28th April 2010, 03:39 PM
There is definitely information to be gained from the topsoil/subsoil (and other substrates) often removed in search of the 'Natural',( from whence the excavation 'proper' can begin) - in the past i have bemoaned the loss of artefactual evidence from stripped soils, where only ephemeral/unusually deep prehistoric features survive after stripping...
There is nearly always some useful observation to be made by considering the nature of current top/sub soils in their landscape context, subtle through it may be - some sites or parts of sites have an enormous about to tell, once the 'soil landscape' can be read - i have seen sites/parts of sites nearly ruined by a dull mentality that 'archaeology begins in the (clean) natural'.
Fieldwalking and test pitting are not used enough in commercial situations (especially in regard of lithics) where the archaeology would massivley benifit - it is far to easy to simply strip away 'overburden' in a deeply unreflexive way - i can think of several occasions where i have observed (and prevented) less informed archaeologists from stripping away multiple horizons of non contemporary sub-soils/buried soils etc, where clear archaeological relevance can be later, and painfully, demonstrated...
I am strongly in favour of more rigours approach to top-soil/sub-soil investigation/removal - for example sometimes really very inexperienced people are put in charge of machine watching, and many managers/PO's etc are not well versed in pedology and geomorphology....equally so for curators...this impacts negatively on primary stages of some site investigation and machine stripping...effectively put severe restrictions on some classes of evidence
i am sure i am not completetly alone in this belief and perhapes an action group could compile some technical evidence and information?...
There is nearly always some useful observation to be made by considering the nature of current top/sub soils in their landscape context, subtle through it may be - some sites or parts of sites have an enormous about to tell, once the 'soil landscape' can be read - i have seen sites/parts of sites nearly ruined by a dull mentality that 'archaeology begins in the (clean) natural'.
Fieldwalking and test pitting are not used enough in commercial situations (especially in regard of lithics) where the archaeology would massivley benifit - it is far to easy to simply strip away 'overburden' in a deeply unreflexive way - i can think of several occasions where i have observed (and prevented) less informed archaeologists from stripping away multiple horizons of non contemporary sub-soils/buried soils etc, where clear archaeological relevance can be later, and painfully, demonstrated...
I am strongly in favour of more rigours approach to top-soil/sub-soil investigation/removal - for example sometimes really very inexperienced people are put in charge of machine watching, and many managers/PO's etc are not well versed in pedology and geomorphology....equally so for curators...this impacts negatively on primary stages of some site investigation and machine stripping...effectively put severe restrictions on some classes of evidence
i am sure i am not completetly alone in this belief and perhapes an action group could compile some technical evidence and information?...