<HTML>This of course is the well-worn ploy of trying to use the `hard' sciences as a stick to beat archaeology with - and as such, desperately naive about the topics it touches on.
-------------
Oh really? Well thank you for taking the time to present the confidently sophisticated view of these topics.
--------------
in Schoch's case...you conceed `that there are certain unknowns associated with weathering processes which make dating via this method somewhat tentative' - or, in a word, conjectural.
--------------
All scientific conclusions are in this sense "conjectures " (which I think is a road you travel down later in your message). I don't think you wish to throw out the whole of western scientific achievment just to reject an undesirable date for the Sphinx!
Geological "conjectures" are testable by experiment. Water erosion (the case in point) has been observed in natural rock and tested in labratory conditions to arrive at approximate rates of decay (in the same way - but less exact - as radioactive decay has been established for C14).
Archeologists, when they cannot use the *prefered* methods of scientific dating (C14, chemical anlysis, stratification etc.) must make gueses based upon the item's intrinsic characteristics. But these methods are freely acknowledged to be woefully unreliable and can not be "tested" in any way.
The only unknowns I acknowledge in the case of Schoch are those reasonable doubts that stem from the novel application of Geologic methodology to artificial contrusts. Caution should be applied to the first forays of this dating method into the realm of archeology (nevertheless, further application should refine its general reliability).
However, none of this is to argue that Schoch's conclusions are correct. Other Geologists have put forward alternative scenarios to explain the weathering features present on the Sphinx. It remains to be seen which of these better conforms to the observed data - and if any of these may also be used for the purposes of dating.
--------------
The authoritarian notion of `Chemists, Physisicists and Geologists' handing down pronouncements from the mountain is untrue to the way science works.
--------------
Well it would not work this way in this case *if* Archeologists posessed an alternative, testable means of dating artifacts. They don't so, sorry - they are indeed, completely reliant upon and subject to the "pronouncments" of "Chemists, Physisicists and Geologists."
I am certain you would think very little of an Archeologist who stubbornly refused to accept a date established by C14. Clearly, there are accepted "pronouncments" which are indeed viewed as authoritative.
There are many nterested parties who would prefer a much older *Shroud of Turin,* but Physisicists have robbed them of that hypothetical artifact and they are stuck with the one created in the middle ages. Unless a dating method more reliable than C14 can establish an alternative date, it is unreasonable to hold an alternative conclusion (though the possibility always exists that the C14 'conjecture' is in error).
While I do not wish to assert that geological weathering has yet established itself as a reliable means of dating on par with radio-carbon analysis, it is infinitely more reliable than the best means available to Archeologists alone.
-------------
It occurs to me that it might not be archaeology which has nothing to contribute to this debate.
-------------
If you are implying that it is Geology that "has nothing to contribute to this debate," you must be aware that your position is shared by many creationists. For if the claims of geology can be rendered moot, the conclusions of Anthropology and Archeology, regarding our evolutionary and cultural history, may also safely be ignored.
Geology is the first foundation of Archeology and, without it, the entire dicipline collapses.
Is this really the end for which you wish to argue?
I don't think so.
So let's not color the discussion with empty hyperbolie. We both know full well that Geology can and must "contribute to this debate" (dating of monuments/artifacts/the sphinx specifically).
The matter in dispute is Archeology's alleged "contribution."
THE QUESTION:
What objective, testable methodology, independent of any other dicipline, does Archeology have at its disposal to date recovered artifacts?
MY ANSWER:
None.
MY CONCLUSION:
My position stands:
There is no conflict between Geology and Archeology in the matter of establishing an age for the Sphinx. This is an internal debate within Geology itself. In its resolution, Archeologists can play a part *only* in so far as the Geologists fail to reach a conclusion.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
