At 07:37 AM 6/18/98 -0500, Linda Derry wrote:
>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
>
        Linda,  Thanks for the clarification.  If there are visible strata in a
site, a competent archaeologist should be able to identify them in the
field and dig them as units.  It is nonsense to say that you can see them
in profiles but nowhere else.  If they are there it is the archaeologists
job to find them, and those who cannot find them are not doing competent
fieldwork.
        An appropriate digging strategy should take care of the problem.  For
example, if you have difficulty recognizing strata elsewhere than in
profiles, start by digging a hole and seeing if there are visible strata in
the hole's profiles.  If so, move over a way and dig a second hole.  If
similar strata appear there, anyone who isn't blind should be able to
follow the interfaces between the respective strata and dig them as
separate units in the area between the two tests.  If the two preliminary
tests do not reveal identical strata, then further exploration is required
to work out details of the site's stratification.  This procedure can be
repeated in different parts of the site as excavation proceeds.
        There are other strategies for ferreting out the strast and other
strutural components comprising a site which should be known to most
archaeologists.
        I doubt that anyone has every dug a site perfectly, identifying and
dissecting every single structural component as a unit without ever
slopping outside any component.  This is because the structure of most
sites is very complex, you don't know what the structure is when you start
out, and it is easy to intrude at least partially into a significant
structural component before it is recognized as such or before its spatial
dimensions have been fully established.  After going from the field to the
lab and studying the field data from the hundreds of sites that I have dug,
I cannot think of one that I would not have dug at least a little
differently if I had it to do over.  We should all strive for perfection,
but perfection in this game is virtually impossible.
         Ed Jelks