In a message dated 98-06-18 09:37:20 EDT, you write:
<<
Funny you should mention this! I wrote a paper on this phenomenon, which I
calle
d
"pseudostratigraphy" many years ago. I sent it to the state society's journal
bu
t
they thought it was kind of "crackpot." Clearly there are plenty of
situations
in
which you can argue that deposits have built up over time. Other times it's
not
that
clear. Nonetheless, you have--not stratitgraphy, of course--but "vertical
separa
tion"
of older and younger stuff. I suggested that if items were deposited on a
stable
surface subject only to bioturbation, some of these objects would move
downward,
pushed by roots or falling into mouseholes, etc. So what determines how
likely i
t is
something will move downward, or how far downward? Well, clearly, size and
shape
count. Small, long narrow flakes, for instance, would more readily be moved
than
would large flat ones. But the other variable of significance would be time.
The
longer something sat around, the greater the probability it would get moved
down
ward.
Likewise, the amount it would move downward would be dependent, in part, on
time
.
Whatever other factors enter into the statistics, it is probably true that
older
objects are more likely to have moved further down in a stable deposit due to
bioturbation (or cryo- ot other types of turbation).
None of this is likely to be of interest to historical archaeology, but I am
heartened to see I'm not the only one with such "crackpot" ideas :-)
Dan
>>
Hey Dan--some of us have been crying out in the wilderness just like you! Down
here in SC the phenomenon you describe is clear. Jim Michie wrote several
papers on bioturbation and gravity in the early 80's. When I was at Col.
Williamsburg I used the concept to explain the prehistoric remians I found. By
the way, after watching techs and supervisors trowel brick rubble for many
hours I rejected the use of the Harris Matrix. A good idea, but subject to
quite suspicious implemnetation at times! Encourages the "know it all"
attitude that plagues arcaheology I'd say! Carl Steen
|