just in case you'd been wondering (as indeed i have been) just how it's done:

> By the way, I have just been to a conference in Cambridge (Interpreting
>  Strat., our 8-year old baby is cicking again) there was someone who works in
>  Chtalhuyuk "post-processual"-style. Now I understand what that means: They
>  apply contexts in the post-processual frame of mind they know already that
>  this is pretty arbirtary and "imperical"; then they take soil samples which
>  provide a micro-morphology. Then they realise from the sample results the
>  post-processual processes within the record. Then they change the context
>  numbers or insert new ones; (then they are quite confused and rearrange the
>  sequence, he admitted, which is complicated and takes a long time to sort
>  out). All I think would be clear if they worked on two levels: ex and
>  post-ex. If they stuck to their ex stratigraphy record they could make an
>  overlay according to sampling results. That would be really scientific, two
>  approaches compared. Instead of throwing the safty net away they could make
>  really nice piroettes in the air afterwards with the micro-results -
>  summersolts.


geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]