I've always found C and N transforms to be part of stratigraphic
recording at every site I've worked. I wouldn't jump to say that the
presence of intrusive artifacts in contexts is a sign of poor work,
Lyle. Not everyone digs through those nicely color coded laminated
layers you have in Delaware and Virginia. Working in glacial till
tumbled from frost heave (Schiffer's cryoturbation!) or in desert
sands mixed by winds (Schiffer's deflation and others) even very good
archaeologists can miss some transformations that produce "intrusive"
artifacts.
Cheers,
Tim
Timothy Scarlett
Assistant Professor of Archaeology
Department of Social Sciences
Michigan Technological University
[log in to unmask]
(906)487-2359 (office)
(906)487-2468 (fax)
------------------------
On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Lyle E. Browning wrote:
> Full stratigraphic recording, preferably using a variant of the
> single context system is the only scientific way to record strata.
> If there are later elements in an earlier strata, then the
> excavator hasn't done a competent job of excavation as these should
> have been discerned in the field and recorded there as intrusive.
> Site diaries, how quaint. Check for more modern and robust systems
> that allow for direct recording of intrusives and other oddities
> directly. As for the how, profiles at 1:10 are more than adequate
> to show rodent holes as well as tree actions. Discarding later
> artifacts is highly unethical because it merely is the evidence of
> said incompetence.
>
> That later stuff just might also be the key to understanding
> hitherto unrecognized phases of site occupation. I remember all too
> well finding Anglo-Saxon pottery in a supposedly Romano-British
> ditch that was sealed by a third century Romano-British barn. We
> were doing a 10% sample of the ditches on the Romano-British
> farmstead and had a few AS shards. We checked the profiles, they
> were fine. We excavated a check section and had more. At that
> point, we went back to basics and surface cleaned the entire ditch
> and discovered that the AS folks had re-used the RB ditches,
> leaving a few short stretches for entrances, which, Murphy being
> ever present, was where we'd cut some of our sections. RB shards
> were there in droves while the AS shards were in very low numbers.
> That later intrusive stuff was the real key to understanding of the
> AS takeover of the site in the appropriate 5-6th Century context.
> Had we waited until post-excavation, we'd never had been able to
> work it out properly.
>
> Lyle Browning, RPA
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 8:20 AM, geoff carver wrote:
>
>> 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"?
|