<HTML>[Clair's] is not a general question (does archaeology trump geology in general
------------
Part of the problem is that we are both trying to answer two seperate questions. I am talking about Archeology's general reliance upon other diciplines - including Geology. You are discussing the Schoch vrs his opponents matter in specific.
I think it will do well for me to reiterate my concession regarding geological stratification - in that I was confusing this with the excavation of "occupation layers." These two things are related but are quite distinct phenomena. I would also then have to conceed that Geological principles have indeed rarely factored into any Arheological dating mechanism with regard to excavations focused within the historical period.
The big question here however is whether or not Geologiy might indeed have some relivance (and whether a certain monument does indedd date from the "historical period").
---------------
> ....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)...
----------------
Then in this much we seem to agree.
----------------
...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.
-----------------
No. I am not saying that at all - and I apologize if I have been misleading.
I would wholeheartedly agree that the LACK of supporting evidence for Schoch's hypothesis from the field of Archeology is excellent reason for Archeologists to remain HIGHLY skeptical of his conclusions. HOWEVER....it is not sufficiant reason to *reject* those conclusions.
Only a better, more rational GEOLOGICAL explanaition for the Sphinx errosion phenomena can overturn Schoch's theory (and the jury is certainly still out on this matter - I do not mean to imply that any theory has yet gained wide acceptance).
That is what I meant when I said that Archeology was "unarmed" in this conflict (I was not "demeaning" the dicipline whatsoever - I find Archeology very interesting and exciting!).
Archeology cannot *disprove* Schoch's analysis by failing to locate supporting evidence for his conclusions - nor by making arguments from "context" and/or intrisic characteristics of the monumet itself. These findings (or lack thereof) may provide valid reasons for remaining skeptical of Shoch's conclusions, but they cannot overturn his work of themselves. For that, Geology itslef must be employed.
----------------
....I find its [Archeology's] 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.
....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.
----------------
I think I disagree with you here.
Schoch approached this question purely from a geological perspective. He looked at a rock and proposed a date for that rock. It just so happens that in this case, the date for that rock has enourmous Archeological *implications.* But one cannot say that the problem itself is inherently Archeological. From a Geological perspective, one rock is as *rocky* as an another.
Now we both know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this cannot be used as an argument to oveturn Schoch's Geological conclusions. I will certainly conceed that it provides reason to remain *highly skeptical,* but that's as far as it goes.
And Schoch *does* have evidence for his "central contention" - if we recognize what that contention is: He contends that a certain outcropping of rock in Egypt is, at minimum, 7000 to 9000 years old. His evidence for this stems from established principles of Geology (evidence which I am by no means qualified to evaluate).
Is his evidence definitive? I can't say. It's for the Geologists to decide.
And this is my point.
This debate will stand or fall on the basis of the Geological arguments alone. If Schoch can demonstrate that his is the most rational explaination for the errosion of this particular Rock, and that this explaination can be used to establish a reliable date for this rock (two big *ifs* I will conceed), we will have no choice but to accept its implications.
On the other hand, if an alternative analyis results in a more efficient Geological explaination for the errosion phenomena, or the rejection of the proposed age for the rock, then the currently accepted date for the Sphinx may remain unchallenged.
Either way, the ultimate resolution of the issue will be provided by Geology.
--------------------
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.
--------------------
I would agree that "keeping quiet" is indeed inappropriate (though I did imply the contrary earlier). It is important to outline the reasons for skepticism and caution in this matter.
However, I do not accept that any argument from context, characteristic or lack of corroboration has the power of itself to defeat a Gelogical analysis based upon sound Geological principles.
Is Schoch's analysis sound?
Again, ultimately, this is a Geological question.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
