Archaeological Stratigraphy Analysis

2479 Words5 Pages

Willey claims that at the beginning of the twentieth century there was a " Stratigraphic revolution. However, Lyman argues against this, claiming that the shift was in archaeologists view of time and space instead of excavation methods as a whole. Later in the twentieth century another sort of ' revolution ' occurs with the di spute or need for more universal excavation method s.
First, it is important to set a base understanding of archaeological stratigraphy in general.
Every archaeological site, to some degree, is stratified, so the principles and laws that have created the science of stratigraphy are very important and relevant to the practice of archaeology.
Edward C. Harris , in his article , The Laws of Archaeological Stratigraphy, initially …show more content…

It's methods and principles rely largely on the four rules of archaeological stratigraphy listed earlier. In a Harris Matrix, the latest contexts are listed first and it goes in succession as the strata go deeper and subsequently get older. The method is used while the excavation is taking place. Drawings and written descriptions and records are checked and kept daily. In urban settings, sites often contain a large number of strata making the detailed recording of each layer very important. Each strata is labeled as a number and placed in a matrix in relation to where it was found stratigraphically.
The Harris method is efficient and leaves far less room for loop holes in data collection. It was a response to the neglect for innovation and improvement of previous methods of archaeological stratigraphy which were insufficient in their recording of stratigraphical context.
Peter R. Clark supports Harris' disapproval of previous archaeological methods regarding stratigraphy. He states in his article, Sites Without Principles; Post-excavation Analysis of 'Pre-matrix' Sites,
" However, like many archaeological institutions int eh United Kingdom , the Trust …show more content…

He noticed that some records only contain approximately forty percent of the stratigraphic record. This leaves a considerable amount simply gone from any site context, leaving huge holes, and archaeologists have no way to retrieve that data.
Thirdly, Clark also seems to agree with Harri s on the basis of a need for uniform methodology. The use of recording data on multiple forms of media and using several different methods causes, again, holes in the record . Things can get lost or mis-translated easily. It is difficult for the data to shift hands and to be interpreted by later archaeologists . The adoption of one universal method would be beneficial to the practice. This way at least the data recorded would be clear and intelligible and whatever was recorded could be used and referenced at a later time easily. Clark introduces the "Bus Principle". Stating that, "this is the principle that if the site director is run over by a bus, the site records should be easily comprehensible to another archaeologist with no first-hand experience of the excavation" (Clark, 1993, 277). This princi

Open Document