2nd May 2008, 12:10 PM
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...
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...