comparative studies

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by Tim

It takes 4-5 times longer on site, destroys all stratigraphic relationships, mixes finds, is almost impossible to phase, record contamination and residuality understand or recognise truncation. It takes even longer to analyse and write up even if possible.

Otherwise, fine?

(quoting Basil Fawlty)

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[mercenary]

Nice critique Tim. Coming originally from the North American school of archaeology, where the planum method is all conquering I had assumed that it was occasionally useful. Palaeolithic sites perhaps? Now I'm not sure.

Should UK archaeologists go out amongst the Philistines to preach the religion of stratigraphy? Dutiful acolytes of our High Priest Harris.

[troll]

Managers should learn the concept of stratigraphy from their fieldworkers here before daring to indulge in such a tour de force??

[1man1desk]

I did hear of the planum method in the 1980s, when working with some Swedes in Shetland. They described it and said it was standard in Sweden and Holland, and found our stratigraphic approach very surprising.

I have never heard of it since, and didn't know it still existed.

For clarification - has anyone ever seen it practiced in the UK?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:For clarification - has anyone ever seen it practiced in the UK?

I heard, secondhand, of an attempt in London a few years back on a flint scatter. It seems to have been applied badly and the methodology was changed midway through, thus making it statistically worthless. Where it entirely fell apart was when cut features were encountered beneath the flint scatter, and for resons only known to the PO were ignored.

[Illuminated]

I have dug using the planum method occasionally.

It has its place on non deeply stratified sites where context boundaries are merging and indistinct. Even in such cases (for example on sand and gravel) it is suitable only on small features or cuts of which a specific dating question is being asked - it is a slow method of excavation.
I don't believe even the most competent excavator can distinguish every context change in every light and weather condition without slowing to less than a snail's pace. A well positioned and cleaned section is the only sure way to get true stratigraphic relationships, and it is better to compare five sepaerate spits of evidence against a section than a jumble which all came out of yellowy brown sandy loam which apppeared homogenous during excavation.

[troll]

Archaeology ignored by a PO in the UK? Surely not?

[achingknees]

If the strat is there and contexts/units can be identified, dig it as such. That said, there are some sites where a planum method can be applied TO SOME EXTENT...some flint scatters, cemeteries where grave cuts are difficult to see, deep features where the fill appears homogeneous.

[1man1desk]

Achingknees,

Some of what you say sounds just like a well-organised approach to traditional stratigraphic excavation.

My understanding of the planum method (I may have it wrong, because I have never knowingly seen it practiced) is that it is specifically applied over whole areas, ignoring vertical stratigraphy. By definition, then, if you excavate the homogenous fill of a large pit in a series of spits, you are not applying the planum method, because you are working within the cut of the pit.

If, on the other hand, your spits extend beyond the edges of the pit and you are recording by planning the newly exposed limits of the pit after each spit, then you are applying the planum method.

Have I misunderstood, or is that about right?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Tim]

...And I forgot it's also impossible to sample and more impotantly estimate your sample volumes.

Little Tim