2nd May 2008, 04:43 PM
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!!!
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!!!