<HTML>Garrett
To be fair I did ask Ishamael a stupid question, but I did try and demonstrate that I did recognise it as such ~lol~
********************************************************************
Author: Claire
Date: August-08-01 11:27
Ishmael
Technically we're on the same side here ~lol~
While you're on the subject could you help me out on something? One of the arguments I have come across is that no other momument has been dated using geology - that it is not a recognised method of dating anything. (well anything man made I guess). What do you think of that line?
>>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.
So how would you determine it? (this isn't rhetorical!) 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 :-)
[when my little brother was a toddler and he went through the question asking stage he was constantly asking similar questions ~lol~ like; what would win out of a bee and a wasp? what would win out of a lion and a tiger?, what would win out of a frog and a toad? As in - should they come to fight ~lol~ always things that were similar but not quite the same. It lasted about 2 years (well probably not, but that's the way I remember it) - funny to think that I'm still asking similar questions now ~lol~]
Thanks
Claire
*************************************************************************
However I had in mind Duncan's reply to me which was 'Can we put 'em all on Survivor and see who wins?:-)' but obviously only I knew this. So I did in fact ask that pointless question :-(
However what I was of course interested in is - in this Age of the Spinx debate, how can we determine the significant evidence? There is, to my mind, tacit assumption on one side that geology is somehow more definitive (as Ishmael also implies, C14 dating of the Turin Shroud versus contextual evidence) than archaeological evidence - in this case; a statue discovered in the Sphinx Temple, a 'likeness' to Khafre, a OK 4th Dynasty 'context', the interpretation of the stelae. It seems more definitive in this sense - is it precipitation weathering or isn't it? However the other side points to disagreement on the geological interpretation, the lack of any archaeological supporting evidence for its conclusions, the more complex situation regarding the erosion rates, the climate data etc. For a layman, it is not always obvious which side has the more significant arguments. So I've been asking, rather simplistically I admit, who is right here? Is geology a more definitive disipline? Does the archaeological context out weigh this or not? etc. I've been trying to determine for myself where I stand on the debate and why, in other words :-)
Claire</HTML>
