And this is what makes writing a field manual (which specifies how to interpret a given trench profile) so much fun.
Morgan
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Thompson<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:29 AM
Subject: strat & post-dep feedback/responses
Geoff,
I admire your canvas of the old masters with respect to the question of post-depositional disturbance, but, with no malice intended, it sounds like an epistemological rabbit warren. It's worthwhile to review the discussions and analysis of those who failed to adequately solve these problems, but it's important to recognize where these lines of inquiry may simply be exhausted.
Only one of many problems is the reification of "stratum" or "layer". There seems to be a compulsion to attribute a set of orderly characteristics and 'rules of behaviour' to this 'thing' in order that the archaeologist might manage or control it. But it's really just a heuristic device which might or might not contain contemporaneous dirt and/or artifacts. This is where the MODERN geological perspective is most helpful in showing us examples of reverse or overturned stratigraphy, the difference and potential difference in origin between matrix and inclusions, the use of index fossils, etc.
It would be silly to assume that the differences in (time, size) scale between geological and archaeological contexts do not require differences in analytical technique and interpretation. And unfortunately for students, there really isn't any substitute for properly guided field experience. You just can't get it from a book. 'Strata' is not a closed set. Any particular field worker may be the one to encounter a 'stratum' of previously unknown etiology, and experience will keep him/her from erroneously assigning it to a previously defined, but incorrect category.
But that's what makes field work fun! If you could do it all from your arm chair, you could be a literary critic!
Tim T.
----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:25 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: HISTARCH Digest - 27 Aug 2007 to 28 Aug 2007 (#2007-28)
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:53:16 +0200
> From: geoff carver
> Subject: strat & post-dep feedback/responses
>
> Thanks for the many responses; I'm still chewing things over, here, but.
> I'm looking at a number of things. First there's the general view of the =
> histories of archaeology and geology, and the influences they had on one =
> another. I've sort of been looking at William "Strata" Smith's statement =
> that "organised Fossils. are so fixed in the earth as not to be mistaken =
> or misplaced" (Smith 1816: i). This static/closed view was necessary for =
> his agenda, trying to use fossils to correlate strata from different =
> locales, in what is basically an application of what is generally known =
> as Steno's "law of horizontal continuity."
>
> What's interesting, though, is the way Smith called fossils "the =
> antiquities of Nature" (this is a metaphor carried over by people like =
> the geologist Mantell, in his introductory text "Medallions of =
> Creation") and more specifically noted that "Organized Fossils are to =
> the naturalist as coins to the antiquary" (1817: ix), and compared =
> fossils "fixed" in their strata to "the cabinets of the curious."
>
> Oversimplified, Smith wanted a way to display his collection of fossils. =
> He was jealous of the way his antiquary friends could display their =
> coins and medallions in shelves, and so he equated these shelves with =
> strata and arranged his fossils that way.
>
> What I'm more interested in is the circular reasoning this reveals: =
> archaeologists claim to copy geologists when doing stratigraphy, tracing =
> the history back to William "Strata" Smith, but Smith himself claims to =
> have been inspired by antiquaries (who modern, scientific archaeologists =
> tend to hold in contempt).
>
> Then how this feeds back into modern archaeology, where Steno's "laws of =
> stratigraphy" tend to get a bit confused and conflated, basically to =
> enforce this static view (at least in the introductory textbooks, and a =
> lot of the field guides I've looked at):
>
> "Lateral continuity dictates that no matter how extensive the upper and =
> lower boundaries or interfaces of a stratum may be, the material =
> enclosed by these boundaries is broadly the same age. The key word here =
> is broadly, because it is entirely possible that no two items found =
> within a given stratum are exactly the same age or synchronous" =
> (Dirkmaat and Adovasio 1997: 45 [italics in the original]); "Principle =
> of incorporation: all material or debris contained within a layer or =
> deposit must be the same age or older than the formation of the deposit. =
> While it is possible that material from an older deposit can be =
> incorporated in a younger deposit the opposite cannot be true" (Darvill =
> 2003: 410); "materials in any layer are likely to be broadly =
> contemporary and can be dated by association with dateable evidence from =
> that layer" , etc.
>
|