Actually, as for your real mess: the "laws" of stratigraphy have been pretty danged clear since the late 1960's when Alan Carter and Don Mackreth at Winchester working for Martin Biddle devised the Winchester recording system which is currently known as the single context recording system. Sir Edward Harris worked at Winchester and formulated the Harris Matrix based on the single context system. A layer is either above, below or equal to another in the stratigraphic sequence. Levels have been used within layers where natural changes couldn't be seen or where the layers were too thick in which case the norm was to use levels of uniform thickness.

Now there were some idiots who strung a datum line and recorded everything in relation to that, regardless of what the actual strata deposited by human occupation were doing, but hopefully that's not been occurring in the last 2 decades. Harris' system was the first to be computer friendly whereas the old system of layers and features was decidedly not. His use of the "cut" made the system work, even if conceptually recording something that isn't actually there in terms of physical reality is the first mental nettle to grasp. But after that, it is extraordinarily useful. Keeping track of literally 10k layers was what urban excavators did by hand until this stuff got computerizable.

Soils folks use horizon in their work and as we borrow it came from there and from anthro theory/fieldwork as well.

In my view from stratigraphic analysis, strata and layers are the same thing by another name. A level is an arbitrary unit. The important thing is the relationship of one strata/layer to another. Keep those recorded properly and all is well.

Lyle Browning, RPA


On Aug 6, 2012, at 3:37 PM, geoff carver wrote:

> Well... as several have noted (David Clarke being my favourite), the
> terminology is not consistent. Some write of "levels," some of "layers,"
> some of "strata," etc., none of which is really used consistently, often not
> even within a given text. I've seen references to strata composed of many
> layers, layers that include features, etc.
> It's a real mess. But then... no one is really clear on what the "laws" of
> stratigraphy are, or how they were derived, or their first application in
> archaeology, and whether a "horizon" refers to a culture or a pedological
> "layer" that is not necessarily related go a lithostratigraphic stratum
> and/or layer and/or level, or...
> Something.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> 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.