<HTML>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."
-----------------
Well this depends upon what you mean by Archeology. I certainly must acknowledge your point as it pertains to the historical period, but Archeology extends much further back (and I too do not mean fossils). I refer of course to neolithic investigations (and those related to earlier periods). Into what period the Sphix belongs of course, is the point of contention.
But your argment is well taken. Human occupation layers, though related to geological stratification, are not dependet upon it.
-----------------
> Diciplinary relivance canot be used to
> determine who "trumps" whom.
This is a gross distortion of my point, as I am certain you know.
-----------------
In point of fact, I did not. If I am incorrect in stating your postion, it is because, I must admit, I misunderstand it.
-----------------
Claire asked....who should be listened to on the Sphinx -- the archaeologists...or Schoch....
------------------
That isn't how I understood the situation. Her question concerned a hypothetical conflict between Archeology and Geology as a whole - not some archeologists versus some Geologists. As she writes:
<i>
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?)
....Does archaeological evidence....trump geological evidence because geology is too blunt a tool?
</i>
I am attempting to answer THIS question and only this question.
As you write:
-----------------
....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
-----------------
This, I think. helps establish my point. The argument you make is a Geological argument. It's resolution will decide the matter, and only Geologists are qualified to determine if Geological weathering patterns are reliable as a dating methodology.
------------------
> Never. Nada. No way.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is so silly, I had to laugh. Sorry.
------------------
Why is that?
Perhaps you misunderstood *my* point?
I do NOT mean to imply in any way that Archeology is incapable of deriving reasonable and generally accurate dates for artifacts. I mean only that "scientific testing" of those dates ultimately relies on other diciplines (C14 and Chemical Analysis). I think my phrasing of my position was somewhat misleading.
Now perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Archeology does posess a scientificly testable dating methodology (if so, laughing at me will hardly render me any wiser). Perhaps you would like to inform me what this testable method is?
---------------------
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***).
---------------------
I most certainly do *not* consider it a "pile of s***."
Most of my reading is in the area of Anthropology - which explains my lesser knowledge of Archeology as focused upon the Historical era and my somewhat skewed conclusions regarding the central importance of stratification.
I also must admit to a large ignorance of the "history" of Archeology, but I do have *some* limited familiarity with its methods. And while I would readily acknowledge the amazing general accuracy of much Archeological conjecture, Archeologists themselves are always eager to find "testable" means of establishing/verifying dates for recovered artifacts - precicely because they know that their methods are not scientifically reliable.
----------------
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 am aware of this and I agree that it does indicate the high quality of the work done by Archeologists -- even in the absence of testable data.
-----------------
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?
-----------------
Remember....I am discussing the issue of Archeology vrs Geology - not you vrs Schoch.
If, as Clair says, "99 out of 100 geologists agree" (on an older Sphinx) then it is my contention that Archeology has no means with which to dispute their conclusions.
In essense, I am arguing that Geological evidence, which is self-referencing, trumps Archeological evidence, which is not (and must rely upon Chemestry, Physics and Geology for verification).
----------------
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.
------------------
My knowledge is very limited - but then, I'm just a guy posting on some Web site in a dark corner of the Internet.
There is a reason why a Geologist was chosen to face Schoch at the PSU conference and not an Archeologist. The reason is the same that I am presenting: this is an internal debate within Geology that has Archeological ramifications. It is not a subject upon which Archeology and Geology may take seperate corners. Whoever wins the Geology debate, must by nature, win the entire debate.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
