Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:49:57 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 8/24/2007 11:58:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Full stratigraphic recording, preferably using a variant of the
single context system is the only scientific way to record strata. If
there are later elements in an earlier strata, then the excavator
hasn't done a competent job of excavation as these should have been
discerned in the field and recorded there as intrusive. Site diaries,
how quaint. Check for more modern and robust systems that allow for
direct recording of intrusives and other oddities directly. As for
the how, profiles at 1:10 are more than adequate to show rodent holes
as well as tree actions. Discarding later artifacts is highly
unethical because it merely is the evidence of said incompetence.
My, my, aren't we judgemental today? You bandy about terms like "single
context system" and "competent job" and disparage "site diaries" and boost
"robust systems" and declare "unethical" and "incompetance" as if there is only one
way to record archaeological deposits. As to discarding artifacts, why just
last week we all read Carol Serr report that the San Diego Archaeological
Center discards all ferrous metal artifacts when they take-in collections for
long-term curation. There are many diffierent ways of recording, documenting,
curating, and, yes, interpreting archaeology site formation, transformation
and the like. Michael Schiffer came up with a good pioneering methodology, but
there are others to consider as well.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
|
|
|