Archaeological Methods

Archaeological Methods
Revision Notes for Arch 2
PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:15:49 UTC
Contents
Articles
Excavation (archaeology) Archaeological field survey Archaeological record Geophysical survey (archaeology) Magnetic survey (archaeology) Metal detector Strip map and sample Archaeological plan Dating methodologies in archaeology Stratigraphy (archaeology) Reverse stratigraphy Archaeological horizon Archaeological section Archaeological sequence Archaeological phase Relationship (archaeology) Archaeological context Law of superposition Harris matrix Archaeological association Trial trenching Cut (archaeology) Fill (archaeology) Single context recording Post-excavation analysis Wheeler-Kenyon method Archaeological site 1 9 14 15 20 22 27 27 29 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 43 48 49 50 51 52 54 56 57
References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 59 61
Article Licenses
License 62
Excavation (archaeology)
The term archaeological excavation has a double meaning. 1. Excavation is best known and most commonly used within the science of archaeology. In this sense it is the exposure, processing and recording of archaeological remains. 2. The term is also used for an example of the application of the technique to the study of a given site. In this sense, an excavation may sometimes be referred to as a "dig" by those who participate, this being a concise, if oversimplified description of the process. Such a site excavation concerns itself with a specific archaeological site or a connected series of sites, and may be conducted over as little as several weeks to over a number of years.
Overview
Within the practice of excavation, numerous specialized techniques are available for use, and each dig will have its particular features, which will determine the archaeologists' approach. Resources and other practical issues do not allow archaeologists to carry out excavations whenever and wherever they choose. These constraints mean many known sites have been deliberately left unexcavated. This is with the intention of preserving them for future generations as well as recognising the role they serve in the communities that live near them. In some cases it is also hoped that improvements in technology will enable them to be re-examined at a later date, with more fruitful results. Excavation is the digging and recording of artifacts at an archaeological site. The presence or absence of archaeological remains can often be suggested to a more or less high degree of probability, by remote sensing, such as ground-penetrating radar. Indeed, grosser information about the development of the site may be drawn from this work but the understanding of finer features usually requires excavation though appropriate use of augering.
Excavations at the site of Gran Dolina, in the Atapuerca Mountains, Spain, 2008
Excavations at the cave of Santa Ana (Cceres, Extremadura, Spain)
Historical development
The development of excavation techniques has moved over the years from a treasure hunting process to one which seeks to fully understand the sequence of human activity on a given site and that site's relationship with other sites and with the landscape in which it is set. Its history began with a crude search for treasure and for artefacts which fell into the category of 'curio'. These curios were the subject of interest of antiquarians. It was later appreciated that digging on a site destroyed the evidence of earlier people's lives which it had contained. Once the curio had been removed from its context, most of the information it held was lost. It was from this realization that antiquarianism began to be replaced by archaeology, a process still being perfected.
Site formation
Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on. Each event, which may have taken a short or long time to accomplish, leaves a context. This layer cake of events is often referred to as the archaeological sequence or record. It is by analysis of this sequence or record that excavation is intended to permit interpretation, which should lead to discussion and understanding. The prominent processual archaeologist Lewis Binford highlighted the fact that the archaeological evidence left at a site may not be entirely indicative of the historical events that actually took place there. Using an ethnoarchaeological comparison, he looked at how hunters amongst the Nunamiut Eskimo of north central Alaska spent a great deal of time in a certain area simply waiting for prey to arrive there, and that during this period, they undertook other tasks to pass the time, such as the carving of various objects, including a wooden mold for a mask, a horn spoon and an ivory needle, as well as repairing a skin pouch and a pair of caribou skin socks. Binford notes that all of these activities would have left evidence in the archaeological record, but that none of them would provide evidence for the primary reason that the hunters were in the area; to wait for prey. As he remarked, waiting for animals to hunt "represented 24% of the total manhours of activity recorded; yet there is no recognizable archaeological consequences of this behaviour. No tools left on the site were used, and there were no immediate material "byproducts" of the "primary" activity. All of the other activities conducted at the site were essentially boredom reducers."[1]
Excavation types
Basic types
There are two basic types of modern archaeological excavation: 1. Research excavation - when time and resources are available to excavate the site fully and at a leisurely pace. These are now almost exclusively the preserve of academics or private societies who can muster enough volunteer labour and funds. The size of the excavation can also be decided by the director as it goes on. 2. Development-led excavation - undertaken by professional archaeologists when the site is threatened by building development. Normally funded by the developer meaning that time is more of a factor as well as its being focused only on areas to be affected by building. The workforce is generally more skilled however and pre-development excavations also provide a comprehensive record of the areas investigated. Rescue archaeology is sometimes thought Horse burial in Roman ditch on a development of as a separate type of excavation but in practice tends to be a funded site in London. Note "out of phase" pipe similar form of development-led practice. Various new forms of intrusion left in for practical reasons excavation terminology have appeared in recent years such as Strip map and sample some of which have been criticized within the profession as jargon created to cover up for falling standards of practice.
Excavation (archaeology) Trial excavations and evaluations in development led archaeology There are two main types of trial excavation in professional archaeology both commonly associated with development-led excavation: the test pit or trench and the watching brief. The purpose of trial excavations is to determine the extent and characteristics of archaeological potential in a given area before extensive excavation work is undertaken. This is usually conducted in development-led excavations as part of Project management planning. the main difference between Trial trenching and watching briefs is that trial trenches are actively dug for the purpose of revealing archaeological potential whereas watching briefs are cursory examination of trenches where the primary function of the trench is something other than archaeology, for example a trench cut for a gas pipe in a road. In the USA, a method of evaluation called a Shovel test pit is used which is a specified half meter square line of trial trenches dug by hand. Often, archaeology provides the only means to learn of the existence and behaviors of people of the past. Across the millennia many thousands of cultures and societies and billions of people have come and gone of which there is little or no written record or existing records are misrepresentative or incomplete. Writing as it is known today did not exist in human civilization until the 4th millennium BC, in a relatively small number of technologically advanced civilizations. In contrast, Homo sapiens has existed for at least 200,000 years, and other species of Homo for millions of years (see Human evolution). These civilizations are, not coincidentally, the best-known; they are open to the inquiry of historians for centuries, while the study of pre-historic cultures has arisen only recently. Even within a literate civilization many events and important human practices are not officially recorded. Any knowledge of the early years of human civilization the development of agriculture, cult practices of folk religion, the rise of the first cities must come from archaeology. Even where written records do exist, they are often incomplete and invariably biased to some extent. In many societies, literacy was restricted to the elite classes, such as the clergy or the bureaucracy of court or temple. The literacy even of aristocrats has sometimes been restricted to deeds and contracts. The interests and world-view of elites are often quite different from the lives and interests of the populace. Writings that were produced by people more representative of the general population were unlikely to find their way into libraries and be preserved there for posterity. Thus, written records tend to reflect the biases, assumptions, cultural values and possibly deceptions of a limited range of individuals, usually only a fraction of the larger population. Hence, written records cannot be trusted as a sole source. The material record is closer to a fair representation of society, though it is subject to its own inaccuracies, such as sampling bias and differential preservation. In addition to their scientific importance, archaeological remains sometimes have political or cultural significance to descendants of the people who produced them, monetary value to collectors, or simply strong aesthetic appeal. Many people identify archaeology with the recovery of such aesthetic, religious, political, or economic treasures rather than with the reconstruction of past societies. This view is often espoused in works of popular fiction, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Mummy, and King Solomon's Mines. When such unrealistic subjects are treated more seriously, accusations of pseudoscience are invariably levelled at their proponents (see Pseudoarchaeology, below). However, these endeavours, real and fictional, are not representative of modern archaeology
Concepts in excavation
Stratification
In archaeology, especially in the course of excavation, stratification is a paramount and base concept. It is largely based on the Law of Superposition. When archaeological finds are below the surface of the ground (as is most commonly the case), the identification of the context of each find is vital to enable the archaeologist to draw conclusions about the site and the nature and date of its occupation. It is the archaeologist's role to attempt to discover what contexts exist and how they came to be created. Archaeological stratification or sequence is the dynamic superimposition of single units of stratigraphy or contexts. In archaeology, the context (physical location)
Excavation (archaeology) of a discovery can be of major significance. More precisely, an archaeological context is an event in time which has been preserved in the archaeological record. The cutting of a pit or ditch in the past is a context, whilst the material filling it will be another. Multiple fills seen in section would mean multiple contexts. Structural features, natural deposits and inhumations are also contexts. By separating a site into these basic, discrete units, archaeologists are able to create a chronology for activity on a site and describe and interpret it. Stratigraphic relationships are the relationships created between contexts in time representing the chronological order they were created. An example would be a ditch and the back-fill of said ditch. The relationship of "the fill" context to the ditch "cut" context is "the fill" occurred later in the sequence, i.e., you have to dig a ditch first before you can back-fill it. A relationship that is later in the sequence is sometimes referred to as "higher" in the sequence and a relationship that is earlier "lower" though the term higher or lower does not itself imply a context needs to be physically higher or lower. It is more useful to think of this higher or lower term as it relates to the contexts position in a Harris matrix, which is a two-dimensional representation of a site's formation in space and time.
Combining stratigraphic contexts for interpretation

Understanding a site in modern archaeology is a process of grouping single contexts together in ever larger groups by virtue of their relationships. The terminology of these larger clusters varies depending on practitioner but the terms interface, sub-group, group and land use are common. An example of a sub-group could be the three contexts that make up a burial; the grave cut, the body and the back-filled earth on top of the body. In turn sub-groups can be clustered together with other sub-groups by virtue of their stratigraphic relationship to form groups which in turn form "phases". A sub-group burial could cluster with other sub group burials to form a cemetery or burial group which in turn could be clustered with a building such as church to produce a "phase". A less rigorously defined combination of one or more contexts is sometimes called a feature.
Phase and phasing

Phase is the most easily understood grouping for the layman as it implies a near contemporaneous Archaeological horizon representing "what you would see if you went back to a specific point in time". Often but not always a phase implies the identification of an occupation surface "old ground level" that existed at some earlier time. The production of phase interpretations is one of the first goals of stratigraphic interpretation and excavation. Digging "in phase" is not quite the same as phasing a site. Phasing a site represents reducing the site either in excavation or post-excavation to contemporaneous horizons whereas "digging in phase" is the process of stratigraphic removal of archaeological remains so as not to remove contexts that are earlier in time "lower in the sequence" before other contexts that have a latter physical stratigraphic relationship to them as defined by the law of superposition. The process of interpretation in practice will have a bearing on excavation strategies on site so "phasing" a site is actively pursued during excavation where at all possible, and is considered good practice.
Excavation in phase has reduced this site to the occupation level of a Romano-Celtic temple
Excavation in practice
Introduction
Excavation initially involves the removal of any topsoil overburden by machine. This material may be examined by metal detector for stray finds but unless the site has remained untouched since its abandonment there is invariably a layer of modern material on the surface of limited archaeological interest. In rural areas, any features are often visible The same Romano-Celtic temple reduced in beneath the surface as opposed to urban areas where there may be thick phase to the construction level immediately after layers of human deposits and only the uppermost contexts will be the building of the inner wall and before the initially visible and definable through isolation from other contexts. A construction of the outer wall to the left of picture. Note reduction in phase has produced strategy for sampling the contexts and features is formulated which detailed information concerning the exact may involve total excavation of each feature or only portions. It is sequence of temple construction preferred goal of excavation to remove all archaeological deposits and features in the reverse order they were created and construct a Harris matrix as a chronological record or "sequence" of the site. This Harris matrix is used for interpretation and combining contexts into ever larger units of understanding. This stratigraphic removal of the site is crucial for understanding the chronology of events on site. It is perhaps easier to think of this as "archaeological deposits should leave the site in the reverse order they arrived". A grid is usually set up, dividing the site into 5 m squares to better aid the positioning of the features and contexts on the overall site plan. This grid is usually tied into a national geomatic database such as the Ordnance Survey in the UK. In urban archaeology this grid becomes invaluable for implementing single context recording.
The single context recording system

Single context recording was developed in the 1970s by the museum of London (as well as earlier in Winchester and York) and has become the de facto recording system in many parts of the world and is especially suited to the complexities of deep urban archaeology and the process of Stratification. Each excavated context is given a unique "context number" and is recorded by type on a context sheet and perhaps being drawn on a plan and/or a section. Depending on time constraints and importance contexts may also be photographed, but in this case a grouping of contexts and their associations are the purpose of the photography. Finds from each context are bagged and labeled with their context number and site code for later cross reference work carried out post-excavation. The height above sea level of pertinent points on a context, such as the top and bottom of a wall are taken and added to plans sections and context sheets. Heights are recorded with a dumpy level or total station by relation to the site temporary benchmark (abbr. T.B.M). Samples of deposits from contexts are sometimes also taken, for later environmental analysis or for scientific dating.
Stratigraphic excavation in practice

Best practice of stratigraphic excavation in its basic sense involves a cyclical process of cleaning or "troweling back" the surface of the site and isolating contexts and edges which are definable in their entirety or part as either 1. Discrete discernible "edges" that form an enclosed area completely visible in plan and therefore stratigraphically later than the surrounding surface or 2. Discrete, discernible "edges" that are formed by being completely separated from the surrounding surface as in 1 and have boundaries dictated by the limit of excavation.
Slumped top fill revealing edges of a Saxon sunken featured building
Following this preliminary process of defining the context, the context is then assessed in relation to the wider understanding of the site, for considerations of reduction of the site in phases, and then removed and recorded by various methods. Often, owing to practical considerations or error, the process of defining the edges of contexts is not followed and contexts are removed out of sequence and un-stratigraphically. This is called "digging out of phase". It is not good practice. After removing a context or if practical a set of contexts such as the case would be for features, the "isolate and dig" procedure is repeated until no man made remains are left on site and the site is reduced to natural.
Physical methodology of excavation

The process of excavation is achieved in many ways depending on the nature of the deposits to be removed and time constraints. In the main, deposits are lifted by Trowel and Mattock and shovelled or carried from the site by wheel barrow and bucket. The use of many other tools including fine trowels such as the plaster's leaf trowel and brushes of various grades are used on delicate items such as human bone and decayed timber. When removing material from the archaeological record some basic guidelines are often observed. 1. Work from the known to the unknown. This means that, if one is unsure of the stratigraphic boundaries of the material in question, the removal of material should start from an area where the sequence is better understood rather than less. 2. Work from the top to the bottom. As well as working from the known to the unknown, also as far as possible, remove material at the physically highest level in the context and work towards the lowest. This is best practice because loose spoil will not then fall onto and contaminate the surface being worked on. In this way blurring detail that might have been instructive to the excavator is avoided. 3. In archaeology, we use our eyes. Excavation of contexts correctly often relies on detailed observations of minute differences. 4. If in doubt, bash it out. This rather cavalier-sounding maxim is a concise way of expressing the need to progress. There is always more to be done on a site, than there is time in which to do it. At times the next feature or context to be removed in the sequence is not clear even to an experienced archaeologist. When it is not possible to proceed in an ideal manner, the excavation must be continued in a more arbitrary way, with temporary sections, until discernible stratigraphy is again encountered. An area of the site is reduced leaving arbitrary, temporary sections as a form of stratigraphic control to provide early warning of "digging out of phase". If the arbitrary area for excavation is wisely chosen, the sequence should be revealed and excavation can return to a truly stratigraphic method. It is important to realize that "bash it out" is not a totally random act but a best guess based on logical deductions, observation and experience.
Common errors in excavation

Common errors during excavation fall into two basic categories and one or the other is almost inevitable because excavation is a destructive process that removes the information it seeks to record in real time and mistakes cannot be rectified easily. 1. Under-cutting. Under cutting occurs where contexts are not excavated fully and some remainder of the context is left in situ masking the nature of the underlying contexts. This is especially common among inexperienced archaeologists who have a tendency to be timid. The consequences of undercutting are quite serious as the nature of the archaeological sequence is obscured and subsequent recording and excavation is based on a flawed reading of the deposits on site. Unchecked, what follows from under-cutting is the production of false data often from the failure to spot intrusive finds and in turn, serious ramifications for the ability to interpret the sequence post-excavation. Entire sites can be "thrown out of phase" where relationships recorded in the Harris matrix bear no genuine association with any understandable phase of occupation. If a regime of under-cutting is allowed to progress its effects multiply as the site is reduced. 2. Over-cutting. Over-cutting occurs when contexts are unintentionally removed along with material from other deposits and contexts. Heavy over-cutting represents reckless removal of the sequence. However some degree of over-cutting is almost impossible to avoid and is certainly preferable to unchecked under-cutting even though over-cutting represents a loss of information. Over-cutting represents the loss of information whereas undercutting represents false information. One role of an archaeologist is to avoid false information and minimize the loss of information.
Finds and artifact retrieval

Finds and artefacts that survive in the archaeological record are retrieved in the main by hand and observation as the context they survive in is excavated. Several other techniques are available depending on suitability and time constraints. Sieving and flotation is used to maximize the recovery of small items such as small shards of pottery or flint flakes. The use of sieving is more common on research based excavations where more time is available. Some success has been achieved with the use of cement mixers and bulk sieving. This method allows the quick removal of context by shovel and mattock yet allows for a high retrieval rate. Spoil is shovelled into cement mixers and water added to form a slurry which is then poured through a large screen mesh. Flotation is a process of retrieval that works by passing spoil onto the surface of water and separating finds that float from the spoil which sinks, this is especially suited to the recovery of environmental data such as seeds and small bones. Not all finds retrieval is done during excavation and some especially flotation may take place post-excavation from samples taken during excavation. One important role of finds retrieval during excavation is the role of specialists to provide spot dating information on the contexts being removed from the archaeological record. This can provide advance warning of potential discoveries to come by virtue of residual finds redeposited in contexts higher in the sequence (which should be coming offsite earlier than contexts from early eras and phases). Spot dating also forms part of a confirmation process, of assessing the validity of the working hypothesis on the phasing of site during excavation. For example the presence of an anomalous medieval pottery sherd in what was thought to be an Iron Age ditch feature could radically alter onsite thinking on the correct strategy for digging a site and save a lot of information being lost due to incorrect assumptions about the nature of the deposits which will be destroyed by the excavation process and in turn, limit the sites potential for revealing information for post-excavation specialists. Or anomalous information could show up errors in excavation such as "undercutting". Dating methodology in part relies on accurate excavation and in this sense the two activities become interdependent.
Mechanical diggers
There is an increasing use of machine diggers especially in developer-led excavation due to time pressures. This is an area of controversy as their use inevitably results in less discrimination in how the archaeological sequence on a site is recorded. Machines are used primarily to remove modern overburden and for the control of spoil. In British archaeology mechanical diggers are sometimes nicknamed "the big yellow trowel".
Organisation of workforce
A group of archaeological excavators will generally work for a supervisor who reports to the site director or project manager. He or she will have ultimate responsibility for interpreting the site and writing the final report. Most excavations are eventually published in professional journals although this process can take years. This process takes place post-excavation and evolves a myriad of other specialists.
References
Barker, Philip (1993) Techniques of archaeological excavation, 3rd ed., London : Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-7169-7 Westman, Andrew (Ed.) (1994) Archaeological site manual, 3rd. ed., London : Museum of London, ISBN 0-904818-40-3
[1] Binford, Lewis (1978). "Dimensional analysis of behaviour & site structure: learning from an Eskimo hunting stand". American Antiquity. 40: 335.
External links
Adrian Chadwick - Archaeology at the Edge of Chaos: Further Towards Reflexive Excavation Methodologies (http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/3/3chad.htm) NIOSH Safety and Health Topic: Trenching and Excavation (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/trenching/). Excavations at the Roman city of Sanisera, Menorca, Spain (http://www.ecomuseodecavalleria.com/en/ escuela.asp)
Archaeological field survey

Archaeological field survey is the method by which archaeologists (often landscape archaeologists) search for archaeological sites and collect information about the location, distribution and organization of past human cultures across a large area (e.g. typically in excess of one hectare, and often in excess of many km2). Archaeologists conduct surveys to search for particular archaeological sites or kinds of sites, to detect patterns in the distribution of material culture over regions, to make generalizations or test hypotheses about past cultures, and to assess the risks that development projects will have adverse impacts on archaeological heritage.[1] The surveys may be: (a) intrusive or non-intrusive, depending on the needs of the survey team (and the risk of destroying archaeological evidence if intrusive methods are used) and; (b) extensive or intensive, depending on the types of research questions being asked of the landscape in question. Surveys can be a practical way to decide whether or not to carry out an excavation (as a way of recording the basic details of a possible site), but may also be ends in themselves, as they produce important information about past human activities in a regional context. A common role of field survey is in assessment of potential archaeological significance of places where development is proposed. This is usually connected to construction work and road building. The assessment determines whether the area of development impact is likely to contain significant archaeological resources and makes recommendations as to whether the archaeological remains can be avoided or an excavation is necessary before development work can commence. Archaeologists use a variety of tools in survey, including GIS, GPS, remote sensing, geophysical survey and aerial photography.
Research and planning

Survey work may be undertaken in response to a specific threat (such as proposed or pending development project) to an area of known or unknown archaeological interest or as part of a program addressing specific research topics. In either case actual fieldwork is most likely to be preceded by a phase of desktop research (reviewing existing data in the form of maps, formal and informal written records, photographs and drawings) or in the modern age internet research using search engines, ancestry and birth or property records online. Consideration should be given to the nature of the landscape (vegetation coverage, existing settlement or industry, soil depth, climate) before a range of techniques is selected to be applied within an appropriate overarching method.
Rationale
An area may be considered worthy of surveying based on the following: Artifacts found: Locals have picked up physical artifacts, sometimes held by the local museum but more often collected in private homes or old buildings such as churches and synagogues, and it is unclear where they are coming from. Literary sources: Old literary sources have provided archaeologists with clues about settlement locations that have not been archaeologically documented. Sometimes the texts may be quite recent; for instance, a book on local history may mention an interesting area. Oral sources: In many locations, local stories contain some hint of a greater past, and often they have a basis in history. For instance, someone may remember that a grandfather who used to walk the hills as a shepherd used to talk about columns from an old temple, although the descendant never saw the ruins. Local knowledge: In many cases, locals know where to find something of interest to archaeologists. They may not have reported it because of taking it as part of their world, or because of fearing intrusions on their land or community.
Archaeological field survey Previous surveys: In some places, a past survey may have been recorded in an academic journal. The use of more recent technologies and finds from other sites may provide reason to re-examine the site. Previous excavations: Excavations carried out before the middle of the 20th century are notoriously poorly documented. They were often carried out by methods that left behind much of the evidence the modern-day archaeologist is looking for. Early excavators were often interested only in fine pottery, jewelry and statues and referred to as rescue archaeologists. Lack of knowledge: Many areas of the world have developed limited knowledge about the nature and organization of past human activity at the regional level. (Although one or more sites may be known from an area, often little is known about the wider distribution of contemporary settlements, and how settlement patterns may change over time.) An archaeological field survey is the primary tool for discovering information about previously uninvestigated areas. Archaeological hypotheses: Some kinds of archaeological theories about changes in agricultural strategies or population density for example are investigated or tested through the use of archaeological surveys of areas that should or should not contain particular kinds of archaeological materials if the theory is true.
10
Aerial photography
Aerial photography is a good tool for planning a survey. Remains of older buildings often show in fields as cropmarks; just below the topsoil, the remains may affect the growth of crops or grass.[2] There should preferably be photographs of the same area at different times of the year, allowing the analyst to find the best time to see cropmarks.
Previous work in the region

If the indicator that started the process was not a record of previous work, the archaeologists will need to check if any work has been done prior to commencement of the pending project. As many older surveys and excavations were published in papers that are not widely available, this may be a difficult task. A common way to handle this is through a visit to the area, to check with local museums, historians and older people who might remember something about the former activities in a particular locale.
Permissions
It is usually a simple matter to gain permission to perform a cultural field survey, especially a non-intrusive one. If the area is privately owned, the local laws may or may not require the landowners' co-operation. Permission for an intrusive form of survey may be more difficult to acquire, due to the fear of destroying evidence or property values and the threat of lawsuit for said damages from the property owner.
Intrusive vs. non-intrusive surveys

In a non-intrusive survey, nothing is touched, just recorded. An accurate survey of the earthworks and other features can enable them to be interpreted without the need for excavation.[3] An intrusive survey can mean different things. In some cases, all artifacts of archaeological value are collected. This is often the case if it is a rescue survey, but less common in a regular survey. Another form of intrusive research is bore holes. Small holes are drilled into the ground, most often with hand-powered bores. The contents are examined to determine the depths at which one might find cultural layers, and where one might expect to strike virgin soil. This can be valuable in determining the cost of an excavation - if there is a build-up of several meters of soil above the layers the archaeologist is interested in, the price will obviously be much higher than if artifacts are found only centimeters below ground.
11
Extensive vs. intensive survey

One way to classify archaeological field surveys is to divide them into two types: intensive survey and extensive survey. The former is characterised by the complete or near-complete coverage of the survey area at a high-resolution, most often by having teams of survey archaeologists walk in a systematic way (e.g. in parallel transects) over parcels of the landscape in question, documenting archaeological data such as lithics, ceramics and/or building remains. However, variations in artifact visibility related to topography, vegetation, and soil character, not to mention the imperfect detection abilities of human observers, bring into question the very concept of complete coverage.[4] The Extensive survey, on the other hand, is characterised by a low-resolution approach over targets within a study area (sometimes including hundreds of km). Sometimes this involves a random sampling or some other kind of probability sample to gain a repsentative sample of the study area.[5] Extensive surveys may be designed to target the identification of archaeological sites across a large area, whereas intensive surveys are designed to provide a more comprehensive picture of the location of sites and the nature of off-site data (e.g. field systems, isolated finds, etc.). Intensive survey is the more costly, timely, and ultimately informative of the two approaches, although extensive survey can provide important information about previously unknown areas.
Purposive vs. sampling survey

Archaeological field surveys can also be characterized as either purposive or sampling surveys.[1] The former, sometimes also called "archaeological prospection," involves cases where archaeologists are searching for a particular site or a particular kind of archaeological material. For example, they might be searching for a particular shipwreck or an historic fort whose exact location is no longer certain. However, they may also be searching for archaeological materials in particular locations to test hypotheses about past use of those spaces. Sampling surveys, on the other hand, have the goal of obtaining a representative sample of some population of sites or artifacts in order to make generalizations about that population. This involves some probability sampling of spatial units, such as random or stratified random sampling of geometrical (often square) or irregular spatial units.[1]
Field walk (transects)

Conventionally, fieldwalking in grids or along lines called transects has formed the backbone of archaeological survey fieldwork, at least where visibility is fairly good.[1] A single researcher or team will walk slowly through the target area looking for artifacts or other archaeological indicators on the surface, often recording aspects of the environment at the time.[6] The method works best on either ploughed ground or surfaces with little vegetation. On ploughed surfaces, as the soil is turned regularly artifacts will move to the top. Erosion and soil loss on uncultivated and lightly vegetated soil (e.g., in semi-arid environments) may cause artifacts to also 'rise' to the surface. Even with optimal surface conditions the efficacy of fieldwalking varies according longterm land use, topography, weather conditions, the skill and experience of the fieldwalkers, and other factors. Intensive arable agriculture on hilltops will first expose and then pulverize artifacts such as pottery and even chipped stone (typically flint, chert or obsidian) flakes.[7][8] Conversely, the plateau and upper scarp or valley side soils will move down slope, forming a deep seal over low-lying archaeological deposits, rendering them inaccessible to surface survey. Even artifacts on the surface and with relatively high visibility (i.e., little obscuring vegetation), however, are not consistently detected by surveyors. Consequently, it is unrealistic to expect 100% recovery of artifacts or even sites. We can evaluate surveyors effectiveness at detecting artifacts with "Sweep width," which is the theoretical width of a transect in which the number of artifacts detected outside the sweep is identical to the number missed within the sweep.[1] The poorer the visibility, the poorer the contrast between the artifact "targets" and their surroundings, or the poorer the surveyor's skill or attention, the narrower the sweep width will be. Modern technology such as GPS has made survey recording much easier, as positions of artifacts or artifact clusters ("sites") can be taken well within the limits limits of accuracy and precision necessary for survey work. Recording
Archaeological field survey the position and attributes of archaeological features has been expedited by customizable portable computing interfaces or mobile Geographical Information Systems (GIS).[9] Databases containing existing regional archaeological data as well as other landscape GIS layers such as soils, vegetation, modern features, and development plans can be loaded on a mobile GIS for referencing, for sampling purposes, and for groundtruth updating directly in the field, resulting a more informed archaeological survey process. In some areas, the fieldwalking is quite different. When searching in dense forest, artifacts are hidden by a blanket of humus and fallen leaves, and even buildings may be covered by vegetation, and are therefore virtually invisible even at short distances. The team will then need to look for unnatural changes in the vegetation and landscape to decide if a building or feature is hidden below the vegetation, or survey by subsurface testing (SST). SSTs can consist of a series of shovel-test pits dug down below this humus layer or, where substantial later sediments may cover archaeological materials, series of auger or core holes. Because SSTs are much more costly than fieldwalking, surveys by SST usually have very low intensity.
12
Narrowing it down
Because of the high costs involved in some kinds of surveys, it is often helpful to use "predictive modelling" to narrow down the search for archaeological materials. This is particularly important for purposive surveys, but can also be used to guide sampling surveys by eliminating the need to survey areas where, for geological or other reasons, we can reasonably expect all ancient traces to be destroyed (e.g., by erosion) or far too deeply buried (e.g., by alluvium) to be detectable. Modern predictive models in archaeology employ Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Geophysical survey
Geophysical survey is used for subsurface mapping of archaeological sites. In recent years, there have been great advances in this field, and it is becoming an increasingly useful and cost-effective tool in archaeology. Geophysical instruments can detect buried archaeological features when their electrical or magnetic properties contrast measurably with their surroundings. In some cases, individual artifacts, especially metal, may be detected as well. Readings taken in a systematic pattern become a dataset that can be rendered as image maps for interpretation. Survey results can be used to guide excavation and to give archaeologists insight into the patterning of non-excavated parts of the site. Unlike other archaeological methods, geophysical survey is not invasive or destructive. For this reason, it is often used where preservation (rather than excavation) is the goal for project preservation and compliance with applicable laws. The geophysical methods most commonly applied to archaeology are magnetometers, electrical resistance meters, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic (EM) conductivity. These methods provide excellent resolution of many types of archaeological features, and are capable of high sample density surveys of very large areas and of operating under a wide range of conditions. While common metal detectors are geophysical sensors, they are not capable of generating high-resolution imagery. Other established and emerging technologies are also finding use in archaeological applications. Although geophysical survey has been used in the past with intermittent success, good results are very likely when it is applied appropriately. It is most useful when it is used in a well-integrated research design where interpretations can be tested and refined.[7][8] Interpretation requires a knowledge both of the archaeological record, and of the way it is expressed geophysically. Appropriate instrumentation, field survey design, and data processing are essential for success, and must be adapted to the unique geology and archaeological record of each site. In the field, control of data quality and spatial accuracy are critical to a successful mission completion.
13
Analysis
The most important part of the survey is the analysis. The types of questions typically asked of survey data include: what is the evidence for first occupation of an area; when was this area occupied; how are sites distributed; where are sites located; what evidence is there for a settlement hierarchy; what sites are contemporary with each other; how has the modern landscape interfered with the visibility of archaeological remains; what sorts of activities can be recognized (e.g. dwellings, tombs, field systems); how many people lived in this area (at any given time); why did people choose to live in this area; how has the landscape changed over time; what changes in settlement patterns have there been? At times, one part of the survey may not have yielded the evidence one wanted to find. For instance, very little may have been found during a field walk, but there are strong indications from geophysical survey and local stories that there is a building underneath a field. In such a case, the only way to decide if an excavation is worth the cost is to carefully analyze the evidence to determine which part to trust. On the one hand, the geophysics might just show an old and forgotten water-pipe, but it might also show the wall of just the building the archaeologists were looking for. The analysis therefore includes careful examination of all the evidence collected. A method often used to determine its value is to compare it to sites of the same period. As the number of well-documented surveys grow, this becomes a slightly easier task, as it is sometimes easier to compare two survey results than to compare a survey result with an excavated site.
External links
The Kythera Island Project [10]: Intensive archaeological survey of the Aegean island of Kythera. Archaeological Survey in Sphakia, Crete [11] Archaeological Surveys Group [12] Archaeological Field Work Organization [13] Archaeological Field Workers Job Source [14] [15]: South Cad-bury Environs Project. Archaeological survey of the landscape of a prehistoric Hillfort in south west Britain. Notable for its large scale application of archaeological geophysics and the geophysical survey in conjunction with expansive test pits.
References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Banning, E. B. (2002). Archaeological Survey. New York: Kluwer Academic Press. Whimster, R. (1989). The Emerging Past: Air Photography and the Buried Landscape. London: RCHM(E). ISBN9780950723693. Taylor, Christopher (1974). Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeology. Batsford. ISBN0-7134-2850-3 5960. Banning, E. B.; A. Hawkins and S. T. Stewart (2006). "Detection functions for archaeological survey". American Antiquity 71: pp.723-742. Foley, Robert (1981). Off-site archaeology and human adaptation in Eastern Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International series 97. pp.812. ISBN9780860541141. [6] Schofield, A. J. (1991). Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. ISBN9780946897254. [7] Tabor, Richard (2004). Regional Perspectives in Archaeology: From Strategy to Narrative. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International series 1203. pp.4852. ISBN1841713503. [8] Tabor, Richard (2008). Cadbury Castle: A hillfort and landscapes. Stroud: The History Press. pp.3233. ISBN9780752447155. [9] Tripcevich, Nicholas (2004). "Flexibility by Design: How mobile GIS meets the needs of archaeological survey" (http:/ / works. bepress. com/ tripcevich/ 3/ ). Cartography and Geographical Information Science 31 (3): 137151. . [10] http:/ / www. ucl. ac. uk/ kip [11] http:/ / sphakia. classics. ox. ac. uk/ emccv1988. html [12] http:/ / archaeologicalsurveys. com [13] http:/ / archaeologicalfieldwork. com [14] http:/ / shovelbums. org [15] http:/ / www. historic-environment. co. uk/ scep/ index. html
Archaeological record
14
Archaeological record
The archaeological record is the body of physical (i.e. not written) evidence about the past. It is one of the most basic concepts in archaeology,[1] the academic discipline concerned with documenting and interpreting the archaeological record.[2] The archaeological record consists of the material culture found at an archaeological site. Material culture in terms of archaeology can consist of artifacts, built structures, human impact on the environment, garbage, stratigraphy, mortuary practices, plant remains, animal remains. Archaeological theory is used to interpret the archaeological record for a better understanding of human cultures. The archaeological record can consist of the earliest ancient findings as well as contemporary artifacts. Human activity has had a large impact on the archaeological record. Destructive human processes such as agriculture and land development may damage or destroy potential archaeological sites.[3] Other threats to the archaeological record include natural phenomena and scavenging. Archaeology is a destructive science and can take away from the finite resources of the archaeological record. It is for this reason that archaeologists limit the amount of excavation that they do at each site and meticulous records are kept of what is found.
References
[1] Patrik, Linda E. (1985). "Is There an Archaeological Record?". Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 2762. JSTOR20170186. [2] Hardesty, Donald L. (2008). "GOALS OF ARCHAEOLOGY, OVERVIEW" (http:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science/ referenceworks/ 9780123739629). In Deborah M. Pearsall. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. pp.14141416. doi:10.1016/B978-012373962-9.00121-7. ISBN978-0-12-373962-9. . Retrieved 16 November 2010. [3] Lipe, William D.. "Conserving the In Situ Archaeological Record" (http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~arch/ saa/ matrix/ afm/ afm_manu. htm). . Retrieved April 13, 2012.
Feder, Kenneth L. (2007). Linking to the Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology, Second Edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195331176.
Geophysical survey (archaeology)
15

Geophysical survey in archaeology most often refers to ground-based physical sensing techniques used for archaeological imaging or mapping. Remote sensing and marine surveys are also used in archaeology, but are generally considered separate disciplines. Other terms, such as "geophysical prospection" and "archaeological geophysics" are generally synonymous.
Overview
Geophysical survey is used to create maps of subsurface archaeological features. Features are the non-portable part of the archaeological record, whether standing structures or traces of human activities left in Electrical resistance map of ancient Aphrodisias the soil. Geophysical instruments can detect buried features when their physical properties contrast measurably with their surroundings. In some cases individual artifacts, especially metal, may be detected as well. Readings taken in a systematic pattern become a data set that can be rendered as image maps. Survey results can be used to guide excavation and to give archaeologists insight into the patterning of non-excavated parts of the site. Unlike other archaeological methods, geophysical survey is neither invasive nor destructive. For this reason, it is often used where preservation (rather than excavation) is the goal, and to avoid disturbance of culturally sensitive sites such as cemeteries.[1] Although Geophysical survey has been used in the past with intermittent success, good results are very likely when it is applied appropriately. It is most useful when it is used in a well-integrated research design where interpretations can be tested and refined. Interpretation requires a knowledge both of the archaeological record, and of the way it is expressed geophysically. Appropriate instrumentation, survey design, and data processing are essential for success, and must be adapted to the unique geology and archaeological record of each site. In the field, control of data quality and spatial accuracy are critical.
16
Methods
Geophysical methods used in archaeology are largely adapted from those used in mineral exploration, engineering, and geology. Archaeological mapping presents unique challenges, however, which have spurred a separate development of methods and equipment. In general, geological applications are concerned with detecting relatively large structures, often as deeply as possible. In contrast, most archaeological sites are relatively near the surface, often within the top meter of earth. Instruments are often configured to limit the depth of response to better resolve the near-surface phenomena that are likely to be of interest. Another challenge is to detect subtle and often very small features which may be as ephemeral as organic staining from decayed wooden posts - and distinguish them from rocks, roots, and other natural clutter. To accomplish this requires not only sensitivity, but also high density of data points, usually at least one and sometimes dozens of readings per square meter.
EM conductivity survey
Most commonly applied to archaeology are magnetometers, electrical resistance meters, ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic (EM) conductivity meters. These methods can resolve many types of archaeological features, are capable of high sample density surveys of very large areas, and of operating under a wide range of conditions. While common metal detectors are geophysical sensors, they are not capable of generating high-resolution imagery. Other established and emerging technologies are also finding use in archaeological applications. Electrical resistance meters can be thought of as similar to the Ohmmeters used to test electrical circuits. In most systems, metal probes are inserted into the ground to obtain a reading of the local electrical resistance. A variety of probe configurations are used, most having four probes, often mounted on a rigid frame. Capacatively coupled systems that do not require direct physical contact with the soil have also been developed. Archaeological features can be mapped when they are of higher or lower resistivity than their surroundings. A stone foundation might impede the flow of electricity, while the organic deposits within a midden might conduct electricity more easily than surrounding soils. Although generally used in archaeology for planview mapping, resistance methods also have a limited ability to discriminate depth and create vertical profiles (see Electrical resistivity tomography). Electromagnetic (EM) conductivity instruments have a response that is comparable to that of resistance meters (conductivity is the inverse of resistance). Underground archaeolocical features are detected by creating a magnetic field underground by applying an electric current that has a known frequency and magnitude through a sending coil. The currents spur a secondary current in underground conductors that is picked up by a receiving coil. Changes in the underground conductivity can indicate buried features.[2][3] Although EM conductivity instruments are generally less sensitive than resistance meters to the same phenomena, they do have a number of unique properties. One advantage is that they do not require direct contact with the ground, and can be used in conditions unfavorable to resistance meters. Another advantage is relatively greater speed than resistance instruments. Unlike resistance instruments, conductivity meters respond strongly to metal. This can be a disadvantage when the metal is extraneous to the archaeological record, but can be useful when the metal is of archaeological interest. Some EM conductivity
Geophysical survey (archaeology) instruments are also capable of measuring magnetic susceptibility, a property that is becoming increasingly important in archaeological studies. Magnetometers used in geophysical survey may use a single sensor to measure the total magnetic field strength, or may use two (sometimes more) spatially separated sensors to measure the gradient of the magnetic field (the difference between the sensors). In most archaeological applications the latter (gradiometer) configuration is preferred because it provides better resolution of small, near-surface phenomena. Magnetometers may also use a variety of different sensor types. Proton precession magnetometers have largely been superseded by faster and more sensitive fluxgate and cesium instruments. Every kind of material has unique magnetic properties, even those that we do not think of as being magnetic. Magnetic gradiometer map of Prehistoric fire-hearths Different materials below the ground can cause local disturbances in the Earths magnetic field that are detectable with sensitive magnetometers. Magnetometers react very strongly to iron and steel, brick, burned soil, and many types of rock, and archaeological features composed of these materials are very detectable. Where these highly magnetic materials do not occur, it is often possible to detect very subtle anomalies caused by disturbed soils or decayed organic materials. The chief limitation of magnetometer survey is that subtle features of interest may be obscured by highly magnetic geologic or modern materials. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is the perhaps the best known of these methods (although it is not the most widely applied in archaeology). The concept of radar is familiar to most people. In this instance, the radar signal an electromagnetic pulse is directed into the ground. Subsurface objects and stratigraphy (layering) will cause reflections that are picked up by a receiver. The travel time of the reflected signal indicates the depth. Data may be plotted as profiles, or as planview maps isolating specific depths. GPR can be a powerful tool in favorable conditions (uniform sandy soils are ideal). It is unique both in its ability to detect some spatially small objects at relatively great depths and in its ability to distinguish the depth of anomaly sources. The principal disadvantage of GPR is that it is severely limited by less-than-ideal conditions. The high electrical conductivity of fine-grained sediments (clays and silts) causes conductive losses of signal strength; rocky or heterogeneous sediments scatter the GPR signal. Another disadvantage is that data collection is relatively slow.
17
GPR survey
Geophysical survey (archaeology) Metal detectors use electromagnetic induction to detect metal. Although other types of instruments (notably magnetometers and electromagnetic conductivity meters) have some sensitivity to metal, specialized metal detectors are much more effective. Metal detectors are available in different configurations, varying in sophistication and sensitivity. Most have some capacity to discriminate between different types of metallic targets. Common hand-held metal detectors are widely used by archaeologists. Most of these instruments do not create a logged data set and thus cannot be used for directly creating maps, but used in a systematic manner they can be a useful tool in archaeological research. Sometimes external data loggers are attached to such detectors which collect information about detected materials and corresponding gps coordinates for further processing. Misuse of these instruments on archaeological sites by treasure hunters and artifact collectors has been a serious problem in archaeological preservation[4][5][6]. Although not as commonly used in archaeology, sophisticated metal detectors are available having much greater sensitivity than hand-held models. These instruments are capable of data logging and sophisticated target discrimination. They can be mounted on wheeled carts for survey data collection. LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging, also LADAR) is an optical remote sensing technology that can measure the distance to a target by illuminating the target with light, often using pulses from a laser. LIDAR has many applications in the field of archaeology including aiding in the planning of field campaigns, mapping features beneath forest canopy,[7] and providing an overview of broad, continuous features that may be indistinguishable on the ground. LIDAR can also provide archaeologists with the ability to create high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) of archaeological sites that can reveal micro-topography that are otherwise hidden by vegetation. LiDAR-derived products can be easily integrated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) for analysis and interpretation. Data collection is broadly similar regardless of the particular sensing instrument. Survey usually involves walking with the instrument along closely spaced parallel traverses, taking readings at regular intervals. In most cases, the area to be surveyed is staked into a series of square or rectangular survey "grids" (terminology can vary). With the corners of the grids as known reference points, the instrument operator uses tapes or marked ropes as a guide when collecting data. In this way, positioning error can be kept to within a few centimeters for high-resolution mapping. Survey systems with integrated global positioning systems (GPS) have been developed, but under field conditions, currently available systems lack sufficient precision for high-resolution archaeological mapping. Geophysical instruments (notably metal detectors) may also used for less formally "scanning" areas of interest. Data processing and imaging convert raw numeric data into interpretable maps. Data processing usually involves the removal of statistical outliers and noise, and interpolation of data points. Statistical filters may be designed to enhance features of interest (based on size, strength, orientation, or other criteria), or suppress obscuring modern or natural phenomena. Inverse modeling of archaeological features from observed data is becoming increasingly important. Processed data are typically rendered as images, as contour maps, or in false relief. When geophysical data are rendered graphically, the interpreter can more intuitively recognize cultural and natural patterns and visualize the physical phenomena causing the detected anomalies.
18
Development
The use of geophysical survey is well established in European archaeology, especially in Great Britain, where it was pioneered in the 1940s and 1950s. It is increasingly employed in other parts of the world, and with increasing success as techniques are adapted to unique regional conditions. In early surveys, measurements were recorded individually and plotted by hand. Although useful results were sometimes obtained, practical applications were limited by the enormous amount of labor required. Data processing was minimal and sample densities were necessarily low.
Geophysical survey (archaeology) Although the sensitivity of sensors has improved, and new methods have been developed, the most important developments have been automated data logging and computers to handle and process large amounts of data. Continuing improvements in survey equipment performance and automation have made it possible to rapidly survey large areas. Rapid data collection has also made it practical to achieve the high sample densities necessary to resolve small or subtle features. Advances in processing and imaging software have made it possible to detect, display, and interpret subtle archaeological patterning within the geophysical data.
19
References
[1] "Society for Historical Archaeology technical briefs: Geophysical Mapping of Historic Cemeteries" (http:/ / www. sha. org/ publications/ technical_briefs/ volume03/ article_04. pdf). . [2] Dalan, Rinita. "Defining archaeological features with electromagnetic surveys at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site" (http:/ / www. mendeley. com/ research/ defining-archaeological-features-electromagnetic-surveys-cahokia-mounds-state-historic-site-12). . Retrieved 13 April 2012. [3] "Electromagnetic Surveys" (http:/ / www. subsurfacesurveys. com/ em. htm). . Retrieved 13 April 2012. [4] http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ 2009/ feb/ 16/ looting-antiquities-uk-heritage [5] http:/ / www. chicora. org/ pdfs/ RC31%20-%20looting. pdf [6] http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ 2009/ feb/ 16/ looting-antiquities-uk-heritage [7] EID; crater beneath canopy (http:/ / www. unb. ca/ passc/ ImpactDatabase/ images/ whitecourt. htm)
Further reading
A general overview of geophysical methods in archaeology can be found in the following works: Clark, Anthony J. (1996). Seeing Beneath the Soil. Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. London, United Kingdom: B.T. Batsford Ltd.. Gaffney, Chris; John Gater (2003). Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Stroud, United Kingdom: Tempus. Witten, Alan (2006). Handbook of Geophysics and Archaeology. London, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing Ltd..
External links
International Society for Archaeological Prospection (http://www.archprospection.org/) "The North American Database of Archaeological Geophysics (NADAG)" (http://www.cast.uark.edu/nadag/ ). "Archaeological Prospection Resources (Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford)" (http://www.brad. ac.uk/acad/archsci/subject/archpros.html). "Geophysical Data in Archaeology: A Guide to Good Practice" (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/goodguides/ geophys/). "PhysicsWeb: Physics and archaeology" (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/5/10). Archeo Prospections Vienna (http://www.univie.ac.at/vias/Prosp/) "English Heritage: Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation" (http://www.english-heritage.org. uk/publications/geophysical-survey-in-archaeological-field-evaluation/geophysics-guidelines.pdf). "New Approaches to the Use and Integration of Multi-Sensor Remote Sensing for Historic Resource Identification and Evaluation" (http://www.serdp.org/Research/upload/SI-1263-FR.pdf). Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology (http://archpro.lbg.ac.at)
Magnetic survey (archaeology)
20

Magnetic survey is one of a number of methods used in archaeological geophysics. Magnetic surveys record spatial variation in the Earth's magnetic field. In archaeology, magnetic surveys are used to detect and map archaeological artifacts and features. Magnetic surveys are used in both terrestrial and marine archaeology.
Overview
Magnetometers used in geophysical survey may use a single sensor to measure the total magnetic field strength, or may use two (sometimes more) spatially separated sensors to measure the gradient of the magnetic field (the difference between the sensors). In most archaeological applications the latter (gradiometer) configuration is preferred because it provides better resolution of small, near-surface phenomena. Magnetometers may also use a variety of different sensor types. Proton precession magnetometers have largely been superseded by faster and more sensitive fluxgate and cesium instruments. Every kind of material has unique magnetic properties, even those that we do not think of as being "magnetic". Different materials below the ground can cause local disturbances in the Earths magnetic field that are detectable with sensitive magnetometers. The chief limitation of magnetometer survey is that subtle features of interest may be obscured by highly magnetic geologic or modern materials.
Magnetic survey of an archaeological site
Terrestrial magnetic surveys

In terrestrial archaeology, magnetic surveys are typically used for detailed mapping of archaeological features on known archaeological sites. More exceptionally, magnetometers are used for low-resolution exploratory surveys.
Magnetic gradiometer map of Prehistoric fire-hearths
Several types of magnetometer are used in terrestrial archaeology. Early surveys, beginning in the 1950s, were conducted with proton precession magnetometers. Data collection with proton precession instruments was slow, making high sample density surveys impracticable. Data were manually recorded and plotted. The subsequent introduction of Fluxgate and cesium vapor magnetomers improved sesitivity, and greatly increased sampling speed, making high resolution surveys of large areas practical. Equally important was the development of computers to handle, process, and display large datasets.[1]
Magnetic survey (archaeology) Magnetometers react very strongly to iron and steel, brick, burned soil, and many types of rock, and archaeological features composed of these materials are very detectable. Where these highly magnetic materials do not occur, it is often possible to detect very subtle anomalies caused by disturbed soils or decayed organic materials. Many types of sites and features have been successfully mapped with magnetometers, ranging from very ephemeral prehistoric campsites to large urban centers.
21
Marine Magnetic Surveys

Magnetic surveys are extremely useful in the excavation and exploration of underwater archaeological sites. The apparatus used on the water slightly differs from that on land. Marine magnetometers come in two types: Surface towed and near-bottom. Both are towed a sufficient distance (about two ship lengths) away from the ship to allow them to collect data without it being polluted by the ship's magnetic properties. Surface towed magnetometers allow for a wider range of detection at the price of precision accuracy that is afforded by the near-bottom magnetometers.[2] The most common type of magnetometer used for marine survey is the fluxgate magnetometer. Fluxgate magnetometers utilize two ferromagnetic cores each wound with a primary coil and an outer secondary coil attached to amp meter. When an alternating current (AC) is passed through the primary coils, it creates two opposing magnetic fields that vary in intensity based on the outside magnetic fields.[3] By floating them parallel to the seafloor, they can measure the changes in magnetic fields over the seabed. Another common type is the newer proton precession magnetometer. This utilizes a container full of hydrogen rich liquids (commonly kerosene or methanol) that, when agitated by a direct current (DC) or Radio Frequency (RF), cause the electrons to become energized and transfer that energy to the protons due to the Overhauser Effect basically turning them into dipole magnets. When the stimulus is removed, the protons precess at a rate that can be interpreted to determine the magnetic forces of the area.[3] In maritime archaeology, these are often used to map the geology of wreck sites and determine the composition of magnetic materials found on the seafloor. An Overhauser magnetometer (PPM) was used in 2001 to map Sebastos (the harbor of Caesarea Maritima) and helped to identify components of the Roman concrete.[4]
Related methods
The magnetic properties of archaeological materials form the basis for a number of other archaeological techniques, Including: Magnetic susceptibility survey Laboratory analysis of magnetic samples Archaeomagnetic dating
Further reading
Smekalova T. N.; Voss O., Smekalov S. L. "Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology. More than 10 years of using the Overhauser GSM-19 gradiometer", Wormianum 2008.. Aspinall, Arnold; Chris Gaffney, Armin Schmidt "Magnetometry for archaeologists", Altamira 2008..
References
[1] Clark, Anthony J. (1996). Seeing Beneath the Soil. Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. London, United Kingdom: B.T. Batsford Ltd.. [2] "Marine Magnetometer." Ocean Instruments. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. http:/ / www. whoi. edu/ science/ instruments/ viewInstrument. do?id=14847 [3] Boyd, Thomas M. "Measuring the Earth's Magnetic Field." Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. 30 June 1999. University of Melbourne. 9 May 2009 http:/ / www. earthsci. unimelb. edu. au/ ES304/ index. html.

[4] Boyce, Joseph I., Eduard G. Reinhardt, Avner Raban, and Matthew R. Pozza. "Marine Magnetic Survey of a Submerged Roman Harbour, Caesarea Maritima, Israel." The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 33 (2004): 122-36.
22
Metal detector
A metal detector is a device which responds to metal that may not be readily apparent. The simplest form of a metal detector consists of an oscillator producing an alternating current that passes through a coil producing an alternating magnetic field. If a piece of electrically conductive metal is close to the coil, eddy currents will be induced in the metal, and this produces an alternating magnetic field of its own. If another coil is used to measure the magnetic field (acting as a magnetometer), the change in the magnetic field due to the metallic object can be detected. The first industrial metal detectors were A U.S. Army soldier uses a metal detector to search for weapons and ammunition developed in the 1960s and were used in Iraq extensively for mining and other industrial applications. Uses include de-mining (the detection of land mines), the detection of weapons such as knives and guns, especially in airport security, geophysical prospecting, archaeology and treasure hunting. Metal detectors are also used to detect foreign bodies in food, and in the construction industry to detect steel reinforcing bars in concrete and pipes and wires buried in walls and floors.
History and development

Toward the end of the 19th century, many scientists and engineers used their growing knowledge of electrical theory in an attempt to devise a machine which would pinpoint metal. The use of such a device to find ore-bearing rocks would give a huge advantage to any miner who employed it. The German physicist Heinrich Wilhelm Dove invented the induction balance system, which was incorporated into metal detectors a hundred years later. Early machines were crude, used a lot of battery power, and worked only to a very limited degree. Alexander Graham Bell used such a device to attempt to locate a bullet lodged in the chest of American President James Garfield in 1881; the attempt was unsuccessful because the metal coil spring bed Garfield was lying on confused the detector.[1]
Modern developments
The modern development of the metal detector began in the 1920s. Gerhard Fisher had developed a system of radio direction-finding, which was to be used for accurate navigation. The system worked extremely well, but Fisher noticed that there were anomalies in areas where the terrain contained ore-bearing rocks. He reasoned that if a radio beam could be distorted by metal, then it should be possible to design a machine which would detect metal using a search coil resonating at a radio frequency. In 1925 he applied for, and was granted, the first patent for a metal detector. Although Gerhard Fisher was the first person granted a patent for a metal detector, the first to apply was
Metal detector Shirl Herr, a businessman from Crawfordsville, Indiana. His application for a hand-held Hidden-Metal Detector was filed in February 1924, but not patented until July 1928. Herr assisted Italian leader Benito Mussolini in recovering items remaining from the Emperor Caligula's galleys at the bottom of Lake Nemi, Italy, in August 1929. Herr's invention was used by Admiral Richard Byrd's Second Antarctic Expedition in 1933, when it was used to locate objects left behind by earlier explorers. It was effective up to a depth of eight feet.[2] However, it was one Lieutenant Jozef Stanislaw Kosacki, a Polish officer attached to a unit stationed in St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, during the early years of World War II, who refined the design into a practical Polish mine detector.[3] They were heavy, ran on vacuum tubes, and needed separate battery packs. The design invented by Kosacki was used extensively during the clearance of the German mine fields during the Second Battle of El Alamein when 500 units were shipped to Field Marshal Montgomery to clear the minefields of the retreating Germans, and later used during the Allied invasion of Sicily, the Allied invasion of Italy and the Invasion of Normandy.[4] As it was a wartime research operation to create and refine the design of the detector, the knowledge that Kosacki created the first practical metal detector was kept secret for over 50 years.
23
Further refinements
Many manufacturers of these new devices brought their own ideas to the market. White's Electronics [5] of Oregon began in the 1950s by building a machine called the Oremaster Geiger Counter. Another leader in detector technology was Charles Garrett, who pioneered the BFO (Beat Frequency Oscillator) machine. With the invention and development of the transistor in the 1950s and 1960s, metal detector manufacturers and designers made smaller lighter machines with improved circuitry, running on small battery packs. Companies sprang up all over the USA and Britain to supply the growing demand. Modern top models are fully computerized, using integrated circuit technology to allow the user to set sensitivity, discrimination, track speed, threshold volume, notch filters, etc., and hold these parameters in memory for future use. Compared to just a decade ago, detectors are lighter, deeper-seeking, use less battery power, and discriminate better. Larger portable metal detectors are used by archaeologists and treasure hunters to locate metallic items, such as jewelry, coins, bullets, and other various artifacts buried shallowly underground.
Discriminators
The biggest technical change in detectors was the development of the induction-balance system. This system involved two coils that were electrically balanced. When metal was introduced to their vicinity, they would become unbalanced. What allowed detectors to discriminate between metals was the fact that every metal has a different phase response when exposed to alternating current. Scientists had long known of this fact by the time detectors were developed that could selectively detect desirable metals, while ignoring undesirable ones. Even with discriminators, it was still a challenge to avoid undesirable metals, because some of them have similar phase responses e.g. tinfoil and gold, particularly in alloy form. Thus, improperly tuning out certain metals increased the risk of passing over a valuable find. Another disadvantage of discriminators was that they reduced the sensitivity of the machines.
New coil designs

Coil designers also tried out innovative designs. The original induction balance coil system consisted of two identical coils placed on top of one another. Compass Electronics produced a new design: two coils in a D shape, mounted back-to-back to form a circle. This system was widely used in the 1970s, and both concentric and D type (or widescan as they became known) had their fans. Another development was the invention of detectors which could cancel out the effect of mineralization in the ground. This gave greater depth, but was a non-discriminate mode. It worked best at lower frequencies than those used before, and frequencies of 3 to 20kHz were found to produce the best results. Many detectors in the 1970s had a switch which enabled the user to switch between the discriminate
Metal detector mode and the non-discriminate mode. Later developments switched electronically between both modes. The development of the induction balance detector would ultimately result in the motion detector, which constantly checked and balanced the background mineralization.
24
Pulse induction
At the same time, developers were looking at using a different technique in metal detection called pulse induction. Unlike the beat frequency oscillator or the induction balance machines which both used a uniform alternating current at a low frequency, the pulse induction machine simply fired a high-voltage pulse of signal into the ground. In the absence of metal, the pulse decayed at a uniform rate, and the time it took to fall to zero volts could be accurately measured. However, if metal was present when the machine fired, a small current would flow in the metal, and the time for the voltage to drop to zero would be increased. These time differences were minute, but the improvement in electronics made it possible to measure them accurately and identify the presence of metal at a reasonable distance. These new machines had one major advantage: they were completely impervious to the effects of mineralization, and rings and other jewelry could now be located even under highly-mineralized black sand.
2.Uses
A pulse induction metal detector with an array of coils
Archaeology
England and Wales In England and Wales metal detecting is legal provided that permission is granted by the landowner, and that the area is not a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), or covered by elements of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Items discovered which fall within the definition of treasure[6] must be reported to the coroner or a place designated by the coroner for treasure. The voluntary reporting of finds which do not qualify as treasure to the Portable Antiquities Scheme or the UK Detector Finds Database is encouraged. Scotland The situation in Scotland is very different. Under the Scots law principle of bona vacantia, the Crown has claim over any object of any material value where the original owner cannot be traced.[7] There is also no 300 year limit to Scottish finds. Any artifact found, whether by metal detector survey or from an archaeological excavation, must be reported to the Crown through the Treasure Trove Advisory Panel at the National Museums of Scotland. The panel then determines what will happen to the artifacts. Reporting is not voluntary, and failure to report the discovery of historic artifacts is a criminal offence in Scotland.
Metal detector
25
As a hobby
There are six major types of hobbyist activities involving metal detectors: Coin shooting is looking for coins after an event involving many people, like a baseball game, or simply looking for any old coins. Serious coin shooters will spend hours, days and months doing historical research to locate long lost sites that have the potential to give up historical and collectible coins. Prospecting is looking for valuable metals like gold and silver in their natural forms, such as nuggets or flakes. General metal detecting is very similar to coin shooting except that This 156-troy-ounce (unknown operator: the metal detectorist is after any type of historical artifact. Metal u'strong'kg) gold nugget, known as the Mojave Nugget, was found by an individual prospector in detectorists may be dedicated to preserving historical artifacts, and the Southern California Desert using a metal often have considerable expertise. Coins, bullets, buttons, axe detector heads, and buckles are just a few of the items that are commonly found by relic hunters; in general the potential is far greater in Europe and Asia than many other parts of the world. More valuable finds in Britain alone include the Staffordshire Hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold, sold for 3,285,000, the gold Celtic Newark Torc, the Ringlemere Cup, West Bagborough Hoard, Milton Keynes Hoard, Roman Crosby Garrett Helmet, Stirling Hoard, Collette Hoard and thousands of smaller finds. Beach combing is hunting for lost coins or jewelry on a beach. Beach hunting can be as simple or as complicated as one wishes to make it. Many dedicated beach hunters also familiarize themselves with tide movements and beach erosion. There are two main techniques for beach hunting. The first one is called "gridding", which is when you search in a pattern. For example, you start from the beach line, and work your way down to the shoreline, move to the side a little, and repeat the process. The next technique is called "Random searching". Random searching is when you walk around the beach in no particular pattern, hoping to cover more ground. Metal detecting clubs across the United States, United Kingdom and Canada exist for hobbyists to learn from others, show off finds from their hunts and to learn more about the hobby.
Security screening
A series of aircraft hijackings led the United States in 1972 to adopt metal detector technology to screen airline passengers, initially using magnetometers that were originally designed for logging operations to detect spikes in trees.[8] The Finnish company Outokumpu adapted mining metal detectors, still housed in a large cylindrical pipe, to make a commercial walk-through security detector. The development of these systems continued in a spin off company and systems branded as Metor Metal Detectors evolved in the form of the rectangular gantry now standard in airports. In common with the developments in other Metal detectors at an airport uses of metal detectors both alternating current and pulse systems are used, and the design of the coils and the electronics has moved forward to improve the discrimination of these systems. In 1995 systems such as the Metor 200 appeared with the ability to indicate the approximate height of the metal object above the ground, enabling security personnel to more rapidly locate the source of the signal. Smaller hand held metal detectors are also used to locate a metal object on a person more precisely.
Metal detector
26
Industrial metal detectors

Industrial metal detectors are used in the pharmaceutical, food, beverage, textile, garment, plastics, chemicals, lumber, and packaging industries. Contamination of food by metal shards from broken processing machinery during the manufacturing process is a major safety issue in the food industry. Metal detectors for this purpose are widely used and integrated into the production line. Current practice at garment or apparel industry plants is to apply metal detecting after the garments are completely sewn and before garments are packed to check whether there is any metal contamination (needle, broken needle, etc.) in the garments. This needs to be done for safety reasons. The industrial metal detector was developed by Bruce Kerr and David Hiscock in 1947. The founding company Goring Kerr[9] pioneered the use and development of the first industrial metal detector. Mars Incorporated was one of the first customers of Goring Kerr using their Metlokate metal detector to inspect Mars bar.
Basic operation
The basic principle of operation for the common industrial metal detector is based on a 3 coil design. This design utilizes an AM (amplitude modulated) transmitting coil and two receiving coils one on either side of the transmitter. The design and physical configuration of the receiving coils are instrumental in the ability to detect very small metal contaminates of 1mm or smaller. Today modern metal detectors continue to utilize this configuration for the detection of tramp metal. The coil configuration is such that it creates an opening whereby the product (food, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc.) passes through the coils. This opening or aperture allows the product to enter and exit through the three coil system producing an equal but mirrored signal on the two receiving coils. The resulting signals are summed together effectively nullifying each other. When a metal contaminant is introduced into the product an unequal disturbance is created. This then creates a very small electronic signal that is amplified through special electronics. The amplification produced then signals a mechanical device mounted to the conveyor system to remove the contaminated product from the production line. This process is completely automated and allows manufacturing to operate uninterrupted.
Civil engineering
In civil engineering, special metal detectors (cover meters) are used to locate rebar. Rebar detectors are less sophisticated, and can only locate metallic objects below the surface.
Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Grosvenor and Wesson 1997, p. 107. Thomas C. Poulter. Outline of the Scientific Accomplishments of the Byrd Antarctic Expedition II, 1933-1935. Tadeusz Modelski (1986). The Polish Contribution to The Ultimate Allied Victory in The Second World War. Worthing, England. p.221. Leo Cooper (1998). The History of Landmines. Great Britain: Pen & Sword Books Ltd. ISBN0-85052-268-0. http:/ / whiteselectronics. com/ See Treasure Act 1996 http:/ / www. treasuretrovescotland. co. uk http:/ / savvytraveler. publicradio. org/ show/ features/ 2000/ 20000915/ security. shtml http:/ / industrial-machinery-news. com/ history-of-modern-machinery/ history-of-goring-kerr
Metal detector
27
References
Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Wesson, Morgan. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997. ISBN 0-8109-4005-1. Colin King (Editor), Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance, ISBN 0-7106-2555-3. Graves M, Smith A, and Batchelor B 1998: Approaches to foreign body detection in foods, Trends in Food Science & Technology 9 21-27
Strip map and sample

Strip map and sample is a method of archaeological excavation applied in the United Kingdom to preserve archaeological remains by record in the face of development threat. It involves machine stripping of an area, plotting observed features onto a site plan and then partially excavating those features (sampling). Strip map and sample is undertaken when a site is to be destroyed by development and no satisfactory method of preserving archaeological remains in situ can be devised or adequate funding and time has not be factored into development project planning to allow for a full archaeological investigation.
Archaeological plan
An archaeological plan in an archaeological excavation, is a drawn record of features (and artifacts) in the horizontal plane.
Overview
Archaeological plan can either take the form of a "multi context" plan, which is drawn with many contexts on it to show relationships between these features as part of some phase, or alternatively a single context plan with a single feature is drawn . Excavated features are drawn in three dimensions with the help of drawing conventions such as hachures. Single context planning developed by the Museum of London has become the professional norm. The basic advantage fig 1.Typical single context plan of single context planning is context plans draw on "transparent perma-trace paper" can be overlaid for re-interpretation at a later date. Multi-context Plans as opposed to single context plans can be made of complete sites, trenches or individual features. In the United Kingdom, the scale of the plans is usually 1:20. They are linked to the site recording system by the inclusion of known grid points and height readings, taken with a dumpy level or a total station (see surveying). Excavation of a site by the removal of human made deposits in the reverse order they were created is the preferred method of excavation and is referred to as stratigraphic area excavation "in plan" as opposed to excavation "in section". Plan and section drawings have an interpretive function as well as being part of the recording system, because the draughts-person makes conscious decisions about what should be included or emphasised.
Archaeological plan
28
Archaeological plan topics

The grid
It is common and good practice on excavations to lay out a grid of 5m squares so as to facilitate planning. This grid is marked out on-site with grid pegs that form the baselines for tapes and other planning tools to aid the drawing of plans. It is also common practice that planning is done for each context on a separate piece of perma-trace that conforms to these 5m grid squares. This is part of the single context recording system (see Fig 1.) The site grid should be tied into a national geomatic database such as the Ordnance survey
Fig 2. edge of context conventions
Planning drawing conventions

Archaeological planners use various symbols to denote characteristics of features and contexts and while conventions vary depending on practitioner, the following are representative:
Pre-excavation and base plans

On sites with little stratigraphic depth, a pre-excavation multi-context plan is sometimes made of all visible features before any excavation is carried out. This helps in planning strategy since problems of stratigraphy on rural sites are minimal as features often cut into the natural minimizing issues of inter-cutting features. Conversely, planning a multi-context urban site is difficult to achieve on a multi-context plan as the features and deposits when planned will obscure each other on the same planning sheet.
Fig 3. Cut planning hachures
Critics of pre-excavation planning

Pre-excavation plans have been critiqued as being of limited use on urban or deeply stratified sites and have also been attacked in professional archaeology where they have been described as a misused tool of the unscrupulous operators to give the impression the archaeological record for a given site has been dealt with adequately. This critical point of view contends, that comparisons between pre and post-excavation plans can demonstrate that a site has not been comprehensively excavated on the basis of a pre-ex plan alone. In many cases there is a pronounced difference between the two phases of planning. Although many features may be visible at ground level following machining, it is often the case that the true limits of features are not so initially discernible until the area of the feature is fully cleaned and subsequently excavated revealing further features and relationships lower in the sequence.
Archaeological plan
29
Further reading
The MoLAS archaeological site manual MoLAS, London 1994. ISBN 0-904818-40-3. Rb 128pp. bl/wh
Dating methodologies in archaeology

Dating material drawn from the archaeological record can be made by a direct study of an artifact or may be deduced by association with materials found in the context the item is drawn from or inferred by its point of discovery in the sequence relative to datable contexts. Dating is carried out mainly post excavation but to support good practice some preliminary dating work called spot dating is usually run in tandem with excavation. Dating is very important in archaeology for constructing models of the past, as it relies on the integrity of datable objects and samples. Many disciplines of archaeological science are concerned with dating evidence.
Dating methods
Absolute methods
Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are: Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications Potassium-argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains Numismatics - many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates [1] Magnetic Properties of Lead used to establish dates. Chemistry Professor Shimon Reich, a specialist in superconductivity, has demonstrated a method for dating artifacts based on the magnetic properties of lead, a material widely used in Israel and elsewhere in antiquity. Reich and coworkers found that at cryogenic temperatures, lead becomes a superconductor, but the corrosion products formed from centuries of exposure to air and water (lead oxide and lead carbonate) do not superconduct. On the basis of magnetic measurements and comparison with artifacts that were known (using other techniques) to be up to 2500 years old, the group showed that the mass of lead corrosion products is directly proportional to an object's age (New Journal of Physics, 2003, 5, 99) Amino acid dating[2][3][4][5] Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian Rehydroxylation dating- for dating ceramic materials[6]
30
Relative methods
Relative or indirect methods tend to use associations built from the archaeological body of knowledge. An example is seriation. Ultimately, relative dating relies on tying into absolute dating with reference to the present. One example of this is dendrochronology which uses a process of tying floating chronologies of tree rings together by cross referencing a body of work. In practice several different dating techniques must be applied in some circumstances, thus dating evidence for much of an archaeological sequence recorded during excavation requires matching information from known absolute or some associated steps, with a careful study of stratigraphic relationships.
Age Equivalent Stratigraphic Markers

Paleomagnetism: the polarity of the Earth changes at a knowable rate. This polarity is stored within rocks; through this the rock can be dated. Tephrochronology: volcanic ash has its own signature for each eruption. In a sedimentary sequence the associated material within the ash layer can be dated, giving a date for the eruption. If this ash is found anywhere else in the world, a date will already be known (bearing in mind transportation time). Oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy: this is based on the climatic stages displayed in SPECMAP relating to different cold and warm stages experienced in deep time; for example, point 5.5 in the SPECMAP chronology describes the peak of the last interglacial 125,000 years ago.
Stratigraphic relationships
Archaeologists investigating a site may wish to date the activity rather than artifacts on site by dating the individual contexts which represents events. Some degree of dating objects by their position in the sequence can be made with known datable elements of the archaeological record or other assumed datable contexts deduced by a regressive form of relative dating which in turn can fix events represented by contexts to some range in time. For example the date of formation of a context which is totally sealed between two datable layers will fall between the dates of the two layers sealing it. However the date of contexts often fall in a range of possibilities so using them to date others is not a straightforward process. Take the hypothetical section fig A. Here we can see 12 contexts, each numbered with a unique context number and whose sequence is represented in the Harris matrix in fig B. 1. A horizontal layer 2. Masonry wall remnant 3. Backfill of the wall construction trench (sometimes called construction cut) 4. A horizontal layer, probably the same as 1 5. Construction cut for wall 2 6. A clay floor abutting wall 2
Fig A
7. Fill of shallow cut 8 8. Shallow pit cut 9. A horizontal layer 10. A horizontal layer, probably the same as 9 11. Natural sterile ground formed before human occupation of the site 12. Trample in the base of cut 5 formed by workmen's boots constructing the structure wall 2 and floor 6 is associated with.
31
If we know the date of context 1 and context 9 we can deduce that context 7, the backfilling of pit 8, occurred sometime after the date for 9 but before the date for 1, and if we recover an assemblage of artifacts from context 7 that occur nowhere else in the sequence, we have isolated them with a reasonable degree of certainty to a discrete range of time. In this instance we can now use the date we have for finds in context 7 to date other sites and sequences. In practice a huge amount of cross referencing with other recorded sequences is required to produce dating series from stratigraphic relationships such as the work in seriation.
Residual and intrusive Finds

One issue in using stratigraphic relationships is that the date of artifacts in a context does not represent the date of the context, but just the earliest date the context could be. If we look at the sequence in fig A we may find that the cut for the construction of wall 2, context 5, has cut through layers 9 and 10 and in doing so has introduced the possibility that artifacts from layers 9 and 10 may be redeposited higher up the sequence in the context representing the backfill of the construction cut, context 3. These artifacts are referred to as "residual" Fig B or "residual finds". It is crucial that dating a context is based on the latest dating evidence drawn from the context. We can also see that if the fill of cut 5 the wall 2, backfill 3 and trample 12 are not removed entirely during excavation because of "undercutting", non-residual artifacts from these later "higher" contexts 2, 3 and 12 could contaminate the excavation of earlier contexts such as 9 and 10 and give false dating information these artifacts may be termed intrusive finds.
References
[1] Eighmy, Jeffery, Sternberg, Robert (editors) (1990). "Archaeomagnetic Dating." (http:/ / www. uapress. arizona. edu/ BOOKS/ bid121. htm). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. . [2] http:/ / arjournals. annualreviews. org/ doi/ abs/ 10. 1146/ annurev. ea. 13. 050185. 001325 [3] Kinetics of amino acid racemization (epimerization) in the dentine of fossil and modern bear teeth Laureano Canoira, Maria-Jess Garca-Martnez, Juan F. Llamas, Jos E. Ortz, Trinidad De Torres International Journal of Chemical Kinetics 35(11):576-591 (2003) [4] ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF AMINO ACID RACEMIZATION (http:/ / www3. interscience. wiley. com/ journal/ 119945201/ abstract) [5] 2008 (http:/ / gsa. confex. com/ gsa/ 2008AM/ finalprogram/ abstract_147285. htm) quote: The results provide a compelling case for applicability of amino acid racemization methods as a tool for evaluating changes in depositional dynamics, sedimentation rates, time-averaging, temporal resolution of the fossil record, and taphonomic overprints across sequence stratigraphic cycles. [6] "Fire And Water Reveal New Archaeological Dating Method" (http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2009/ 05/ 090519214945. htm). Science Daily. May 25, 2009. . Retrieved 2009-05-26. "A team from the University of Manchester and the University of Edinburgh has discovered a new technique which they call 'rehydroxylation dating' that can be used on fired clay ceramics like bricks, tile and pottery."
Literature
M. Jacoby, Chemistry in the Holy Land, Chemical & Engineering News, 5 March 2007, page 20, published by American Chemical Society
Stratigraphy (archaeology)
32
Stratigraphy is a key concept to modern archaeological theory and practice. Modern excavation techniques are based on stratigraphic principles. The concept derives from the geological use of the idea that sedimentation takes place according to uniform principles. When archaeological finds are below the surface of the ground (as is most commonly the case), the identification of the context of each find is vital in enabling the archaeologist to draw conclusions about the site and about the nature and date of its occupation. It is the archaeologist's role to attempt to discover what Neat stratification in Athens (Ceramicus Cemetery). contexts exist and how they came to be created. Archaeological stratification or sequence is the dynamic superimposition of single units of stratigraphy, or contexts. Contexts are single events or actions that leave discrete, detectable traces in the archaeological sequence or stratigraphy. They can be deposits (such as the back-fill of a ditch), structures (such as walls), or "zero thickness surfaciques," better known as "cuts." Cuts represent actions that remove other solid contexts such as fills, deposits, and walls. An example would be a ditch "cut" through earlier deposits. Stratigraphic relationships are the relationships created between contexts in time, representing the chronological order they were created. One example would be a ditch and the back-fill of said ditch. The temporal relationship of "the fill" context to the ditch "cut" context is such that "the fill" occurred later in the sequence; you have to dig a ditch before you can back-fill it. A relationship that is later in the sequence is sometimes referred to as "higher" in the sequence, and a relationship that is earlier, "lower," though this does not refer necessarily to the physical location of the context. It is more useful to think of "higher" as it relates to the context's position in a Harris matrix, a two-dimensional representation of a site's formation in space and time.
Principles or "laws"
The principle of superposition establishes that within a series of layers and interfacial features, as originally created, the upper units of stratification are younger and the lower are older, for each must have been deposited on, or created by the removal of, a pre-existing mass of archaeological stratification. The principle of original horizontality states that any archaeological layer deposited in an unconsolidated form will tend towards a horizontal disposition. Strata which are found with tilted surfaces were so originally deposited, or lie in conformity with the contours of a pre-existing basin of deposition. The principle of lateral continuity states that any archaeological deposit, as originally laid down, will be bounded by the edge of the basin of deposition, or will thin down to a feather edge. Therefore, if any edge of the deposit is exposed in a vertical plane view, a part of its original extent must have been removed by excavation or erosion: its continuity must be sought, or its absence explained. The principle of stratigraphic succession states that any given unit of archaeological stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the undermost of all units which lie above it and the uppermost of all those units which lie below it and with which it has a physical contact, all other superpositional relationships being regarded as redundant.
33
Combining stratigraphic contexts for interpretation

Understanding a site in modern archaeology is a process of grouping single contexts together in ever larger groups by virtue of their relationships. The terminology of these larger clusters varies depending on the practitioner, but the terms interface, sub-group, and group are common. An example of a sub-group could be the three contexts that make up a burial; the grave cut, the body, and the back-filled earth on top of the body. Sub-groups can then be clustered together with other sub-groups by virtue of their stratigraphic relationship to form groups, which in turn form "phases." A sub-group burial could cluster with other sub-group burials to form a cemetery, which in turn could be grouped with a building, such as a church, to produce a "phase". Phase implies a nearly contemporaneous Archaeological horizon, representing "what you would see if you went back to time X".The production of phase interpretations is the first goal of stratigraphic interpretation and excavation.
References
Harris, E. C. (1989) Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, 2nd Edition. Academic Press: London and San Diego. ISBN 0-12-326651-3 A. Carandini, Storie dalla terra. Manuale di scavo archeologico, Torino, Einaudi, 1991
Reverse stratigraphy
Reverse stratigraphy (sometimes known as inverted stratigraphy) is the result of a process whereby one sediment is unearthed by human or natural actions and moved elsewhere, whereby the latest material will be deposited on the bottom of the new sediment, and progressively earlier material will be deposited higher and higher in the stratigraphy. Such events can be triggered by rockslides, treethrows, or other events which cause the strata of a deposit to be flipped or reversed .In Archeological excavations a common cause of inversions in the stratigraphy is the collapse of walls on river banks or other raised Example of how reversed archaeological mounds where deposits which have been cut through behind the wall stratigraphy may form. prior to collapse slip over the collapsed structure resulting in the structure being under the deposits that originated earlier in time. In this case care must be taken to re-context the slipped deposits so the event of slippage appears in the correct place stratigraphically in the Harris matrix. There are numerous process that can reverse the stratigraphy or more accurately redeposit it. Many rely on slope processes, however other instances where deposits containing material later than overlying deposits occur in such features as drains or hypocaust systems. In these instances a clear understanding of the direction of "UP" and site formation processes is essential. Drains or hypocaust systems often have later material deposited within them during their "use", which may be much much later than either their initial construction or indeed the construction, use and disuse of the floors above them.
Archaeological horizon
34
Archaeological horizon
An archaeological horizon is a widely disseminated level of common art and artifacts at an archaeological site or, more usually, over a larger geographic area. It is a distinctive level in that site's or area's archaeological sequence.[1][2] An example of an archaeological horizon is the Dark Earth horizon in England, which separates Roman artifacts from later native artifacts and which indicates the abandonment of urban areas in Roman Britain during the 2nd century. The term is used to denote a series of stratigraphic relationships that form an archaeological phase, or are part of the process of determining the archaeological phases of a site. An archaeological horizon can be understood as a break in contexts formed in the Harris matrix, which denotes a change in epoch on a given site by delineation in time of finds found within contexts. The term 'Archaeological horizon' is sometimes, and somewhat incorrectly, used in place of the term layer or strata.
Notes
[1] Pool, p. 181. [2] Anthony, p. 131.
References
Pool, Christopher A. (2007). Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-78882-3. David W. Anthony (2007). "How to Reconstruct a Dead Culture" (http://books.google.com/ books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA131). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. pp.131. ISBN978-0-691-05887-0. Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Archaeological section
35
In archaeology a section is a view in part of the archaeological sequence showing it in the vertical plane, as a cross section, and thereby illustrating its profile and stratigraphy. This may make it easier to view and interpret as it developed over time.
Half-section through a Saxon pit
Sections
Half-sectioning is the usual method whereby one half of a feature is excavated and the remainder left in situ. Large linear features may be sectioned at intervals along their lengths. Sectioning has fallen out of favour in some schools of practice because detail is often missed in section that is important to the phasing of the site. Examples of detail Stylised section drawing that is revealed poorly "in section" include gravel or thin cobbled surfaces. The main problem with sections is the arbitrary location of their placement may "clip" or "just miss" contexts that reveal a different story form the one interpreted by the archaeologist. For instance thin liner features such as wheel ruts may be sectioned at an oblique angle giving the impression of a wider feature as the eye and brain tends to assume that features revealed in section have been cut at right angles to the orientation the feature was made. Numerous other false readings of sections are possible to the unwary, this is why excavation "in plan" is now preferred. Sections are used in conjunction with two-dimensional excavation by plan to determine the origin of archaeological remains. For recording purposes sections are normally drawn at a scale of 1:10 or 1:20 with their height related to the site benchmark which in turn is related back to a level fixed at some agreed standard of sea level. Orientation should also be recorded. If the section is instructive a photographic record may also be made.
Stratigraphic control
Sections may also be employed in excavation in temporary fashion as a form of stratigraphic control so as to ascertain the relationship between two or more contexts which may be better examined by the use of a section. Then once a relationship is established contexts can be removed from site in the reverse order they arrived in accordance with the stratigraphic excavation and the creation of a Harris matrix for the sequence being investigated. It is up to the archaeologist on site to determine the best local on site strategy for excavating deposits, be it "in section" or "in plan". In this regard the modern archaeologist uses sectioning as a tool for understanding the site stratigraphically during excavation rather than as an end goal in recording it. These caveats aside sections remain a powerful tool for archaeological investigation. A revival of digging in section with machines has occurred in recent years by a proliferation of limited time constrained development led excavations.
36
Quarter sectioning
Sometimes called digging by quadrant this special case is a procedure for excavating circular features , usually mounds and, barrows, Deposits are excavated from four quarters of the feature, starting with two diagonally opposite quadrants and perhaps ending with the other two. The quadrants are slightly offset, so that the outer balk of one is continuous (in reverse) with the outer face of its opposite, going through the center of the feature. After the recording of the sections, the balks may be removed and the rest of the feature excavated. The advantage of quarter sectioning is it allows a look at two complete cross-sections while still allowing excavation in plan thus allowing a better interpretation of the stratigraphy of the site. The merits of this sectioning and balk creation are disputed.
Representation of a barrow excavated by quadrant
References
Archaeological sequence
The archaeological sequence or sequence for short, on a specific archaeological site can be defined on two levels of rigour. 1. Normally it is adequate to equate it to archaeological record. However, the two terms are not exactly interchangeable. The term 'Archaeological record' is broader in its meaning and can be applied to artifacts and other evidence such as Biofacts and Manuports as well as to the stratigraphy of a site. Also, the terms Archaeological sequence and Archaeological stratigraphy are closely related and somewhat interchangeable. These colloquial uses of the term are normal in conversation but: 2. The term 'sequence' when narrowly defined, and used in a serious piece of writing, refers to the stratigraphy of a given site or any discrete part of the archaeological record as revealed by stratification. It is a succession of Archaeological contexts, such that the relationships between them create the sequence chronologically by virtue of their stratigraphic relationships. In other words, the events causing the stratigraphic contexts to be deposited happened one after another, in an order which can be determined from study of the several contexts. It is this sequence of events which is the archaeological sequence.
Archaeological phase
37
Archaeological phase
Archaeological phase and phasing refers to the logical reduction of contexts recorded during excavation to near contemporary archaeological horizons that represent a distinct "phase" of previous land use. These often but not always will be a representation of a former land surface or occupation level and all associated features that were created into or from this point in time. A simplified description of phase would be that" a phase is a view of a given Archaeological site as it would have been at time X". examples of phases that would have no associated occupation surfaces are phases of a site that have been A three phased sequence horizontally truncated by later phases and only elements surviving of the truncated phase are those that were below ground level and the subsequent truncation at that time. Subsequent or earlier Phases are representations in changing occupation patterns and land use use over time. Phase is an extremely important concept in Archeological excavation and post excavation work. Phasing is achieved by compiling smaller groups of contexts together through the use of stratification and stratigraphic excavation into ever larger units of understanding. the terminology of these sub units or collections of contexts varies depending on practitioner but the terms; interface, sub-group, group, and feature are common. Phasing a site has a slightly different meaning to "digging in phase".Digging in phase is the process of stratigraphic removal of archaeological remains so as not to remove contexts that are earlier in time lower in the sequence before other contexts that have a latter physical stratigraphic relationship to them. Digging a site "in phase" is considered good practice and can be thought of as the process of removing the deposits on site in the reverse order they arrived. Phasing is achieved on site by many methods including intuition and experience but the main analytical tool post excavation is the Harris matrix. Phase is sometimes termed differently depending on practitioner, examples include the term period but in the main phase is universal.
Phase, component and focus

A less rigorous term phase is sometimes used to denote a wider period represented by the contexts that lie stratigraphically between two Archaeological horizons representing the start and end of a particular culture typology. Sometimes the term focus or component is used for such a grouping of stratigraphy. An example of this use of Phase would be all the contexts between two horizons may represent the entirety of all Saxon occupation on a given site and could be termed as the Saxon phase of the site. Note however this block of stratigraphy may have many phases within it as defined by the more rigorous definition of phase.
References
Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 40 figs. 1 pl. 136 pp.London & New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0123266505 A quick Guide to Preliminary Phasing. http:/ / ucl. academia. edu/ ReubenThorpe/ Papers/ 189559/ A-Quick-Guide-to-Preliminary-Phasing
Relationship (archaeology)
38
Relationship (archaeology)
An archaeological relationship is the position in space and by implication, in time, of an object or context with respect to another. This is determined, not by linear measurement but by determining the sequence of their deposition - which arrived before the other. The key to this is stratigraphy.
Stratigraphic relationships
Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on. Each event, which may have taken a short or long time to accomplish, leaves a context, a deposit of material, on the site. This deposit and its relationship to earlier contexts may show up in section or in plan when viewed from above.
Relationship examples
When there are hundreds of these relationships, a formal method of keeping track of them is required. An effective method is to prepare a Harris matrix. Their position in the matrix places the contexts in their sequence in time. Provided the archaeologist has maintained a record of the context in which each artefact was found, the tracing of the contexts by the matrix does equally well for the artefacts (objects).
Types of relationship
Terminology in archaeology is not definitive but the following are typical uses of terms: 1. Cuts: A context is said to cut another context if the former's creation removed a part of the latter. For example a ditch cut, cuts all the contexts that made up the ground the ditch was dug into. Reciprocally, a context may be said to be cut by another. 2. Overlies: A context is said to overlie another when the overlying context is later in time and makes physical contact with the earlier context. 3. Above: A context is said to be above another if created later and, in general, vertically above the other context but not necessarily in physical contact. The description holds even when they are not aligned vertically, if one and the same intervening context lies both below the higher and above the lower. 4. Below: A context is said to be below another context if it was created earlier and in general is vertically below the other context but not necessarily in physical contact. The description holds even when they are not aligned vertically, if one and the same intervening context lies both below the higher and above the lower. 5. Butts: A context "butts up to" or "abuts" another context when it was created later and contacts the other but in general does not have a vertical physical relationship "above". An example would be a clay floor laid up to the vertical face of an already existing wall. 6. Contemporary with. a context may be different but formed in the sequence at the same time. an example of this would be a body in a coffin was already in the coffin when the two where fixed in the sequence. arguments concerning that the skeleton went into the coffin afterwards are based on knowledge of what constituted the formation of the sequence offsite. Is the body created at death or birth? anomalies like this show up the limitations of the stratigraphic sequencing of human made deposits 7. Same as. A context upon further investigation may be discovered to the same one another context but assigned different context numbers in error
Relationship (archaeology) A relationship that is later in the sequence is sometimes referred to as "higher" in the sequence and a relationship that is earlier "lower" though the term higher or lower does not itself imply a context needs to be physically higher or lower. It is more useful to think of this higher or lower term as it relates to the contexts position in a Harris matrix which is a two dimensional representation of a sites formation in space and time.
39
References
The MoLAS archaeological site manual MoLAS, London 1994. ISBN 978-0-904818-40-6. Rb 128pp. bl/wh Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 40 figs. 1 pl. 136 pp. London & New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-326651-3
Archaeological context
In archaeology, not only the context (physical location) of a discovery is a significant fact, but the formation of the context is as well. An archaeological context is an event in time which has been preserved in the archaeological record. The cutting of a pit or ditch in the past is a context, whilst the material filling it will be another. Multiple fills, seen as layers in archaeological section would mean multiple contexts. Structural features, natural deposits and inhumations are also contexts. By separating a site into these basic, discrete units, archaeologists are able to create a chronology for activity on a site and describe and interpret it. Artifacts in the main are not treated as contexts but belonging of them. Contexts are sometimes referred to as either positive or negative depending on whether their formation added or removed material from the archaeological record. Negative contexts are cuts. It can not be stressed too strongly how fundamentally important the concept of context is in modern archaeological practice.
Suitability of single context planning

The use of context as discrete units does not necessitate single context recording methodologies but it does facilitate its use and popularity. Single context recording is a system of recording and planning which treats each context on par in the process of excavation. The system of planning creates a superimposable stack of semi transparent plans that can be stacked in stratigraphic order to reconstruct the site as it was excavated.
Context types
Contexts are often recorded by type. There is no standardization but the following are common types: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Deposit: Any soil deposit be it a; layer, dump or fill, surfaces such as gravel roads are deposits Cut: Any feature defined by action of removal of other contexts be it pit, ditch or truncation Skeleton: Any human skeleton remains Coffin: coffin of any description not masonry in nature Masonry: Any masonry structure from steps to walls to stone-lined wells Timber: Any wood not part of a deposit with some function that is not exclusively an artifact
References
Law of superposition
40
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:
Stratigraphic column on north shore of Isfjord, Svalbard, Norway. Since there is no overturning, the rock at the bottom is older than the rock on the top by the Principle of Superposition.
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.
The law was formulated in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.
Development of the Law of Superposition

While discussing the origins of mountains in The Book of Healing in 1027, Avicenna first outlined the principle of the superposition of strata as follows:
It is also possible that the sea may have happened to flow little by little over the land consisting of both plain and mountain, and then have ebbed away from it. ... It is possible that each time the land was exposed by the ebbing of the sea a layer was left, since we see that some mountains appear to have been piled up layer by layer, and it is therefore likely that the clay from which they were formed was itself at one time arranged in layers. One layer was formed first, then at a different period, a further was formed and piled, upon the first, and so on. Over each layer there spread a substance of different material, which formed a partition between it and the next layer; but when petrification took place something occurred to the partition which caused it to break up and disintegrate from between the layers (possibly referring to unconformity). ... As to the beginning of the sea, its clay is either sedimentary or primeval, the latter not being sedimentary. It is probable that [1] the sedimentary clay was formed by the disintegration of the strata of mountains. Such is the formation of mountains.
Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this
Law of superposition horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later. There are exceptions to this case, because sediments may be deposited on slopes or gradients. These may be steep, locally, and can be up to several degrees. Nevertheless, the principle is essentially true. Steno stated another, more general principle in this way:
41
If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface.
In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape. Steno was able to show by this reasoning that fossils and crystals must have solidified before the host rock that contains them was formed. If a "tongue stone" had grown within a rock, it would have been distorted by the surrounding rock, in much the same way that a tree root is distorted by growing into a crack in the earth. Instead, the "tongue stone" must have been buried in soft sediments which hardened later. Veins (mineral-filled cracks) and many crystals, on the other hand, must have formed after the surrounding rock was a solid, because they often did show irregularities of form caused by having to conform to the surrounding solid rock. Finally, in the case of strata, layers on top of a set of strata conform to the shape of lower layers and, therefore, in a set of strata the youngest layers must be those of the top layer, and the oldest must lie on the bottom. This is because the youngest layer was deposited after the oldest layers, which determines their place in the layers. Since the oldest was deposited first it is on the bottom and vice versa. From Steno's observation that rock strata form when particles fall out of suspension in a fluid, it then follows that the youngest stratum is on the top of a sequence. However, this principle also applies to other types of rocks that do not form with water, such as volcanic rocks which spread on older flows, by flow banding. Steno realized that other geological processes could create apparent exceptions to his laws of superposition and horizontality . He reasoned that the formation of caves might remove part of a lower layer, and that the collapse of a cave might transport large pieces of an upper layer downwards. He recognized that rocks might be uplifted by subterranean forces. Geologists now recognize that tilting, folding, and faulting may also complicate the analysis of a stratigraphic sequence. Molten rock may force its way through surrounding rocks and may sometimes squeeze between older rock layers, also forming an exception to Steno's law. However, such anomalies leave physical evidence in the disturbed rocks; for example, faulted rock layers may be cracked, broken, or metamorphosed along the fault lines. Steno's law is a statement of relative time, not absolute time: two rock layers, in principle, could form millions of years apart, or days apart.
42
Application of the law of superposition

Steno himself saw no difficulty in attributing the formation of most rocks to the flood mentioned in the Bible. However, he noticed that, of the two major rock types in the Apennine Mountains near Florence, Italy, the lower layers had no fossils, while the upper ones were rich in fossils. He suggested that the upper layers had formed in the flood, after the creation of life, while the lower ones had formed before life had existed. This was the first use of geology to try to distinguish different time periods in the Earth's history an approach that would develop spectacularly in the work of later scientists.
Thrust faults were unknown to Steno and his contemporaries and were not described until the late 19th Century and early 20th century by Peach and Horne at Knockan Crag, Scotland, on the Moine Thrust Fault. Thrust faults can cause confusion with the Law of Superposition because they occur parallel to bedding and can be difficult to detect, thus creating situations where inexplicably, older strata can overlay younger. When combined with the related principle of faunal succession, the law of superposition provides a very powerful tool for dating rocks and strata.
The Permian through Jurassic stratigraphy of the Colorado Plateau area of southeastern Utah is a great example of both Original Horozontality and the Law of Superposition. These strata make up much of the famous prominent rock formations in widely spaced protected areas such as Capitol Reef National Park and Canyonlands National Park. From top to bottom: Rounded tan domes of the Navajo Sandstone, layered red Kayenta Formation, cliff-forming, vertically jointed, red Wingate Sandstone, slope-forming, purplish Chinle Formation, layered, lighter-red Moenkopi Formation, and white, layered Cutler Formation sandstone. Picture from Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Utah.
Superposition as modified by archaeological considerations

Superposition in archaeology and especially in stratification use during excavation is slightly different as the processes involved in laying down archaeological strata are somewhat different from geological processes. Man made intrusions and activity in the archaeological record need not form chronologically from top to bottom or be deformed from the horizontal as natural strata are by equivalent processes. Some archaeological strata (often termed as contexts or layers) are created by undercutting previous strata. An example would be that the silt backfill of an underground drain would form some time after the ground immediately above it. Other examples of non vertical superposition would be modifications to standing structures such as the creation of new doors and windows in a wall. Superposition in archaeology requires a degree of interpretation to correctly identify chronological sequences and in this sense superposition in archaeology is more dynamic and multi- dimensional.
43
Notes, links and references

Notes
[1] Quoted in The contribution of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to the development of the Earth Sciences (http:/ / www. muslimheritage. com/ uploads/ ibnsina. pdf), among other sources
References
Hamblin, W.K. The Earth's Dynamic Systems, A Textbook in Physical Geology, by W. Kenneth Hamblin, BYU, Provo, UT, Illus. William L. Chesser, Dennis Tasa, (Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota), c 1978, pg. 115, "The Principle of Superposition and Original Horizontality;" pg. 116: The Principle of Faunal Succession, "The Principle of Crosscutting Relations;" pg 116-17: "The Principle of Inclusion," (as in the Steno discussion above). Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 40 figs. 1 pl. 136 pp.London & New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-326650-5
Harris matrix
The Harris matrix is a tool used to depict the temporal succession of archaeological contexts and thus the sequence of deposition on a 'dry land' archaeological site. The matrix reflects the relative position and stratigraphic contacts of observable stratigraphic units, or contexts. The Matrix was developed in 1974 in Winchester, England, by Dr. Edward C. Harris. However the concept of creating seriation diagrams of archaeological strata based on the physical relationship between strata had had some currency in Winchester and other urban centres in England prior to Harris's formalisation. One of the results of Harris's work was the realisation that sites had to be excavated stratigraphically, in the reverse order to that in which it was created, without the use of arbitrary measures of stratification such as spits or planums. Harris first articulated (In Principles of archaeological stratigraphy) the need for each unit of stratification to have its own graphic representation, usually in the form of a measured plan. In articulating the laws of archaeological stratigraphy and developing a system in which to simply and graphically demonstrate the sequence of deposition or truncation on a site, it has been argued that Harris has followed in the footsteps of the truly great stratigraphic archaeologists such as Wheeler, without necessarily being a great excavator himself. Harris's work was a vital pre-cursor to the development of single context planning by the Museum of London and also the development of land use diagrams, all facets of a suite of archaeological recording tools and techniques developed in the UK which allow indepth analysis of complex archaeological data sets, usually from urban excavations.
Harris matrix
44
Harris's Laws of Archaeological Stratigraphy

The law of superposition In a series of layers and interfacial features, as originally created, the upper units of stratification are younger and the lower are older, for each must have been deposited on, or created by the removal of, a pre-existing mass of archaeological stratification. Law of Original Horizontal Any archaeological layer deposited in an unconsolidated form will tend towards a horizontal disposition. Strata which are found with tilted surfaces were so originally deposited, or lie in conformity with the contours of a pre-existing basin of deposition. Any archaeological deposit, as originally laid down, will be bounded by the edge of the basin of deposition, or will thin down to a feather edge. Therefore, if any edge of the deposit is exposed in a vertical plane view, a part of its original extent must have been removed by excavation or erosion: its continuity must be sought, or its absence explained. Law of Stratigraphic Succession
Harris matrix of an urban sequence.
Any given unit of archaeological stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the undermost of all units which lie above it and the uppermost of all those units which lie below it and with which it has a physical contact, all other superpositional relationships being regarded as redundant. These laws were published in 1979. A fifth law of archaeological stratigraphy has also been added following papers presented at the "Interpreting Stratigraphy a Review of the Art" conferences [1] in the UK from 1992 - 2003.
Harris matrix in use

In constructing a matrix, the latest contexts sit on top of the matrix and the earliest at the bottom with the lines that link them together representing direct stratigraphic contact (though note that though all stratigraphic relationships are physical, not all physical relationships are stratigraphic). The matrix thus demonstrates the temporal relationship between any two units of archaeological Stratification. While excavating, it is best practice to compile the area and site stratigraphic matrices during the progress of an excavation through reference to both the drawn and written record. Regular daily checking of the record and the compilation of the matrix itself both help inform the individual archaeologist on the physical processes of site formation and highlight any areas where dubious relationships such as H relationships or loops in the recorded sequence may occur. Loops are sequences in the matrix that produce temporal anomalies so that the earliest context in a sequence of context appears to be later than the latest context by virtue of errors in excavation or recording. Urban archaeological sites are complex affairs, often generating thousands of units of archaeological stratigraphy (contexts) It is of even more vital importance when excavating such sites to compile the matrix as the excavation progresses. Such sites by definition produce multi-linear sequences of succession and to date the best way to get a handle of these sequences is to compile the matrix by hand based on the drawings and the context sheets. This ensures an internally consistent record and that the complexity of the site is given due regard. Computer programmes do exist which can aid the production of a matrix, though at the moment these tend towards articulating linear sequences rather than multi-linear sequences. The Harris matrix is a tool that aids the accurate and consistent excavation of a site and articulates complex sequences in a clear and understandable way. Harris matrices play an invaluable role in the articulation of sequence and provide the building blocks from which higher order units of stratigraphically related events can be constructed.
Harris matrix
45
Example of the Harris matrix
Take this hypothetical section as an example of matrix formation. Here there are twelve contexts, each numbered thus: 1. A horizontal layer 2. Masonry wall remnant 3. Backfill of the wall construction cut (sometimes called construction trench) 4. A horizontal layer, probably the same as 1 5. Construction cut for wall 2 6. A clay floor abutting wall 2 7. Fill of shallow cut 8 8. Shallow pit cut 9. A horizontal layer 10. A horizontal layer, probably the same as 9 11. Natural sterile ground formed before human occupation of the site 12. Trample in the base of cut 5 formed by workmen's boots constructing the structure wall 2 and floor 6 is associated with. The order in which these events occurred and the reverse order they should have been excavated with would be demonstrated by the following Harris matrix
Harris matrix The completed matrix
46
The later a context's formation is, the higher it is in the matrix, and conversely the earlier it is, the lower. Relationships between contexts are recorded in the sequence of formation, so even though wall 2 is physically higher than other contexts in section, its position in the matrix is immediately under backfill 3 and below floor 6. This is because the formation of the backfill and floor happened later. also note the matrix splits into two parts below the construction cut 5. This is because the relationships across the section have been destroyed by the cutting of construction cut 5 and even if it is likely that layers 1 and 4 are probably the same deposit the information can not be guaranteed if the only information we had was this section. However the position of cut 5 and natural layer 11 "ties" the matrix together above and below the split in the matrix. Interpretation Starting at the bottom the order events occurred in this section is revealed by the matrix as follows. Natural ground formation 11 was followed by the laying down of layers 9 and 10 which "probably" occurred as the same event. Then a shallow pit 8 was cut and then back filled with 7. This pit feature in turn was "sealed" by the laying down of layer 1 which is probably the same event as layer 4. Following this a major change in land use occurs as construction cut 5 is dug and immediately followed by trample off the feet of people 12 working in the construction cut 5 who then build wall 2 after which they backfill excess space between the wall 2 and cut 5 with backfill 3. Finally clay floor 6 is laid down to the right of wall 2 over backfill 3 indicating a probable interior surface. The nature of archaeological investigation and the subjective nature of all human experience means that a degree of interpretive activity obviously occurs during the process of excavation, the Harris matrix itself however serves to provide a check on observable quantifiable physical phenomena and relies on the excavator understanding which way in the sequence is 'up' and the ability of the excavator to excavate and record honestly, accurately and stratigraphically. The process of excavation destroys the context and requires the excavator to be able and willing to make informed (by experience and where necessary collaboration) decisions about which context(s) lay at the top of the sequence. As long as undercutting is not endemic, in practice onsite errors in judgment should become evident especially if temporary sections are kept for stratigraphic control in areas of a site that are hard to discern. However archaeological sections, while being useful and valuable only ever present a slice, a caricature, of a sequence often underrepresenting its complexity. The use of archaeological sections when dealing with stratigraphic complexity is limited and their use should be context sensitive rather than as a running arbiter of sequence.
Harris matrix
47
Carver matrix
Professor Martin Carver of the University of York has also developed a seriation diagram, known as the Carver matrix (Not to be confused with the military term also named CARVER matrix). This diagram, which is based on the Harris matrix is designed to represent the time lapse in use of recognizable archaeological entities such as floors and pits. Like Ed Harris he used contexts numbered and defined on site as the basic elements of the sequence, but he added higher order groupings ("feature" and "structure") to increase the interpretive power. Several other people such as Norman Hammond looked to develop similar systems in the 1980s and 90s
External links
Adrian Chadwick - Archaeology at the Edge of Chaos - Further Towards Reflexive Excavation Methodologies [2] R. Thorpe - Which Way is Up? Context Formation & Transformation: The Life and Deaths of a Hot Bath in Beirut [3] Free download of Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy [4]
Matrix builder programs

Harris Matrix Composer - produces checked,true harris matrix [5] Arched [6] Stratify - Check and Layout of Stratigraphic Data [7] Proleg MatrixBuilder [8]
References
The MoLAS archaeological site manual MoLAS, London 1994. ISBN 0-904818-40-3. Rb 128pp. bl/wh Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 40 figs. 1 pl. 136 pp.London & New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0123266513 Harris, Edward C.; Brown III, Marley R.; & Brown, Gregory, J. (eds.) (1993). Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-326445-6. Roskams, Steve (Ed.) (2000). Interpreting Stratigraphy. Papers presented to the Interpreting Stratigraphy Conferences 1993-1997. BAR International Series 910. ISBN 1-84171-210-8.
References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] http:/ / www. york. ac. uk/ depts/ arch/ strat/ http:/ / www. assemblage. group. shef. ac. uk/ 3/ 3chad. htm http:/ / www. assemblage. group. shef. ac. uk/ 4/ 4rxt. html http:/ / www. harrismatrix. com/ http:/ / www. harrismatrixcomposer. com/ http:/ / www. ads. tuwien. ac. at/ arched/ http:/ / www. stratify. org/ http:/ / www. proleg. com/ pmatrixbuilder. htm
Archaeological association
48
Archaeological association
Association in archaeology has more than one meaning.
Finds and objects

Associated finds or objects refers to a close relationship between two or more objects. Associated objects that can be proved to have been deposited at the same time, through being in the same context, form a genuine or close association. Objects that can only be theorised as being deposited together, either because they were not excavated properly, their excavation records are lost or because they come from different contexts that are in stratigraphically definable phases or groups in association with the original context, are said to be in open association. Finds in association are known as an assemblage and are much more useful than individual ones as greater precision can be assigned to their function, date and provenance.
Contexts and features

Associated contexts are contexts that are shown by virtue of stratigraphic relationships to be near contemporaneous. An example would be a wall context and its associated floor context. This association would bring about the construction in interpretation of phase where associated contexts are shown to be part of the same period of occupation. In the case of the wall and the floor we can say that the floor was in use at the same time the wall was standing. Associations of contexts can be far more complex and tricky to establish. Interpretive tools such as the Harris matrix and stratification are instrumental in deducing the associations of contexts on site and by deduction the function of archaeological remains.
References
Trial trenching
49
Trial trenching
Trial trenching is a rapid and inexpensive method of archaeological evaluation used to estimate the archaeological potential of a site. Trenches are located at intervals across a site leaving the rest untouched. A mechanical excavator is used to dig down to archaeological features or natural geological deposits and any archaeology is recorded. No further excavation takes place at this stage. The results of the trial trenching are used to inform any future stage of work which may extend to full excavation of the rest of the site if the evaluation reveals significant finds.
Archaeological trial trenches
There is some argument over the sampling strategy to be employed in trial trenching, especially in evaluating sites that are intended for development. Issues such as the effectiveness of certain trench layouts or the percentage of the site to be dug (normally around 5% at present) are widely discussed. Whether an effective picture of past human activity on a site can be truly estimated through this methods is widely debated. Development can destroy buried archaeology forever and a reliable evaluation methodology is very important. Whilst it is difficult to quantify the number of false negative results there have certainly been examples of evaluations suggesting a relatively limited amount of past activity which has had to be upwardly revised during the excavation. In the UK the results of the trial trenching will be used to inform the decision on the need for any further archaeological work to be undertaken prior to development. This process is enshrined in PPG 16 and English Heritage's Management of Archaeological Projects colloquially known as MAP 2.
Cut (archaeology)
50
Cut (archaeology)
In Archaeology and archaeological stratification a cut or truncation is a context that represents a moment in time when other archaeological deposits were removed for the creation of some feature such as a ditch or pit. In laymans terms a cut can be thought of a hole that was dug in the past, though cut also applies to other parts of the archaeological record such as horizontal truncations like terraced ground. A cut context is sometimes referred to as a "negative context" as opposed to a "positive context". The term denotes that a cut has removed material from the archaeological record or natural at the time of its creation as Fig 1. Saxon pit half sectioned opposed to a positive context which adds material to the archaeological record. A cut has zero thickness and no material properties of its own and is defined by the limits of other contexts. Cuts are seen in the record by virtue of the difference between the material it was cut through and the material that back fills it. This difference is seen as an "edge" by the archaeologists on site. This is shown in the picture above (Fig 1.), where a half sectioned Saxon pit has had half its backfill removed and we can clearly see a difference between the ground the pit was cut into and the material originally filling the pit . Sometimes these differences are not clear and an archaeologist must rely on experience and insight to discover cuts.
Re-cuts
Re-cuts are cuts made within the confines or near confines of other cuts, often to regain the function of the original cut or harvest material from the original fill. Re-cuts are considered quite valuable as a source of information because they can shed insight on function and attitude over time. An example of re-cutting would be a roadside ditch being re-cut and emptied of silt and detritus as a form of maintenance. Conversely, a roadside ditch that is never re-cut gives a certain impression about the attitude towards the investment in infrastructure the road represents. Re-cuts by their nature are hard to discern because the re-cut can truncate the original cut in part and be completely in the confines of the original fill in other parts. They can even be absent from the record. Cutting is the reason why not all past activity on a site leaves traces of its existence in the sequence
Photographer takes a record shot of a horse burial in a Roman ditch re-cut
Cut (archaeology)
51
Hypothetical ditch re-cuts shown in section

Fig 2 shows how a ditch re-cut with at least two re-cuts may appear when viewed in section. It is possible that numerous other re-cuts took place and were truncated out of the archaeological record by one or more of the re-cuts that has survived.
References
Fig 2
Fill (archaeology)
In archaeology a fill is the material that has accumulated or has been deposited into a cut feature such as ditch or pit of some kind of a later date than the feature itself.[1] Fills are an important part of the archaeological record as their formation and composition can throw light on many aspects of archaeological study.
Primary fills
Primary fill like so many other terms in archaeology can have several different but allied meanings. Used singularly it denotes the context that first appears in the sequence after the context representing the cut it "fills". In many cases this will be a silt or naturally accumulating material that forms in the base of some hole or trench before its function is realized. For example a medieval rubbish pit which may be open for some time before rubbish is placed in it allowing natural processes to silt up the base, but the interpretation may mark the end of a cut feature's use. For example a ditch that silts up by neglect, could represent the start of the end of the features function in the record. Secondary and subsequent fills all form above the primary fill. Primary Fills used in the plural tends to denote all the fills within a feature that are sealed by layer(s) possibly representing a change in phase or function.
Slumping
Slumping is a process that can occur to any context in the archaeological record and not just fills. slumping represents how a context's deposition morphology may deform from its original position by natural settling action. This is readily apparent with fills which have a tendency to settle radically over time. This settling is termed slumping and has a bearing on the excavation of cut features. As fills slump the overlying layers which seal the feature will slump in Fig 1. Pit fills and slumping layers sympathy creating false impressions of fills below the lip of the cut and introduce the possibility of contaminated dating evidence into the features excavation. (See archaeological section in fig 1). also the degree of slumping of the primary fills compared to the slumping of overlying sealing layers is a possible measure of time differences between the formation of the fills the overlying sequence. These is because sealing layers laid down over a slumping feature with the intent of leveling the area for a specific purpose such as construction will either conform to the slumped fills as though the
Fill (archaeology) slump has occurred at the time of the sealing layers formation. Or the sealing layers will not take into account the slumping because the slumping is yet to occur. This can lead to sympathetic slumping up the sequence of other features including later structures.
52
Tip lines
Tip lines are an intrinsic characteristic of fills but it is a term that can apply to many other types of context such as dumps. Tip lines are the angles which the contexts form as an indicator of action in the past. As fills of a feature form stratigraphically, the direction off the horizontal by which they form may give us information. For example a ditch that has fills all angled, so one side of each fill is higher on a specific side of the ditch, would suggest that the ditch was backfilled from the side Fig 2 Theorized embankment deduced from tip where the fills were highest. (See archaeological section in fig 2). This lines can be circumstantial evidence for features or detail not preserved in the archaeological record. This reading of a fills deposition morphology is an example of why deposits and contexts are important discoveries in themselves independent of whether they represent structures or contain artifacts.
References
[1] " fill (http:/ / oed. com/ search?searchType=dictionary& q=fill)". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 3rd ed. 2001.
Single context recording

Single context recording was initially developed by Ed Harris and Patrick Ottaway in 1976, from a suggestion by Lawrence Keene. It was further developed by the Department of Urban Archaeology (Museum of London) from where it was then exported, in the mid 1980s by Pete Clarke to the Scottish Urban Archaeological Trust and Nick Pearson to the York Archaeological Trust. It has become a popular system of recording and planning being used in many countries in Europe and in Lebanon, it is especially suited to the complexities of deep, typically urban, archaeology. Each excavated context is given a unique "context number" and is recorded by type on a context sheet and perhaps being drawn on a plan and/or a section. Depending on time constraints and importance contexts may also be photographed, but in this case a grouping of contexts and their associations are the purpose of the photography. Finds from each context are bagged and labelled with Typical context sheets their context number and site code for later cross reference work carried out post excavation. The height above sea level of pertinent points on a context, such as the top and bottom of a wall are taken and added to plans sections and context sheets. Heights are recorded with a dumpy level or total station by relation to the site temporary benchmark (abbr. T.B.M). Samples of deposits from contexts are sometimes also taken, for later environmental analysis or for scientific dating.
53
The single context recording system in practice

Contexts being excavated are recorded on context sheets which vary in style depending on practitioner but in general share characteristics. Most will have sections for composition of soils or profiles for cuts. it is common practice to have special sheets available to record contexts denoted by; masonry, timber and skeletons listing the many variables that are of interest to the archaeologists both onsite and post excavation. A plan is also made that conforms to grid squares (usually setup as a 5m grid).
Revealing the sequence

Single context recording of a stratigraphically excavated sequence evolves into an overlay of planned contexts that build a Harris matrix during excavation. (see Stratification (archeology) and Harris matrix) This is demonstrated in the gallery below of a hypothetical and abstract 5 step sequence of contexts. The excavation starts with the planning and removal of a deposit in step 1 and continues down through a sequence of 4 cut features. Note how only the stratigraphic relationships build into the matrix as the excavation progresses rather than all the physical relationships. (For planning convention styles see archaeological plan)
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
In reality the process is more complex and involves many more contexts for the series of features shown in the diagram. This is because the contexts representing the fills have been omitted for simplicity and the matrix shown is more akin to a Carver matrix (Not to be confused with the military term also named CARVER matrix).
Critics of single context recording

Critics of single context recording point out that it encourages a lazy attitude towards attempts to phase the site while excavation is in progress and diminshes the incentative for archaeologists to interpret what they are digging beyond the boundaries of the context being excavated rather than trying to understand it using the entire area of the site for insight. It is argued this lack of interpretation leads to thoughtless use of the law of superposition creating chronological anomalies from features and contexts of a tunneling nature such as drain backfills, buried waterfront tiebacks or natural processes. Counter critics argue that while this is a possibility no archaeologist needs to be transfixed by the recording system if they are faced with a stratigraphic conundrum and deviation from a pure single context recording regime is not a sin moreover single context recording is not an excuse for not attempting to view the site as a whole during excavation.
54
External links
Adrian Chadwick - Archaeology at the Edge of Chaos: Further Towards Reflexive Excavation Methodologies [2]
References
Post-excavation analysis
In archaeology once the archaeological record of given site has been excavated, or collected from surface surveys, it is necessary to gain as much data as possible and organize it into a coherent body of information. This process is known as post-excavation analysis, and is normally the most time-consuming part of the archaeological investigation. It is not uncommon for the final excavation reports on major sites to take years to be published. At its most basic, the artifacts found are cleaned, catalogued and compared to published collections, in order to classify them typologically and to identify other sites with similar artifact assemblages. However, a much more comprehensive range of analytical techniques are available through archaeological science, meaning that artifacts can be dated and their compositions examined. The bones, plants and pollen collected from a site can all be analysed (using the techniques of zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, and palynology), while any texts can usually be deciphered. It must be understood, of course, that this is at best a simplistic definition of a complex set of processes. These techniques frequently provide information that would not otherwise be known and therefore contribute greatly to the understanding of a site.
Post-excavation analysis of the stratigraphic sequence

Since the end of World War II there has been a growing understanding and consensus that good practice treats all the deposits and layers of the site representing a history of activity as discoveries of importance on par with artifact and structures. One task of post excavation work will be to examine this recorded sequence of deposits and contexts by stratigraphic analysis aided by the sites' Harris matrix. This role is usually undertaken by the senior archaeologist who was in charge of the site as his anecdotal knowledge is invaluable to interpret the information and help logically phase contexts into patterns of changing land use. To support this task a different matrix may be created "post Post excavation stratigraphic analysis ex" called a plan matrix by overlaying Single context plans. This plan matrix is often compared to the harris context matrix for discrepancies and insights. During this process other post excavation disciplines will be brought to bear on the constantly refining model of the sequence to test its validity, mainly using dating evidence cross referenced with a phased model of the site. The goal at this stage is produce a solid dependable body of data and identify areas of the sequence that are less understood of have a higher degree of error so poorly supported or false conclusions are not drawn from unreliable data. Once this is achieved to a satisfactory level this model is available to support other disciplines concerned with information and artifacts gathered during excavation.
55
Finds analysis
To process a find depends on what the find is; there are many types of material to analyse, these can include organic materials such as plants and animals. Or could be artifacts such as ceramics or metals. The techniques for analysing can also range extremely depending on what the find is. For plant remains the find can fall into 2 sections, microscopic e.g. pollen and macroscopic e.g. large timbers. Pollen is found within soil sampling or cores taken, these are studied by a Post excavation bone washing Palynologist. Pollen found is individual for each plant speicies and so can be used to identify the plant types around at the period found, this can be applied to archaeology due to many things such as mans uses for plants, e.g. food, decoration - imprints in pottery. This can be seen in the study of Lindow Man within his stomach remains there was pollen found. Pollen is mostly found in the bottom of waterlogged ditches. The pollen found is counted and drawn into a Pollen Diagram. Other microscopic finds include Diatoms and Phytoliths. Macroscopic remains range from the smallest seeds to large timbers, and they generally only survive in anaerobic conditions, however carbonised wood and seeds will also survive; these are wood and seeds that are burnt. Seeds are generally only burnt by accident, which has been studied at Butser Ancient Farm project, who discovered spelt and emmer wheat used at the period studied (Iron Age), which were identified by the study of carbonised seeds. Timber remains only survive in anaerobic conditions, however there are several examples such as Seahenge, the Sweet track and Flag Fen, there is also many shipwrecks such as Mary Rose and Ulu Burun. A large timber remain can show many things it can identify the species of wood, exotic examples could indicate trade, and others could identify climate change, they can show the tools used in axemarks which can indicate technology. The remains can also show woodland management, such as the understanding of properties of different tree species, which were selected for different uses like in the Sweet track, they also controlled the growth of trees with techniques such as coppicing and Pollarding. The main way of dating timbers is Dendrochronology which is one of the most accurate dating methods. It works on annual growth of trees. However, this means that it will only work on sensitive trees which are affected by moisture and temperature, this method will also only go back until 5000B.C. and a minimum of 50 tree rings are needed so it will not work on small wooden artifacts. Also it only gives a 'felling date' and so will not indicate the date of a structure as wood is left to dry after being felled. Animal remains can be used to study how humans used animals in their time, whether a Haulage animal, seen in wear on shoulder bones, or a hunted animal, seen in impact points and cause of death. It shows mans diet, status, technology and periods of settlement, it may also be an indicator of ritual such as feasting or sacrifice. The NISP can be found along with an MNI when studying bone assemblages. From the study of animals alongside humans, the bone profiles can be studied, to show hunting strategies. A natural herds profile can be seen in a catastrophic kill, where the whole herd is killed at once, such as stampeding off of a cliff. When studying animal remains as an indicator of mans diet, careful considerations must be taken, such as the meat carrying capacity, e.g. if a cow gives us 5 times more meat than a sheep than the cows importance is greater than sheep even if the number found is less. Also Beast Year Ratio must be considered, as some animals take longer to rear before being butchered.
56
Following excavation all the artifacts recovered must be cleaned and catalogued in some archive. this work involves disciplines form archaeological science and conservation techniques.
Washed human skeletons stacked in temperature controlled drying room
Wheeler-Kenyon method
The Wheeler -Kenyon method is a method of archaeological excavation. The technique draws its origins from Mortimer Wheeler's work at Verulamium (1930-35), and was later refined by Kathleen Kenyon during her excavations at Jericho (1952-58). The Wheeler-Kenyon system involves digging within a series of 5x5 meter squares set within a larger grid. This leaves a (1 meter wide) freestanding wall of earth--known as a "balk"--on each side of a unit. These vertical slices of earth allow archaeologists to compare the exact provenance of a found object or feature to adjacent layers of earth ("strata"). During Kenyon's excavations at Jericho, this technique helped discern the long and complicated occupational history of the site. It was believed that this approach allowed more precise stratigraphic observations than earlier "horizontal exposure" techniques which relied on architectural and ceramic analysis. There are several problems associated with the Wheeler-Kenyon Method. First, this stratigraphic dating technique can only be applied to a site that has formed in identifiable layers; this criterion excludes many sites in North America. It also cannot be used on large-scale projects, and leaves no opportunity for re-excavation by future archaeologists using improved techniques.
Wheeler-Kenyon method
57
Sources
Joseph A. Callaway, "Dame Kathleen Kenyon 1906-1978," The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 42, No. 2. (Spring, 1979), pp. 122-125. jstor.org [1] online.vkrp.org [2]
References
[1] http:/ / links. jstor. org/ sici?sici=0006-0895%28197921%2942%3A2%3C122%3ADKK1%3E2. 0. CO%3B2-5 [2] http:/ / online. vkrp. org/ module_45. htm
Archaeological site
An archaeological site is a place (or group of physical sites) in which evidence of past activity is preserved (either prehistoric or historic or contemporary), and which has been, or may be, investigated using the discipline of archaeology and represents a part of the archaeological record. Beyond this, the definition and geographical extent of a 'site' can vary widely, depending on the period studied and the theoretical approach of the archaeologist. It is almost invariably difficult to delimit a site. It is sometimes taken to indicate a settlement of some sort although the archaeologist must also define the limits of human activity around the settlement. Any episode of deposition such as a hoard or burial can form a site as well. Development-led archaeology undertaken as cultural resources management has the disadvantage (or the benefit) of having its sites defined by the limits of the intended development. Even in this case however, in describing and interpreting the site, the archaeologist will have to look outside the boundaries of the building site.
Monte Albn, a Zapotec civilizationZapotec site in Oaxaca, Mexico
Traditionally, sites are distinguished by the presence of both artifacts and features. Common features include the remains of hearths and houses. Ecofacts, biological materials (such as bones, scales, and even feces) that are the result of human activity but are not deliberately modified, are also common at many archaeological sites. In the cases of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic eras, a mere scatter of flint flakes will also constitute a site worthy of study. Different archaeologists may see an ancient town, and its nearby cemetery as being two different sites, or as being part of the same wider site. The precepts of landscape archaeology attempt to see each discrete unit of human activity in the context of the wider environment, further distorting the concept of the site as a demarcated area. Furthermore, geoarchaeologists or environmental archaeologists would also consider a sequence of natural geological or organic deposition, in the absence of human activity, to constitute a site worthy of study. Archaeological sites usually form through human-related processes but can be subject to natural, post-depositional factors. Cultural remnants which have been buried by sediments are in many environments more likely to be preserved than exposed cultural remnants. Natural actions resulting in sediment being deposited include alluvial (water-related) or aeolian (wind-related) natural processes. In jungles and other areas of lush plant growth, decomposed vegetative sediment can result in layers of soil deposited over remains. Colluviation, the burial of a site by sediments moved by gravity (called hillwash) can also happen at sites on slopes. Human activities (both
Archaeological site deliberate and incidental) also often bury sites. It is common in many cultures for newer structures to be built atop the remains of older ones. Urban archaeology has developed especially to deal with these sorts of site. Many sites are the subject of ongoing excavation or investigation. Note the difference between archaeological sites and archaeological discoveries.
58
External links
the Archaeological Conservation Group of Icon, the Institute of Conservation (UK Professional body) [1] Tambomachay Archaeological Site (360 view) Cusco Peru [2] Archaeological site of Pol, Mexico, nowadays known as Xcaret [3]
Further reading
Dunnell, Robert C., and William S. Dancey, 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:267-287. M.B. Schiffer, ed.
Archeological site of Silves Castle
References
[1] http:/ / www. icon. org. uk/ index. php?option=com_content& task=view& id=109& Itemid= [2] http:/ / www. panorammer. com/ panoramas/ 5_tambomachay_f. php [3] http:/ / www. xcaret. com/ Culture/ Arquelogics_Vestigies. html
Article Sources and Contributors
59

Excavation (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480149587 Contributors: 2D, ASchoenhofer, Aaron Brenneman, Adamsan, Akerans, Allmightyduck, Archaeology-excavations, Archaeologydigs, ArchyFantasies, Athaenara, Bender235, Betacommand, Betterusername, Bluefiberoptics, Brothercadfael, Buster2058, CBA11, CJLL Wright, CambridgeBayWeather, ChiLlBeserker, Chris Kutler, Chris the speller, Chrissy385, Clarityfiend, ClovisPt, Daniel C. Boyer, Darbino, Deb, DeniRost, DerHexer, Deucalionite, Dougweller, Edward, Erianna, Eric, Evil Monkey, Finalnight, Fluoronaut, Gadfium, Gaius Cornelius, Grumpy444grumpy, Gscshoyru, Hadal, Hanay, Ixfd64, J.delanoy, JMCC1, Jalo, JeremyA, JesseW, John of Reading, Jwillbur, Kalogeropoulos, Kelisi, Kevinalewis, Lotje, MER-C, Madman2001, Maj. Gen. Stanley, Mario modesto, Mattisse, Mididoctors, Midnightblueowl, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mkscholastic, MrOllie, Mxn, Napoleanboots, Nev1, Noctibus, NuclearWarfare, Omegatron, Orks1a2da, Orlady, Oxonhutch, PFHLai, Penfold, Peterlewis, PhaseDMA, RJP, S.kapfer, Sankalpdravid, Sgt Pinback, Sittingduck123, Sky Attacker, Splash, Stealth cat, Stegop, Tangerines, Thomas Wozniak, TomTheHand, Tommy Kronkvist, Uncle Milty, UninvitedCompany, Vipinhari, Wavelength, WikHead, Wimt, Woohookitty, Yak, 136 anonymous edits Archaeological field survey Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=481235948 Contributors: 58boultbee, ActivExpression, Adamsan, Alai, AvicAWB, Chris Kutler, Chris the speller, Cnyborg, Dlrohrer2003, Dreadstar, Erianna, Gaius Cornelius, InverseHypercube, Jitka J, Jumping cheese, Mboverload, Mephistophelian, Mereda, Michael Hardy, Mididoctors, Midnightblueowl, Moglucy, MrOllie, Parkwells, Psycler, Rattus, Reg porter, Reigen, Rjm at sleepers, Samtheboy, SchreiberBike, Scientizzle, Siyajkak, Squids and Chips, StuffOfInterest, Tangerines, Tapatio, TheSockofAges, Uoeia, Viktorlillsunde, 42 anonymous edits Archaeological record Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=487284050 Contributors: Ahoerstemeier, Betterusername, Dmw9101, Headbomb, Heljqfy, Joey Roe, Mididoctors, Moglucy, Old Moonraker, Reedy, Sgt Pinback, Squids and Chips, Viv Hamilton, 12 anonymous edits Geophysical survey (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=487304310 Contributors: Adamsan, Alan West, Aplennevaux, Aschmidt1, Bergsten, Billlion, Blimin Genius, CommonsDelinker, Copysan, Digfarenough, ElenaKhakimova, Garion96, Hdynes, Headbomb, HolgerK, Hunterd, Immo trinks, JOATLIGUY, Jiang, JonHarder, Kevinalewis, Lambiam, Mididoctors, Mikenorton, Northernhenge, Paleorthid, Penfold, Quuxplusone, Rjm at sleepers, Rjwilmsi, RockMagnetist, Rwizard, SDS MT, Sam Hocevar, Scientizzle, Smack, Tapatio, Titoxd, TwoOneTwo, Underneath-it-All, Vsmith, WriterHound, 42 anonymous edits Magnetic survey (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=455078036 Contributors: Auntof6, Awickert, Dthomsen8, RockMagnetist, Sophus Bie, Tapatio, Wavelength, 2 anonymous edits Metal detector Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=488990746 Contributors: 417RelicHunters, 777niceweather777, A876, Abmac, Adamsan, AgentPeppermint, Akton Pest control, Alan West, Alanl, Alansohn, AlexeyV, Andonic, Anonymous Dissident, Art-top, Ascidian, Astronaut, Auric, AvicAWB, Ballesc1982, Banzoo, Barryap, Benjaburns, Benspigel, Bernzweig, Bewildebeast, Billlion, Biruitorul, Bobo192, Bornhj, Brando26000, Brettid, Carlosguitar, Charles Matthews, CheMechanical, Claygate, CoJaBo, Corpx, Cutler, DJ Sturm, Dalf, Daniella Ferrari, Danielx, Dareid25, David Richtman, David in Madison, Deconstructhis, Den fjttrade ankan, Deville, Djosh101kart, Doc9871, DrBob, Drahcir, Easytreasure, Ebyabe, Edward, Esrever, Extramural, FCStaehle, Flibbert, Fubar Obfusco, Garybrun, Geologyguy, Geronimo2103, Gilletter, Gioto, Glenn, GraemeL, Gsmgm, Haikupoet, Halfblue, HarryHenryGebel, Honza chodec, Hooperbloob, Iain1917, Icairns, Imn25, Iridescent, Isotope23, J.delanoy, JFBurton, Jackfork, Jiang, JimBobUSA, Jnfrdoe, John of Reading, Johnbod, Joie de Vivre, Jok2000, Jonathan Oldenbuck, Joshua Weiss, Jstewart1991, Judenovak, Julesd, Jurohi, Kbh3rd, Kiwi128, Kmccoy, Konman72, Kuralyov, Kuru, Kwertii, Landon1980, LeSenechal, Lhlibrarian16, LinDrug, LinguistAtLarge, Listowy, M.grabens, Mark.murphy, Martial Law, Marysunshine, Masterpjz9, Matt Deres, Matt Gies, Mauls, Maximus Rex, Mephistophelian, Mfield, Mieciu K, Minghong, Morfal, Mpakmopucm, MrOllie, Mrix2000, Neko-chan, Nev1, NickdelaG, Ninjacat5, Nuttycoconut, Ohnoitsjamie, Oldwest, Oliverdl, Olli Niemitalo, Op47, Optimist on the run, Patrick, Pernambuko, Philip Trueman, Pichote, PierreAbbat, RHaworth, RadicalBender, Rasmus Faber, Readams, Reno Chris, Rich257, Ronk01, Rsalars, Saga City, Salvio giuliano, Sameboat, Samurai-lupin, Sarah, ScAvenger, Scientific29, Scope creep, Scott Illini, Seven of Nine, Siska eswara, Slinga, Slyguy, Snowmanradio, Some guy, Sophia, Special-T, Srleffler, Steve Welton, Stwalkerster, Superm401, Tangentier, Tapatio, Testmaennchen, The Thing That Should Not Be, The undertow, Thehelpfulone, Themfromspace, Thumperward, Timbo007, Tony Myers, Toyokuni3, TransUtopian, TrevorHill0001, Trevoraustin51, Trusilver, TruthInEvidence, UninvitedCompany, VMS Mosaic, Vegaswikian, Versus22, Vsmith, Wayne Slam, Webstrand, West.andrew.g, Witan, Wknight94, Wtshymanski, X!, Zero Gravitas, , 394 anonymous edits Strip map and sample Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=405605013 Contributors: Adamsan, Grutness, J04n, Katharineamy, Kathleen.wright5, Mdd, Mididoctors, Pissant, SimonP Archaeological plan Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=487065409 Contributors: Alansohn, AnAj, Dekimasu, Derek farn, Deville, Enki H., Ian Pitchford, Kalogeropoulos, Mdd, Mididoctors, Moglucy, Paul Gelderd, Peter Horn, Sbwoodside, Squids and Chips, The Transhumanist (AWB), TheSockofAges, Thisisbossi, 9 anonymous edits Dating methodologies in archaeology Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=484586095 Contributors: Ankit Maity, AntonBreusov, Aunt Entropy, Dale.tersey, Dave.Dunford, DennisIsMe, Dentren, Eubulides, Extransit, Fortdj33, Gabriel Kielland, Harizotoh9, J04n, Jchok00, LilHelpa, Meanos, Mididoctors, Moreschi, Numbo3, Nurg, Pinethicket, Raymondwinn, RichardMcCoy, Skapur, Stevenmitchell, TriNotch, UtherSRG, Uvainio, Viv Hamilton, YTS275, Yamara, 35 anonymous edits Stratigraphy (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=481412273 Contributors: AbcXyz, Adamsan, Aggelophoros, CaryK, Ellipi, Grumpy444grumpy, Llywrch, Lotje, Michael Hardy, Mididoctors, PatHadley, PaterMcFly, Richard Jones-Nerzic, Rmashhadi, SimonP, Viv Hamilton, Vsmith, Xaverius, Yamara, 17 anonymous edits Reverse stratigraphy Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=367328242 Contributors: Colonies Chris, Deucalionite, J04n, Lukeiscool, Mididoctors, NatureA16, Pdcook, Richhoncho, 4 anonymous edits Archaeological horizon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=472508440 Contributors: Gaius Cornelius, Home Row Keysplurge, Madman2001, MangoWong, Mididoctors, Parkwells, Petri Krohn, RJP, Squids and Chips, Tainter, 3 anonymous edits Archaeological section Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=369142883 Contributors: Adamsan, Bobo192, CJLL Wright, CarolGray, Deucalionite, Discospinster, Hanay, Jeff3000, JeremyA, Kalogeropoulos, Ludraman, Mididoctors, Moglucy, Penfold, Safalra, Squids and Chips, W!B:, 9 anonymous edits Archaeological sequence Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=331972532 Contributors: Ahoerstemeier, Epolk, Heron, Home Row Keysplurge, Mididoctors, Petri Krohn, RJP, Sander123, Squids and Chips Archaeological phase Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=456193787 Contributors: Ekotkie, John of Reading, Mididoctors, Petri Krohn, Phatom87, Squids and Chips, 2 anonymous edits Relationship (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=472772918 Contributors: Bporopat, Chris the speller, Deucalionite, John Vandenberg, Mididoctors, RJP, Viv Hamilton Archaeological context Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=469532014 Contributors: Fusion7, Mididoctors, Midnightblueowl, Possum, R'n'B, Tainter, 7 anonymous edits Law of superposition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=486755833 Contributors: 243pieman, Adamsan, Andres, Antandrus, Autodidactyl, Bartledan, Bernard Marx, Blueberryyyy, Bluezy, Boothy443, BrianKnez, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Clarityfiend, Crohnie, Daniel G. Armittod, Dethme0w, Dialectric, Dr.K., Droll, Fabartus, Fawcett5, Geoz, Greeneto, Grumpy444grumpy, Hadal, Hrafn, Iridescent, J04n, J8079s, Jagged 85, Jay1279, Junglecat, Katoa, Keilana, Knowledge Seeker, KnowledgeOfSelf, LeaveSleaves, Lights, Luna Santin, MER-C, Marek69, Mdotley, Meaghan, Michael Hardy, Mididoctors, Mikenorton, Mmcannis, MrFish, Mwtoews, OllieFury, Pdcook, Pieter1, Pkumar.iitkgp, Qfl247, QuasiAbstract, Qxz, Rayc, Rjwilmsi, Robert1947, Rolinator, Rory096, Sahands, ScottyBerg, Sgt Pinback, Smack, Snowolf, Sonett72, Stormwriter, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheSockofAges, Thingg, Tommy2010, Vanished user 03, Viv Hamilton, Vojtech.dostal, Vrenator, Vsmith, Wayne Slam, Wildmutt124, Williamborg, Wilson44691, Wimt, Yamara, Zamphuor, 150 , anonymous edits Harris matrix Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=486730427 Contributors: 09kendrickj, Adamsan, Andrewpmk, Archy33, Blastfromthepast, Cadillac, Closedmouth, CommonsDelinker, David Kernow, Deucalionite, Deville, Dougweller, Ekotkie, Ely69cot, Esemono, Gaius Cornelius, Grif, Grumpy444grumpy, Hooperbloob, J04n, JeremyA, Joseph Solis in Australia, Khazar2, LokiClock, Mididoctors, Pdcook, Remuel, Rykan, Tyranny Sue, Viv Hamilton, WOSlinker, 33 anonymous edits Archaeological association Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=483251180 Contributors: Adamsan, Carrieaki, Deucalionite, Gaius Cornelius, Ludraman, Mididoctors, Penfold, Squids and Chips, Tainter, 3 anonymous edits Trial trenching Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=397291589 Contributors: Adamsan, J04n, Lindsay658, Mididoctors, Penfold, Siyajkak

Cut (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=477223676 Contributors: Colonies Chris, John of Reading, Mididoctors, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mpiva, The Transhumanist (AWB), TheSockofAges, Uppland, 4 anonymous edits Fill (archaeology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=482751802 Contributors: CJLL Wright, GoingBatty, Hut 8.5, Mididoctors, Richard Keatinge, Stifle, TheSockofAges, 1 anonymous edits Single context recording Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=391858306 Contributors: Deucalionite, Esemono, Gonzonoir, J04n, Mididoctors, PigFlu Oink, RXT, 6 anonymous edits Post-excavation analysis Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=481631225 Contributors: Chrislikespie, Dcsmith, Euchiasmus, Fortdj33, Gaius Cornelius, Haruth, J04n, JaGa, JamesAM, Kwamikagami, Michael Devore, Mididoctors, Midnightblueowl, Moglucy, NameIsRon, Nathancraig, Noq, R. S. Shaw, Rich Farmbrough, Wizardofhowley, Zeno Gantner, 9 anonymous edits Wheeler-Kenyon method Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=469226711 Contributors: Avihu, D6, Fieldday-sunday, Sbluen, Stevenmitchell, TheMadBaron, 7 anonymous edits Archaeological site Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=486850410 Contributors: .marc., Adamsan, Aitias, Altenmann, Anonymous editor, Betacommand, Betterusername, BioPupil, Danny lost, Dbachmann, Dmitri Lytov, Efkeathley, EikwaR, Emijrp, Fjpaffen, Hbent, Infrogmation, JohnOwens, Joy, Juan Cruz, Kalogeropoulos, Kelovy, Knuckles, Koppas, Koven.rm, Like tears in rain, Little Mountain 5, Lockeownzj00, Locutus Borg, Look2See1, Lusitana, Matt Deres, Mididoctors, Miniapolis, NSR, Nsaa, Oaxaca dan, Octahedron80, Omnis7, Orion Minor, Penfold, Pschemp, R'n'B, Rebel, Romuald Wrblewski, SchfiftyThree, Sjc, Stormwriter, Tomcool, Wavelength, Weeliljimmy, Wiglaf, Wik, Youngamerican, Zoicon5, , 42 anonymous edits
60
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
61
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Dolina-Pano-3.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dolina-Pano-3.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Mario Modesto Mata Image:SantaAnaCave.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SantaAnaCave.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Mario Modesto Mata Image:Roman horse.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roman_horse.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Bullenwchter, Head, Mididoctors, Olybrius, Pieter Kuiper, Pitke, Thib Phil, 1 anonymous edits Image:Romano celtic temple004.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Romano_celtic_temple004.png License: Public Domain Contributors: mididoctors Image:Romano celtic temple003.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Romano_celtic_temple003.png License: Public Domain Contributors: mididoctors Image:Late roman pit.PNG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Late_roman_pit.PNG License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:Aphrodisias-res.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aphrodisias-res.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was Tapatio at en.wikipedia Image:EMsurvey.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EMsurvey.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Tapatio Image:3030-mag.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:3030-mag.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:SreeBot Image:radarsurvey.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Radarsurvey.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Lradrama, Tapatio, Timichal, 1 anonymous edits File:Mag survey g858grad.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mag_survey_g858grad.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Tapatio Image:Metal Detector.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Metal_Detector.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: en:RadicalBender Image:SD2100.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SD2100.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Oldwest Image:Stringer156 nugget.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stringer156_nugget.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was Reno Chris at en.wikipedia Image:Flughafenkontrolle.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flughafenkontrolle.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Art-top, BLueFiSH.as, Bapho, Cherubino, Edward, JuergenL, MB-one, Ralf Roletschek, Voyager Image:Plan archaeological.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Plan_archaeological.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Context planning.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Context_planning.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Cut conventions.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cut_conventions.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Harris section example.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harris_section_example.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Mididoctors Image:Harris matrix example.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harris_matrix_example.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Mididoctors File:1555 - Keramikos archaeological area, Athens - Stratigraphy - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, Nov 12 2009.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1555_-_Keramikos_archaeological_area,_Athens_-_Stratigraphy_-_Photo_by_Giovanni_Dall'Orto,_Nov_12_2009.jpg License: Attribution Contributors: Giovanni Dall'Orto Image:Reversed strat.001.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Reversed_strat.001.png License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:Pitsection.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pitsection.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Adamsan at en.wikipedia Image:Quadrant.001.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Quadrant.001.png License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:Phase.001.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phase.001.png License: Public Domain Contributors: boris Image:Relationshipstrat.001.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Relationshipstrat.001.png License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:IsfjordenSuperposition.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:IsfjordenSuperposition.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Wilson44691 Image:SEUtahStrat.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SEUtahStrat.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Qfl247 (talk) (Transferred by Citypeek/Original uploaded by Qfl247) Image:Brucesmatrix.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Brucesmatrix.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own work Image:Trialtrenches.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Trialtrenches.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Adamsan, Siyajkak Image:Maggie and horse.PNG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maggie_and_horse.PNG License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:Recutditch.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Recutditch.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Slumppit.002.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Slumppit.002.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Ditchfills.001.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ditchfills.001.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Context sheets.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Context_sheets.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:Singlecr001.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Singlecr001.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Singlecr002.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Singlecr002.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Singlecr003.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Singlecr003.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Singlecr004.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Singlecr004.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Singlecr005.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Singlecr005.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own Image:Postexmatrix.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Postexmatrix.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own work Image:Washingskul.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Washingskul.png License: Public Domain Contributors: own work Image:Bone drying room.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bone_drying_room.png License: Public Domain Contributors: me Image:Monte Albn archeological site, Oaxaca.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Monte_Albn_archeological_site,_Oaxaca.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Generic Contributors: Haylli, PMG, Petrusbarbygere, Ultratomio, 1 anonymous edits Image:Castelo Silves 2.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Castelo_Silves_2.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: User:Lusitana
License
62
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Archaeological Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Methods

Revision Notes for Arch 2

Excavations at the cave of Santa Ana (Cceres, Extremadura, Spain)

Combining stratigraphic contexts for interpretation

Phase and phasing

The single context recording system

Stratigraphic excavation in practice

Slumped top fill revealing edges of a Saxon sunken featured building

Physical methodology of excavation

Common errors in excavation

Finds and artifact retrieval

Archaeological field survey

Archaeological field survey

Research and planning

Previous work in the region

Intrusive vs. non-intrusive surveys

Archaeological field survey

Extensive vs. intensive survey

Purposive vs. sampling survey

Field walk (transects)

Archaeological field survey

Geophysical survey (archaeology)

Geophysical survey (archaeology)

Geophysical survey (archaeology)

Magnetic survey (archaeology)

Magnetic survey (archaeology)

Magnetic survey of an archaeological site

Terrestrial magnetic surveys

Magnetic gradiometer map of Prehistoric fire-hearths

Marine Magnetic Surveys

Magnetic survey (archaeology)

History and development

New coil designs

A pulse induction metal detector with an array of coils

Industrial metal detectors

Strip map and sample

Archaeological plan topics

Planning drawing conventions

Pre-excavation and base plans

Fig 3. Cut planning hachures

Critics of pre-excavation planning

Dating methodologies in archaeology

Dating methodologies in archaeology

Age Equivalent Stratigraphic Markers

Dating methodologies in archaeology

Residual and intrusive Finds

Combining stratigraphic contexts for interpretation

Half-section through a Saxon pit

Representation of a barrow excavated by quadrant

Phase, component and focus

Suitability of single context planning

Development of the Law of Superposition

Application of the law of superposition

Superposition as modified by archaeological considerations

Notes, links and references

Harris's Laws of Archaeological Stratigraphy

Harris matrix in use

Example of the Harris matrix

Harris matrix The completed matrix

Matrix builder programs

Finds and objects

Contexts and features

Archaeological trial trenches

Photographer takes a record shot of a horse burial in a Roman ditch re-cut