<HTML>Ishmael -
> Her [Clair's] 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>
If you read Clair's question she asks does *the* archaeological evidence trump *the" geological, as it pertains to the debate on the Sphinx? It is not a general question (does archaeology trump geology in general), since the general question is pointless: geology and archaeology are investigations of different aspects of our world .. neither "trumps" the other in general. This would be like asking does chemistry trump biology? I see no point to that question.
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.
But my point has always been: this weathering debate (to be sure a geological one, in and of itself) is being deployed by Schoch//West in the service of an archaeological hypothesis. THAT is the point. You seemed to be saying (and my apologies if I misunderstood you) that archaeology should butt out of tackling an archaeological hypothesis. I'm saying, no it should have its say. And I find its say far more cogent than the musings of one trained geologist who has no evidence for his central contention: a pre-Egyptian, pre-OK culture carved the Sphinx. That contention is not geologic contention: it is an historical, archaeological one.
> 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.
But I don't see a problem with this scenario, and you presented it as a problem. What is wrong with archaeologists drawing on methods from physics or chemistry or whatever to help fill out their picture? Don't we all benefit from such co-operative efforts? You seemed to be saying "archaeology depends 100% on other disciplines." I disagree, but frankly I wouldn't care if it did, as long as it still did a good job of uncovering our past.
> 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?
There are numerous methods available based on stratigraphic analysis, coins, inscriptions, pottery, literature, artistic development, and so on. Moreover, these are testable methods, since digs at other sites can be used to confirm, disconfirm or modify established chronologies. It isn't my place to explain it all here. Any "Introduction to Archaeology" will explain them fully. Any "Introduction to Archaeology" will explain them fully.
> 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.
These aren't "conjectures" any more than General Relativity is a "conjecture." They are hypotheses designed to explain the evidence at hand and they stand and fall based on how successful they stay at explaining that evidence, and any pertinent new material that comes along. What archaeologists' seek are new means of testing their own hypotheses (say, in regards to dating) by whatever methods they can. Are they fools for doing this? I think they're dead RIGHT for doing this. It doesn't lessen or cheapen their overall effort to understand the past, as you seem to assume it does.
> I am aware of this [verification of archaeological dates with "scientific" methods] and I agree that it does indicate the high
> quality of the work done by Archeologists -- even in the
> absence of testable data.
So why did you demean the whole endeavor in your initial post? Why sneer at it, the way you did in the opening post -- "no tools to wage war with" and all that? Archaeology is a complex, interdisciplinary subject. By your own words here, they're not doing a terrible job of it. Help them on, I say.
> 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.
Well, that 99% figure is a myth. Many geologists (I don't know if it's most -- many probably haven't heard of him) question Schoch's reasoning and methods, not least those who have worked specifically at Giza and in Egypt for FAR longer than he ever has (Gauri, Ossian, etc). I don't ignore such challenges as irrelevant.
But even if 100% of geologists agreed that the sphinx was weathered by water, how could they, as geologists, PROVE it must have happened in the millennia before OK Egypt and not in the 4,500 years since? There are several experts who have put forward water-weathering ideas that fall within the established chronology, or not far out of it. As geologists, they would be incapable of proving this earlier carving. For that, you'd need archaeological evidence.
And then there is the small matter of NOT A SAUSAGE of evidence for a monument-building, Sphinx-carving culture in pre-OK Giza. That is an archaeological point, and a vital one in this discussion.
> 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).
Science, as a whole, is an endeavor to understand our environment (past and present) more fully. Those disciplines that work together will surely be the most successful. I see archaeology's interdisciplinary nature as one of its very greatest strengths. You, somehow, think that weakens it. Your logic escapes me.
> 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.
Of course I was going to put a geologist against Schoch -- his geological claims could not go unaddressed. But I do know archaeology and I do know how ancient history is put together from the evidence we have. I don't agree, therefore, that I should keep quiet while the geologists dook it out, for the reason I explained above: this is, ultimately, an archaeological question and geology alone will never solve it. Something of this supposed earlier carving culture will have to emerge someday. If it ever does, it'll emerge from archaeology.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
