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.
That later stuff just might also be the key to understanding hitherto
unrecognized phases of site occupation. I remember all too well
finding Anglo-Saxon pottery in a supposedly Romano-British ditch that
was sealed by a third century Romano-British barn. We were doing a
10% sample of the ditches on the Romano-British farmstead and had a
few AS shards. We checked the profiles, they were fine. We excavated
a check section and had more. At that point, we went back to basics
and surface cleaned the entire ditch and discovered that the AS folks
had re-used the RB ditches, leaving a few short stretches for
entrances, which, Murphy being ever present, was where we'd cut some
of our sections. RB shards were there in droves while the AS shards
were in very low numbers. That later intrusive stuff was the real key
to understanding of the AS takeover of the site in the appropriate
5-6th Century context. Had we waited until post-excavation, we'd
never had been able to work it out properly.
Lyle Browning, RPA
On Aug 24, 2007, at 8:20 AM, geoff carver wrote:
> usual apologies for x-posting, but i'm trying to guage how much
> influence schiffer might have had on the discipline, and how
> stratigraphy is now perceived...
> do people generally/systematically record evidence of possible
> disturbance (roots, frost, rodent/worm holes, etc.; and if so,
> how?), or just make a note in the site diary, or just discard
> anything that's "obviously" intrusive (modern coins, etc.), or...
> what do they do?
> does anybody still "assume" that "artifacts contained within a
> given stratum are more or less contemporary"?
|