18th March 2014, 11:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 18th March 2014, 11:39 AM by Marc Berger.)
As I have said before Mr Wooldridge I am not who you think I am. I have posted twice on this thread. What have I written which results in a claim that is pointless trying to explain technical archaeology to me.
Although Harris refers to "reverse stratigraphy" he appears to be trying to distance archaeological stratigraphy from geological stratigraphy and the geological examples of folded geology or examples of land slides which result in chunks of stratigraphy being turned upside down. In both geology and archaeology deposits can seemingly form below older deposits -infilling of underground caverns by solution-silting up drains but they don't in the main defy superposition (not sure about stalactites). All I was referring to was the fact that the smoke deposits on a ceiling form downwards and as does the sequence of rafter-plaster, paint, smoke AND that the deposited layers of plaster, layers of paint, layers of smoke also form downwards which is counter to superposition. Now you can throw these deposits into Harris matrix but I am unaware of a convention that expresses both these characteristic's in Harris matrix other than the use of interpretation which I imagine would result in a matrix where the flow (? how about "edge") lines must come out of the bottom of the rafter context and turn upwards to the plaster then the paint and then the smoke, possibly then equating to the embers before proceeding down below rafters to find the floor context. Even so anybody looking at this matrix could still be in the position of believing that the deposits plaster, paint and smoke were formed under the law of superposition which they are not.
Lets call it archaeological combinatonics. Hope that's not too technical.
Although Harris refers to "reverse stratigraphy" he appears to be trying to distance archaeological stratigraphy from geological stratigraphy and the geological examples of folded geology or examples of land slides which result in chunks of stratigraphy being turned upside down. In both geology and archaeology deposits can seemingly form below older deposits -infilling of underground caverns by solution-silting up drains but they don't in the main defy superposition (not sure about stalactites). All I was referring to was the fact that the smoke deposits on a ceiling form downwards and as does the sequence of rafter-plaster, paint, smoke AND that the deposited layers of plaster, layers of paint, layers of smoke also form downwards which is counter to superposition. Now you can throw these deposits into Harris matrix but I am unaware of a convention that expresses both these characteristic's in Harris matrix other than the use of interpretation which I imagine would result in a matrix where the flow (? how about "edge") lines must come out of the bottom of the rafter context and turn upwards to the plaster then the paint and then the smoke, possibly then equating to the embers before proceeding down below rafters to find the floor context. Even so anybody looking at this matrix could still be in the position of believing that the deposits plaster, paint and smoke were formed under the law of superposition which they are not.
Lets call it archaeological combinatonics. Hope that's not too technical.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist