In a message dated 8/25/2007 7:11:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
After all, that's archaeology at its most basic:
recognizing one discrete context and its stratigraphic relationship
to any and all contexts that touch it. Recognizing and recording
those relationships is the foundation of interpretation.
Most of the archaeology sites in southern California defy stratigraphic
"logic," according to soil geologists because the sites did not build by aeolian
deposition. Although some water-transport deposition did occur (erosional,
sheet flow, minor hydraulic transport) and some wind-blown, many sites were
simply dug-in to a depth which people felt comfortable. Repeated digging-in of
house floors, cooking and heating features, and burial of offal resulted in
concentrations of artifacts, fire altered artifacts, and manuports at those
formerly comfortable depths. Yet other natural forces cause surface artifacts to
migrate in the soils, such as seasonal soil cracking, churning of soils by
animals, tree and root intrusions that pushed or drew items to considerable
depth. Much of these deposits are not detectable by soil color, density
compaction, sound, root matting, etc. and many archaeologists excavate in arbitrary
levels because the cannot see these subtle changes. Soil color also drops in
this same manner. Believe me, California archaeology can be a challenge.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
|