Ok,ok,ok . . .  after reading Dan Mouer's and Ed Jelks last posts, I've
finally understood what the problem in this converstation is.  There
apparently was a very basic misunderstanding of my original post.  It had
nothing to do with unstratified sites.
 
>At 03:20 AM 6/16/98 -0400, Dan Mouer wrote:>
>>The only facts I was possessed of were those Linda wrote in her post. And
>my reply said, or should have been read to say: If you said "If one can
>find no stratigraphy in a site one has no business digging. " To which I
>said "wrong," but whether flat-out wrong or dead wrong I don't remember.
 
 
The original comment referred to in my post was by an archaeologist who said
he often couldn't see the stratigraphy until he saw it in the profile of the
unit.  He did NOT  say he could find no stratigraphy at all!  This prompted
the comment about "Well you shouldn't  be excavating then, should you?"  .
 
Several archaeologists in my region have told me that they use this method
of opening an excavation with arbitrary levels then defining stratigraphy by
looking at the profile  - - -  and judging from comments on this listserv,
other archaeologist in other regions do the same (at least with those first
test units).
 
 In my mind, the inability to recognize strata as you dig them severely
limits your ability to use the Harris Matrix and your ability to understand
the complexities of your site.    And my  real concern is the basic division
between archaeologists  who believe strata can be seen as it dug vs. those
who  believe strata can only be studied in profile.  ( sort of  "wheeler
boxes" vs. open area excavation types)  Plus I wonder how this affects our
ability to set guidelines and standards in CRM work and our ability to have
competitive bids when we are working from two very different assumptions.
 
 
Linda Derry ([log in to unmask])
Old Cahawba Archaeological Park
Alabama Historical Commission