Simpleton's archaeology/geology questions

[Phi]

To find ancient artifacts and cities we generally have to dig for them. The older, the deeper (depending on the climate and area, of course.)
So does this mean that ever-deeper layers of earth are forming globally?
That earth is growing?
If so, are oceans receding as land rises, or is earth growing beneath the oceans as well and at similar rate,from decay of sea life?
Is polar ice keeping pace?
Is the study of strata-layers for archaeological digs hard or soft science/ meaning is there a great deal of subjective opinion involved?
Given two archaeological finds the same age:
Would a find made in a lush jungle be deeper due to much more leaf matter than a find on the relatively barren steppes, perhaps?
Does anyone know the rate of growth per thousand (A tiny amount geologically speaking)years? Has it been broken down to even smaller time frames?
Can information be extrapolated regarding how large earth was when the several oldest remains were found? When dino's were here? How much smaller was it?

A drifting mind can get into a dangerous logjam.

[juantoo3]

Hello again! I can't say if it is ironic or synchronistic, but the link I posted for Vajradhara to a site by Glenn Morton addresses many of the issues you asked about. Since Morton is a geologist by trade, I would hope you might consider his efforts. The link goes directly to an unrelated essay, but there should be links back to his home page and other essays.

Hope this helps, I look forward to reading those essays myself.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Phi

To find ancient artifacts and cities we generally have to dig for them. The older, the deeper (depending on the climate and area, of course.)
So does this mean that ever-deeper layers of earth are forming globally?
That earth is growing?
If so, are oceans receding as land rises, or is earth growing beneath the oceans as well and at similar rate,from decay of sea life?
Is polar ice keeping pace?
Is the study of strata-layers for archaeological digs hard or soft science/ meaning is there a great deal of subjective opinion involved?
Given two archaeological finds the same age:
Would a find made in a lush jungle be deeper due to much more leaf matter than a find on the relatively barren steppes, perhaps?
Does anyone know the rate of growth per thousand (A tiny amount geologically speaking)years? Has it been broken down to even smaller time frames?
Can information be extrapolated regarding how large earth was when the several oldest remains were found? When dino's were here? How much smaller was it?

A drifting mind can get into a dangerous logjam.

I hope, Phi, you won't be dismayed or even hate me for this post.

Just for fun, and to lighten up the density of your musings:


Once I heard from someone who was advocating limitation of human population growth, namely, because according to him, if we keep on adding human beings to the earth, one day it will be too heavy and fall off its orbit and into infinite space.

Do you see any geological and astronomical implications in his preoccupation?


Susma Rio Sep

[Phi]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I hope, Phi, you won't be dismayed or even hate me for this post.

Just for fun, and to lighten up the density of your musings:


Once I heard from someone who was advocating limitation of human population growth, namely, because according to him, if we keep on adding human beings to the earth, one day it will be too heavy and fall off its orbit and into infinite space.

Do you see any geological and astronomical implications in his preoccupation?


Susma Rio Sep

Maybe that poor man would be relieved to see my musings!
After all if earth is getting larger as the population does, it solves his problem!

I think humans are part of nature not the rulers thereof. I also think that nature is alive in a greater sense than each thing, similar to the Gaia thinking, but not quite so in need of our arrogant assistance.
We are like ants, and if we get too bothersome, nature will brush us off like ants off the arm of a picnicker.
(This, BTW, is simply an illustration: I do not see nature as goddess, but as that part of creation that we are but a small subset of, nature can do without us should it be necessary.)

[I, Brian]

Geology isn't my strong point, but I'll have a go.

Originally Posted by Phi

So does this mean that ever-deeper layers of earth are forming globally?
That earth is growing?

No, I'm afraid not - there are different rates of erosion and deposition around the world, unique to different local conditions.

Do you remember those classic drawings of how dinosaur bones are preserved in sedimentary rock - how the dinosaur dies, is covered by successive layers during the fossilisation process - and then the layers are slowly worn away until the fossilised dinosaur bones are exposed millions of years later? Same story.

Originally Posted by Phi

If so, are oceans receding as land rises, or is earth growing beneath the oceans as well and at similar rate,from decay of sea life?

Coastal areas may change with rising land levels - but there's usually a trade off somewhere. The pressure of the Artic ice shelf tends to push Northern Britain down, which in turn lifts up the south of England from sea level (thus exposing vast cliffs of skeletal crustacean remains - the famous white cliffs of Dover.

The process isn't huge - but apparently is measurable. I think we're talking meters of difference of the hundreds of miles of land between the end points

Originally Posted by Phi

Is the study of strata-layers for archaeological digs hard or soft science/ meaning is there a great deal of subjective opinion involved?

It's a form of extensive guess-work, I think is the best answer.

One of the main ways of dating archaeological strata is by comparison of the pottery types that are unearthed. Styles and compositions can actually be readily traced a lot of the time to very identifiable locales and time periods of production. The sites of origin are usually dated according to a range of other dating methods.

Thus if a certain river in Suffolk - which has a certain unique isotope signatuer in its mud - became a site of pottery making over a period of, say, 200 years - then the expectation would be that if another archaeological site started turning up remains from pots containing that unique isotope signature, then it would not be unreasonable to presume that these pots were discarded sometime during or close to the period of production.

Apparently, it's an extremely good way of determining the relative age of different soil stratas in archaeological digs.

Originally Posted by Phi

Given two archaeological finds the same age:
Would a find made in a lush jungle be deeper due to much more leaf matter than a find on the relatively barren steppes, perhaps?
Does anyone know the rate of growth per thousand (A tiny amount geologically speaking)years? Has it been broken down to even smaller time frames?

Again, it's an issue of erosion and deposition. I'm not sure what the general trends are and if these apply to this specific example.

Originally Posted by Phi

Can information be extrapolated regarding how large earth was when the several oldest remains were found? When dino's were here? How much smaller was it?

We're essentially talking about an essentially closed system - so it is expected that there is pretty much the same now as there was then.

Hope that helps - but I freely stand to be corrected by anyonhe else.

[Phi]

Thank you Brian,
These are exactly the sort of answer(s) I needed. And I appreciate your response.
It has been quite a while since I studied geology, and I wanted to refresh old stuff and, in part, to get some up-to-date knowledge without having to spend hours looking for it. As I said it was a "simpleton's" questions coming from a drifting mind. Thanks for bring me ashore!