O.K., so "levels" is actually the work that is missing, but shouldn't it
have been "layers,"  as in stratigraphic layers vs. arbitrary levels?   Or
am I missing some subtle point here. 


Linda Derry
Site Director
Old Cahawba
719 Tremont St.
Selma, AL 36701
ph. 334/875-2529
fax. 334/877-4253
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Explanation in Archeology"

The missing word is  levels.
 
Roberta Greenwood
 
In a message dated 8/6/2012 6:20:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

I seem  to have done a typo, copying something from "Explanation in
Archeology" by  Watson, LeBlanc, et al. 1971. Does anybody have a copy? On
page 117 it is  supposed to say:
"It is important not merely to record the stratigraphic  [word missing???]
of a site, but to excavate the site with respect to these  levels. The basic
assumption is that the vertical and horizontal  distribution of all material
making up an archaeological site is as  important as the material itself,
because that distribution reflects  patterned human cultural activity just
as much as do the form, style, and  manufacturing technique of the
artifacts."
What did I do  wrong?