<HTML>Thanks for the note, Ishmael. I did not see your reply.
>
> 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.
Archaeologists deal in layers of *human occupation,* not geologic layers (at least archaeologists dealing with the eras we are discussing; the situation is different with fossils). Geology does not "underpine (sic) the vast majority of archaeological finds." That is simply not true. Stratification, as such, was noted by geologists in the early 19th century and later applied to human occupation layers (successfully) but this does not mean geologists' opinions automatically outweigh archaeologists' ones, as you seem to assume.
> 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.
This is a gross distortion of my point, as I am certain you know. Claire asked, correctly, who should be listened to on the Sphinx -- the archaeologists (who have a definte view based on their analysis of the evidence) or Schoch (who has his view, based on his geology). I was replying to this question, in its own terms, as it pertains to the Sphinx.
> 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?
I explain that later in the post you are criticizing: total, compplete, utter, 100% absence of any evidence of any pre-OK monument-carving or constructing culture at Giza in the era of either 7000 BC or earlier (as proposed by Schoch and others). It isn't there. Period. In contrast, Schoch presents *his* view, HEAVILY CONTESTED AMONG HIS PEERS, that ONLY water could do that damage to the Sphinx and ONLY water that fell as rain, and ONLY water that fell as rain BEFORE the OK. If any one of those contentions is wrong (and many think they are all wrong), the case is closed. That is why I think he is speculating and has PROVEN nothing. In fact, the evidence (as laid out in the rest of my original post) is clearly and completely against him.
> 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.
Give me examples, please, of these "routine" geologic dating systems in archaeology. And I don't mean fossils. We're talking recent human history here (5,000 years ago or, if you prefer, up to 10,000 years ago). I know of no human-made monument dated by geologic erosion ALONE in that time period, let alone one dated on the basis of geologic erosion IN THE FACE OF archaeologically-verified dating evidence. If you do, please share. (The Sphinz is excepted, of course :0)).
> 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.
This is total nonsense. Archaeology is not some stunted son of geology. It's its own discipline. The two disciplines, in fact, are ill-suited to support each other (very ancient timeframes excepted) in matters of dating.
> 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.
A dodge. No other monuments are dated on the basis of geologic EROSION alone. Volcanic eruption hardly qualifies as eruption (and the dates for these eruptions, by the way, are often fixed by ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence and C-14 dating -- see Vesuvius AD 79 and Thera, ca. 1500 BC, though maybe earlier).
> 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.
Sorry, Ishmael, you are way off base here. Geologic weathering takes place over such massive periods of time and is so inconsistent and uncertain, and depends on so many variables (not least, the chemical composition of the rocks themselves) that it can never be a key archaeological dating method (unless all those variables are sorted out -- and they aren't at present). Compared to dates derived from finds from occupation layers, C-14, etc. it is like pure guesswork.
ISHMAEL
> 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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is so silly, I had to laugh. Sorry.
>
> 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.
All this comes from an almost total ignorance of the history of archaeology and its methods. In fact, long before there were physicists and chemists and modern geology, archaeologists were deducing dates from pottery and a host of other indicators (I suggest you go read an introduction to teh subject before considering it a pile of s***). Funnily enough, when the "scientific" methods of dating you mention above came into play (most since WWII) they proved the deductions of archaeologists to be largely correct. I say again: the ARCHAEOLOGISTS had deduced their dates based on their analysis of the evidence they had unearthed and they were VERIFIED by the "scientific" methods you mentioned.
> 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.
This is superb. Archaeology has nothing to offer an archaeological debate? It has "no tools with which to do battle."
And the heavily-armed Schoch has what to offer precisely? He certainly has no evidence. Oh, but he he has his OPINION. So let's take that at face value, and ignore everything else, right?
I'm sorry, Ishmael, but if your knowledge of geology is as profound as your knowledge of archaeology, it's you who should "keep mum," not the archaeologists.
Best,
Garret</HTML>
