their discipline gets weak.
They are not cross trained, but rigidly compartmentalized."
A wiki definition of archaeology includes the following:
- "The discipline involves surveying, excavation and eventually analysis of data collected to learn more about the past.
In broad scope, archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research.
It draws upon anthropology, history, art history, classics, ethnology, geography,[6] geology,[7][8][9] linguistics, semiology, physics, information sciences, chemistry, statistics, paleoecology, paleontology, paleozoology, paleoethnobotany, and paleobotany."
Under the related discipline of paleontology, it says:
- "In addition paleontology often uses techniques derived from other sciences, including biology, osteology, ecology, chemistry, physics and mathematics.[2]
For example geochemical signatures from rocks may help to discover when life first arose on Earth,[9] and analyses of carbon isotope ratios may help to identify climate changes and even to explain major transitions such as the Permian–Triassic extinction event.[10]
A relatively recent discipline, molecular phylogenetics, often helps by using comparisons of different modern organisms' DNA and RNA to re-construct evolutionary 'family trees'... "
These suggests that at least the best of archaeologists are a very scientifically-minded and trained group, indeed.
PIF: "...a span of 200,000 years leaves room for many civilizations to come and go.
Where are they?
Well, suppose they built like the African civilizations in the 14th Century: out of wood..."
A civilization built only out of wood would not, by definition, be as advanced as one which used metal or even sophisticated stone & ivory objects, i.e., this one from circa 25,000 years ago:
PIF: "Suppose some one else built out of glass, copper, or even iron.
All those materials would be either shattered or corroded to dust over the span of several hundred thousand years..."
Glass, copper and iron do not totally disappear, especially as often happens when they are buried under layers of mud & dirt.
If/when such remains are found they will certainly change our perceptions of pre-history.
If/when.
PIF: "An archeologist could trip over a 100,000 year old civilization today and not see it, since it could not have existed and move on to more productive sites."
Any significant remains of ancient civilization would certainly be of interest to archaeologists, long before they figured out, more-or-less, how ancient they were.
Scientists would first look to see just what other known civilizations were similar, and then if radiometric or stratigraphic dating came back with totally unexpected results, there would be a long debate, and numerous retestings, until they could comprehend what they found.
So far, no such "civilizations" from say, 100,000 years ago have been found.
Frankly, I don't comprehend what it is that makes some people so very desperate to disbelieve the findings of ordinary scientists, that you will invent cockamamie scenarios out of thin air.