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]