Society for American Archaeology

A Mechanical Device for Drawing Excavation Sections

Author(s): Seth Reichlin
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 373-375
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279597 .
Accessed: 10/03/2011 11:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

COMMENT

tion within this logical and conceptual frame.It

is a remarkablecontributionto the study of the
problem of the relationships between archaeologicalmeaningand formalization.
THETOOLSOF THE DEMONSTRATION
It is significant of a certain methodological
state of archaeology that the critical lucidity
which enlivens Whallon'swork bears but little
on the problems raised by the description of
objects. It is not that the fundamentalrole of
the perceptualdata is not recognized(p. 28, for
example), but rather that the authoraccepts as
self-evident the fact that the regularity of
correspondence between objects and the
symbols assigned to representthem is assured.
The difficulties and precautionsthat have to be
taken in this field are well known (Gardin,
AMER.ANT. 32:13-20, 1968).
Whallon himself underlines the many
empirical modifications (rules of thumb) that
he inflicts on the rules of formalvalidity of his
algorithm to reproduce the traditional
typology. There is, therefore,no reasonto hold
this against him. One can, however, observe
that the delusion of the "new archaeology"that the rigor of the mathematicalapparatus
implies the rigor of the archaeologicalresultshould not make one forget that without its
rigor, the mathematicaltool has only a limited
interest. In the case of Whallon's work, for
example, if the procedure followed by the
author remains explicit, his personalchoice of
approximations(value limits, x2, and so on)
reintroducesthe subjective components which
methodologicalresearchin archaeologytries to
eliminate.
ON THE GENERALITYOF THEMETHOD
AND ITS STRUCTURE
Whallon rightly notes certain parallels between the treelike structure of his results and
the structure that can be displayed in other
anthroplogicalfields on data of different types
(pp. 31-32). It is obvious that the pursuit of
these possible homologies is an important step
toward a better knowledge of cultural phe-

373

nomena. Nevertheless, nothing in the facts

presented here supports a conclusion that the
generality of this structure makes it the
structure which gives the best account of
"space-time reflective types." Such an extrapolation would be unfounded, and Whallon
introducesit only as a conjecture.
Incidentally,I will mention that any attempt
at generalizationbased more or less explicitly
on assumptionsabout the mental structureof
individualsseems to me to appealto arguments
of a transcendentalnature and, therefore, to
escape the field of scientific investigation.What
is certain, and Whallon'spaperis perfectly clear
on this point, is the fact that from now on the
archaeologist, in the heuristic phase of his
work, must try the proceduresbased on the 2
principlesmentioned above (association analysis), as well as traditional "paradigmatic"
procedures.
The essential quality of Whallon's work
seems to me to rest in the fact that it
constitutes one of the most advancedattempts
in the field of archaeology to verify the
following dictum (which can also be held to be
an assertion without true justification): "Scientific inquiry in any field must begin not with
some method taken over a priori from some
other field, but with the character of the
problems of its own field and the analysis of
these problems (Northrop, The logic of the
sciencesand the humanities,1959).

A MECHANICAL DEVICE FOR

DRAWING EXCAVATION SECTIONS
SETH REICHLIN
ABSTRACT
A mechanicaldevice for makingscale drawingsof
excavationsections is described.In limitedtestingthe
machinehas shownitself to be capableof substantially
reducing the time requiredfor this operation,while
increasingthe accuracyof the results.
Departmentof Anthropology
HarvardUniversity
July, 1972

In his classic work on archaeologicaltechnique, Sir MortimerWheelerwrote:

374

ameCRcan antiquity

It must be confessed that a well-drawn, i.e.

intelligently recorded section is relatively a rarity.
But it is nevertheless a basic necessity for modern
field-work. The published sections are the readiest
guide to the value of the excavation report

[Vol. 39, No. 2, 1974

savings in the time required for the task. A

prototype of the machine has been developed
and given a partial field test at Teotihuacan,
Mexico, but it still contains several major bugs.
[Archaeologyfrom the earth, 1954:59].
This prototype is described here in the hope of
WhileSir Mortimerrightly stressed the concep- stimulating further development and testing of
tual problemsinvolved in section drawings,it is the device.
clear that these problemsare not helped by the
A sketch of the machine is shown in Fig. 1.
long and tedious process of the drawingitself. The basis of operation is the pantograph
The present paper describes a mechanical principle, whereby the ratio of the size of the
apparatusfor performingthis operation which original to the size of the drawing is equal to
is simple to use, accurate, flexible, economical, the ratio of the length of the pointing arm to
and which can result in a very substantial the length of the drawing arm. Reducing

4
4

Fig. 1. The machine in operation.

COMMENT

pantographsof this sort are commonly used in

engravingand drafting.For this applicationthe
pantograph arms have been adapted to hang
over the edge of the excavation.
To operate the device, the squarebase is set
on the edge of a pit, as shown in Fig. 1. From a
given setup the machine is capable of drawing
the area within 2 m of the pivot P. For pits
wider than 4 m the base can be moved and the
resulting profiles spliced together; and with a
special extension (not shown), the depth range
can also be increasedto 4 m. The base itself is
about 30 cm square, supported on 4 posts
which are adjustablefor leveling. For drawing,
the legs are adjustedso that the pivot is about
30 cm above the ground.
The pantograph arms are attached to a
sliding rack which can be extended some 40 cm
into the pit. Such a featureis useful for clearing
such obstacles as protrudingrocks and "steps"
left in the course of excavation. If the obstacle
or step should extend more than 50 cm from
the edge of the pit, the machine can be set up
with the base restingon that obstruction.
A drawing board about 25 x 40 cm is
attached to the end of the sliding extension.
The pantographarms pivot on a shaft which is
attached to the sliding extension and which
passes through a hole in the drawing board.
These arms can be removedwhen the machine
is not in use.
The pointer at the end of the pantograph
arms slides in and out a distance of about 15
cm to clear small obstacles, reduce parallax
distortion by keeping the pointer close to the
wall of the pit, and compensate for the
extension of the pivot itself. This pointer has a
gun grip with a trigger which controls the

375

movement of the pencil at the drawingpoint D

(see Fig. 1). The pencil is held by a springso
that its normal position is approximately0.5
cm away from the paper. Whenthe triggerat P
is pulled, a solenoid is energized at D, which
pulls the pencil against the paper. Currentis
provided by 3 size D batteries. A mechanical
pencil with a screwadvanceis used to eliminate
the need for pencil sharpening.
To draw a particular feature, such as a
hearth or a pot in situ, the pointer P is first
brought in contact with or close to an edge of
that feature. The triggeris pulled, bringingthe
pencil in contact with the paper, and the
pointer is moved around the borders of the
feature. At this time the pencil traces an exact
scale reductionof the feature.Whenthe pointer
reaches the point of origin, the trigger is
released, the pencil retracts,and the pointer is
moved to the next feature. This procedureis
repeated until all the features of the section
havebeen outlined.
The prototype described here was constructed largely from standard extruded
aluminumshapes, with stainless steel rods for
the legs of the base and the pivot of the
pantographarms. The weight of the prototype
is about 9 kg, although it seems likely that a
refinement in machining techniques could
reduce this significantly.The author welcomes
any questions regarding construction, operation, or applicationof this device.
Acknowledgments. This prototype was developed
under the auspices of the Teotihuacain Mapping
Project of the University of Rochester, supported by a
grant from the National Science Foundation
(# 5-28771). The machine would never have materialized were it not for the encouragement and assistance
of Professor Rene Millon, director of the project.