Histarchers,
 
        Hi everybody, my name is Michael LaRonge I'm a grad student at
Michigan Tech, working on my masters in Industrial Archaeology.  If things
work out I will be excavating a c.1840's blacksmithing shop at an early
mining site here in the U.P.  In addition to some excavation my field
methodology will also include a 100% surface collection of artifacts, at
the request of the Forest Service Archaeologist in charge of the site,
since the site rests near a national hiking trail and looting is fast
becoming a problem.  The site is located along the top of a bluff and it
seems they may have quite literally shut the doors and walked away leaving
the building to decay and most of the artifacts on or near the ground
surface.  My question is this, methodologicaly speaking is it possible to
have an above ground stratigraphy related to artifacts, and if so how much
can one rely on it?  For instance, there is probably little stratigraphic
information to be gained from a stock pile of iron since it was probably
stacked all at once.  Meanwhile, it is obvious that the same stockpile
yields perfectly good spatial data on a horizontal plane.  On the other
hand, how much reliance can one put on a piece of stoneware resting over a
medicine bottle on the surface?  Maybe some of you folks down in the
Southwestern U.S. who deal alot with surface finds can suggest somethings.
I am currently reading an anthology on spatial analysis edited by Ellen M.
Kroll and T. Douglass Price, but it was suggested to me that I may want to
ask around for more opinions on the subject.  Any help would be appreciated.
 
Sincerely,
 
Michael LaRonge