Carl Steen wrote:
>By
>the way, after watching techs and supervisors trowel brick rubble for many
hours I rejected the use of the Harris Matrix.
 
I missed something here. What is the relationship between the mode of
excavation and the theoretical conclusion. Can't we use backhoes or
shovels and the Harris system?
 
By the way, for me, the most useful aspect of the Harris Matrix is to
translate spatial relationships into chronological ones.
 
Sigrid Arnott
Historical Archaeologist
Minnesota Historical Society
[log in to unmask]
 
 
>----------
>From:  Carl Steen[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Thursday, June 18, 1998 9:27 AM
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: Unstratified sites
>
>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.
>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
>