Geoff,
I have to agree with Tim -- the presence of "intrusives" (meaning, apparently, artifacts whose ages don't match my preconceptions of the age of the context in which they're found) is not necessarily a sign of poor field work. I'm more interested in identifying the site formation processes that may have resulted in that situation than in blaming a field hand because something showed up that I didn't expect. By the way, that field hand's activities, and my own, are also processes of site formation, regardless of how careful and precise they may or may not be. Best to assume little and record much.
I left "C-transforms" and "N-transforms", as terms, behind when I left UoArizona, the bastion of behavioralism, and went to UoNew Mexico, which I thought would be the bastion of processualism (I was wrong, by the way), back in the 70s before Binford went to SMU. I did not, however, leave behind concerns for processes of site formation and transformation, and I think we all owe Schiffer gratitude for his efforts to spell out those issues, whether or not we choose to use his nomothetic terms. One thing I learned from Binford, which Schiffer denied (may still for all I know) -- witness the "Pompeii premise" controversy, is that Binford and those following were also very concerned about site formation processes; it was not an issue exclusive to the law-abiding Schifferians.
In more recent years, I have benefitted greatly from the quasi-mentorship of an archaeologist-turned-geomorphologist who exposed me to the characteristics and mechanics of sediments and soils, something not often taught in universities that I now think should be required for a degree in archaeology. Because of his kind leadership, the OAS is working on systemizing our field procedures for recording stratigraphy, including types of "disturbance."
Our "site diaries" are binders filled with reams of forms for excavation units, features, structures, logging field specimens and samples, and field journals. But, yes, it's all in there -- or it better be. I tell my field crew that it's nearly impossible for them to record too much (although that has resulted in some fascinating personal insights that had little to do with the site but much to say about extracurricular activities . . .). I find that necessary for directing excavations -- it's important to be able to gauge degrees of "disturbance" in the field so as to make in-field decisions about levels of effort in various parts of the site, horizontal and vertical.
Jeff
 
Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
Project Director
Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Suite B-100, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87501
tel: 505.827.6387          fax: 505.827.3904
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
"It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years time."  --Terry Pratchett
 

________________________________

From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of geoff carver
Sent: Fri 8/24/2007 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: recording evidence of post-depositional transformations



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"?

______________________________________________________________________
This inbound email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
______________________________________________________________________




Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.