Hi Geoff

The following may be of interest... I did an overview of site formation
processes including the Binford/Schiffer debate, Schiffer's model, and the
explicit investigation of site formation processes in the published
historical archaeological literature, then applied the model to an
historical site here in Brisbane, Australia. Although the original
excavations were done in the 1970s, I brought together the historical and
archaeological data in order to identify cultural and non-cultural formation
processes at the site.

The full document is able to be downloaded at:

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view.php?pid=UQ:9510

Murphy, Karen Jane (2003). Under the Boards: The Study of Archaeological
Site Formation Processes at the Commissariat Store Site, Brisbane. BA (Hons)
Thesis, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland.

In my current project at the 19th century sawmilling settlement in SE
Queensland, we record, map and photograph details of all sediment changes,
natural disturbances (tree roots, insects etc) in standardised sections of
our excavation recording forms, and have detailed stratigraphic profile
drawings. We also of course take into consideration broader natural
processes known to have occurred in the area - e.g. Flooding of the site
from the nearby lake. By ensuring collection of data related to these
aspects of the archaeological record and tight control over excavation units
the identification of site formation processes and the interpretation of
stratigraphy is able to be undertaken both on-site and at a more detailed
level off-site. Site formation processes aren't just about disturbance, it
forms an important part of how the archaeological record came to be how it
is when we dig it up, including the cultural factors and activities which
occurred, and should form the basis of archaeological interpretation.

Cheers
Karen

----
Karen Murphy
PhD Candidate
School of Social Science
(Anthropology, Archaeology, Criminology, Sociology)
Room C515, Level 5, Hartley Teakle Building
University of Queensland
Brisbane  QLD  Australia
 
Ph: +61 7 3346 9551
Email: [log in to unmask]
Visit the Mill Point Archaeological Project website
http://www.atsis.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=42037&pid=41684


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff
carver
Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2007 6:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: post-dep & recording

thanx for the responses (& would be glad to hear more)...
just a bit of explanation: i've been going thru everyone from steno, william
smith, wheeler, kenyon, harris, pitt-rivers, even darwin's book on worms,
etc., and looking at what they've written about the basics of stratigraphy;
a lot of the earlier stuff is unclear about how disturbance might be
recorded in part because archaeologists didn't excavate, that was all done
by various "workers," "labourers"; i think i even have P-R calling them
"rogues" and some kind of "ne'er-do-wells" cuz if they were any good they'd
have decent jobs and not willing to work for him...
and then there's petrie...
but mixed in with all of this there are several examples where (usually) a
coin might be found in the wrong place, which seems to reflect early
antiquaries' ties with numismatics...
then there is a lot of comparable material from introductory textbooks,
which basically all state some variant on steno, smith, uniformitarianism,
evolution, 3 age system for the genealogy of the discipline; that
stratigraphy is based on the idea that a layer is "sealed" (in the most
extreme examples) by the layer above...
so i'm wondering how different real-world practice is after the introductory
textbooks, and outside academia (where i assume their may be more time &
money for reflexivity, C&N transformations, post-processualism, etc.),
especially since the textbooks don't really seem to explain what to do if
you suspect there might be disturbance; or if layer boundaries are unclear,
or... any of those real-world things that are supposed to come with
"experience"...
but most of the documentation systems i've seen (forms, context sheets,
profile/plan drawings, tomographic photography, etc.), except maybe durham's
"reflexive" context sheet, hasn't had anything systematically asking for
evidence for possible disturbance; and if there was, i'm still not sure how
to record it: obvious rodent holes, etc., but even then hodder wrote
something about getting rid of such "gobbledygook" to "produce a drawing
acceptable to the discipline" & there's wheeler about being "decisive and
interpretive" & petrie saying nothing you weren't sure about should be
recorded...
& then nobody's usually going to include anything about disturbance in most
journal articles, so... it sort of disappears from the record & is hard to
evaluate how serious a problem it is & how what is done about it...
my concern is that even single context planning really only records a
surface, not what happens inside; so even if you suspect maybe something
fell down a frost crack, or was dragged down by worms, or roots, or
whatever, could you really document evidence for that (paths of worm holes,
or root casts, for example), or only document your suspicions...?
there was also an attempt by triggs a few years back to do "matrix
seriation" on a well-documented historical site to try to identify
intrusives, but i'm not sure he was so successful...