<HTML>This is a reply to a message posted by Garrett Fagan which has since disapeared down the thread tree of this site.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Fagan:
(1) Archaeological evidence vs. geologic evidence. I would suggest that when investigating an issue of archaeological importance (as the Sphinx issue is), archaeological evidence trumps geological speculations (which is what Schoch's argument boils down to). I would no more claim that an archaeologist can "deduce" the age of a mountain range from archaeological excavation than a geologist can argue (in the face of the archaeological evidence) that a human artifact has been misdated by millennia based on his (disputed) opinion of geologic weathering on that artifact. To a degree, it's a clash of disciplines. But it's also a case of bad and blinkered methodology.
-----------
ISHMAEL:
How can you possibly argue this position -- when you know full well that geology underpines the dating of the vast majority of archeological finds. Without the apriori conclusions of geologists, regarding the regularity of stratification, archeology would be impossble.
---------------
Mr Fagan:
I would suggest that when investigating an issue of archaeological importance (as the Sphinx issue is), archaeological evidence trumps geological speculations (which is what Schoch's argument boils down to).
---------------
ISHMAEL
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.
As for your qualification of Schoch's conclusions as "speculation," when compared to the so called "evidenciary" nature of Archeological finds, on what basis do you make this qualification? How is it that archeologists are so adept at finding evidence while geologists can merely speculate?
---------------
Mr. Fagan:
I would no more claim that an archaeologist can "deduce" the age of a mountain range from archaeological excavation than a geologist can argue (in the face of the archaeological evidence) that a human artifact has been misdated by millennia....
----------------
ISHMAEL
Your second statement, if true, would (as stated above) undermine the whole of Archeology as a dicipline. Archeologists routinely rely upon geological evidence to establish the dating of recovered articacts.
This is why Archeologists would do well to sit back and wait for the geologists to resolve this debate. Geology must provide the basis for Archeological conclusions or Acheologists can reach no conclusions at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an addendum added in response to further questions from Clair....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clair:
One of the arguments I have come across is that no other momument has been dated using geology
---------------
ISHMAEL:
That statement is not correct. Some monumental structures, post-collapse, have indeed been dated via stratification. Other's have been dated because they were inudated by volcanic flow or ash associated with geologically identified near-by erruptions.
It may however be true that geological *weathering* effects have never before been used to arrive at dates for man-made structures. However....isn't it about time that these methods were tried? (Carbon dating was once a new dating methodology as well.)
I would conceed that there are certain unknowns associated with weathering processes which make dating via this method somewhat tentative - but it cannot be said that these methods have never before been tested. Geologist have indeed used these methods for decades and more to arrive at dates for the age of natural rock.
In short, there is no qualitative difference between Geological weathering patterning as a dating methodology and other accepted forms of dating - asside from its novelty. Archeologists ought to be cautiously optimistic regarding Schoch's (and Wests!) work in this area (and give them due pioneering credit!) as this may provide an exciting means by which here-to-fore undatable structures can be approximately arranged within the historical timeline.
-------------------
Clair:
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
--------------------
ISHMAEL:
There isn't a conflict when one of the combatants shows up to the fight unarmed!
The truth of the matter is, Archeology can not, never has, and never will be able to, provide scientifically testable dates for any artifact.
Never. Nada. No way.
Archeologists have always relied upon other diciplines to verify or correct their *conjectures.* The most basic dating method is of course geological stratification. This relies upon the work of Geologists. Other dating methods include chemical and radio analysis. These are analysis that are associated with diciplines utterly distinct from Archeology - yet these may contribute to the investigations of Archeologists (as has been shown).
Only the willingness of Archeologists to submit their conjectures to the rigure of quantifiable scientific analysis by Chemists, Physisicists and Geologists qualifies Archeology itself as a science. This is a tripartate marriage from which Archeology cannot now extract itself for the sake of conveinience.
Archeology has nothing to contribute to this debate. It has no tools with which to do battle. The debate belongs to the Geologists and the Archeologists ought to keep mum - or risk looking very silly to the next generation.</HTML>
