"no is really clear on what the 'laws' of stratigraphy are, or how they were
derived."  

Except for Edward Harris! <smile> 

Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff
carver
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 2:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Explanation in Archeology"

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.