Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Alhtough they might not be recognised in the sense of being given a unique feature/ context/ recording number, they will probably be described as part of the feature description.
Therefore, they will be recognised (depending of the skill of the excavator or person that records the feature), but sequencing the stratigraphy in post-ex is immensely more difficult, since it is all description based, rather then streamlined like in the single-context recording system.
In the case of the post-hole cut into a backfilled ditch both would probably still be given a different feature number, since they're likely to be recognised after cleaning the excavation area. If a recut would occur within the confines of a feature that appears as a singular instance in plan this problem occurs.
I have seen some very freaky recording systems when I worked in Germany that didn't seem to make much sense in terms of stratigraphic excavation...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by i_love_rocks
Alhtough they might not be recognised in the sense of being given a unique feature/ context/ recording number, they will probably be described as part of the feature description.
Therefore, they will be recognised (depending of the skill of the excavator or person that records the feature), but sequencing the stratigraphy in post-ex is immensely more difficult, since it is all description based, rather then streamlined like in the single-context recording system.
In the case of the post-hole cut into a backfilled ditch both would probably still be given a different feature number, since they're likely to be recognised as separate features after cleaning the excavation area. If a recut would occur within the confines of a feature that appears as a singular instance in plan this problem occurs.
I have seen some very freaky recording systems when I worked in Germany that didn't seem to make much sense in terms of stratigraphic excavation...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by i_love_rocks
If a re-cut occurs, the same sequence of processes will obviously re-occur, so that a second 'primary fill' can occur above a secondary fill in a feature.
I still don't think that this example explains the phenomenon that Mr Hosty is asking about. In your example to recognise that there is a second primary fill within the feature you have by inference recongnised that there is a re-cut (even if by a quirk of the recording system the re-cut is not actually recorded). The sequence in each cut is still primary-secondary-tertiary. The site formation process is the same even if the recording system does not apply a unique identifier to each individual stratigraphic unit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Quite right..
and even with the posthole example with the primary fill (post) removed, the replacement fill once the post is removed is not a primary fill but a site formation process after the event of the original feature
therefore
sequence is:
fill of postpipe (this is not per ce a primary fill -
-----Other stuff-------taking place over time-----------
postpacking
post
posthole cut
And yes - I hate, loathe and detest as against the natural laws of physics, any system that does not recognise that a cut is an event in its own right, and the fills of the cut could (and often do) represent a complex chronological/use/formation process that can be interrupted, cleaned out (like a roman ditch being cleaned ) and the cut must have a place within the sequence as a separate entity..
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Well...I guess that a primary fill is not necessarily a primary fill (in the site formation sense of the word), if before the sides of the pit/ feature collapse forming the (site formation type) primary fill, another kind of deposition occurred, such as intentional dumping material etc. Then the first fill would not be a site-formation type primary fill?
The collapse of the sides of a pit doesn't take place immediately (in most natural deposits) I would assume, so that there would have been time to put the pit to 'good use'...
A similar situation could occur for fills further up in the sequence.
If you had a site-formation type primary fill which is also the first fill in the feature, then a intentional dumping of material, which is followed by a site-formation type secondary fill (resulting from the erosion of toposil into the feature) the fill sequence would be cut-primary-secondary-tertiary, but the site formation sequence would be cu-primary-dump-secondary...
I remember that at T5 this issue came up time and time again when trying to reconcile archaeological versus geoarchaeological stratigraphic sequencing.
I don't know...makes my head hurt...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Quote:quote:
and even with the posthole example with the primary fill (post) removed, the replacement fill once the post is removed is not a primary fill but a site formation process after the event of the original feature
exactly... the interesting thing is that the fill of the void from which the post was removed from is physically located in the position of the primary fill but stratigraphically it is the last process in the sequence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
damned good for the grey matter this!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
I seem to remember Evans and O'Connor's environmental archaeology being quite informative on this.
I think technically you could have a backfill/dumped deposit before what might be defined as the 'primary' fill. I think its all to do with the 'proper' scientific definition of primary fill (as for example defined in Evans and O'Connor as initial erosion of the cut (or something like that)), being slightly at odds with the common on-site usage (i.e. a backfill might (incorrectly) be labelled a primary fill if it happens first).
Furthermore, if we follow the 'scientific definition' the post-hole example becomes unhelpful, as the decayed post is not a primary, secondary or a tertiary fill! Also we can have lots of secondary fills before a tertiry one. AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
How often do internet fora come to a conclusion? Allow me to attempt one:
The problem is that two different approaches are using the same language.
Formal geoarchaeological jargon says that the terms "primary", "secondary" etc are linked to site formation processes.
Common-or-garden fieldcraft says that "primary" fill is the first fill of a cut, followed by secondary etc.
So whenever using these terms during an excavation it's a good idea to say which convention you're using.
Well, I've learned something at least. Thanks, Gumbo.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Anyway, metaphysics besides, aren't we first and foremost recording what we observe!?! Then we can hypothesise on the formation of the feature using unaccountable but perfectly feasible vectors.
Whole heartedly agree with Windy and Gumby, there's needs to be an understood and widely used terminology...anyone know what a tree bole really is?
