Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:29:09 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Worked in Britain at York, Peterborough, and Wroxeter (before most
people on the list were in college, before some were even born). Have
been using stratigraphy for years. Got my undergrad degree from the
Univ of Pennsylvania ('74), where John Witthoft and Bernard Wailes
were strong believers in stratigraphy and it was part of the required
field methods course.
To be perfectly honest this series of posts is the first I have ever
heard of MB Schiffer. But then theory often leaves me cold, as does
jargon. I am a firm believer in eschewing obfuscation. Deposition is
deposition, giving it fancy names or letters doesn't change anything.
You can either see it, feel it, or hear it as you dig. If not you do
not have what it takes to excavate.
But I have know and worked with Lyle Browning since about 1973, He is
one of the best stratigraphers around. I also don't understand where
Tim Scarlet gets the idea that stratigraphy in Virginia is simple and
"color coded". Cactus Hill is all wind blown sand. And having been to
the site, and worked there it is "challenging". I have also worked on
numerous pre-historic and historic sites that have complex stratigraphy.
What Schiffer proposed had been part of English archaeology for
years. That many archaeologists in the USA were not paying attention
to the UK says a lot about the quality of their work.
I also think the point that Lyle was trying to make was that if an
excavator cannot explain why s/he is getting 20C artifacts in a 11C
context, they had better sit back and think about what they are
digging. Or as has oft been said if it doesn't make sense dig a hole.
If it still doesn't make sense dig another hole. If it still doesn't
make sense, give up archaeology.
James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|