that geology trumps archaeology per se, or specially on this occasion, or do you think that some criteria can be used to decide what would win out of geology and archaeology should they come into conflict :-)
[when my little brother was a toddler and he went through the question asking stage he was constantly asking similar questions ~lol~ like; what would win out of a bee and a wasp? what would win out of a lion and a tiger?, what would win out of a frog and a toad? As in - should they come to fight ~lol~ always things that were similar but not quite the same. It lasted about 2 years (well probably not, but that's the way I remember it) - funny to think that I'm still asking similar questions now ~lol~]
Thanks
Claire</HTML>