at 7:57 pm, 6/18/98 Ed Jelks wrote:
 
>        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.
 
I understand what you're saying Dr. Jelks, but  I have to say this brings to
mind an example  Philip Barker had in his text on Techniques of
Archaeological Excavation.   (Which I can't quote directly since someone
walked off with my treasured copy and I can't find the section in the latest
revised edition).  In explaining the advantages of "Open Area Excavation"
vs. wheeler boxes, I seem to remember Barker comparing it to throwing a
large number of rugs of different sizes on the floor.  This in many ways
this simulates the stratigraphy  on complex sites.  Then he suggested that
you cut out a small square here and a small square there - much like the
approach you describe above.  His point being,that you would miss many of
the smaller rugs and be off the edges of even the some of the larger rugs,
and consequently would not understand the true chronological laying down of
the rugs - - - or in our case, the chronological development of the site.
I always thought this was a wonderful analogy and often use it to illustrate
the concept to students.
 
Just something to think about.
 
 
Linda Derry ([log in to unmask])
Old Cahawba Archaeological Park
Alabama Historical Commission