4.4: 'One-Layer sites'


There is a separate class of sites that need to be discussed here as they involve a whole series of other problems and investigation methods. Here the main evidence takes the form of the three-dimensional patterning of just the artefacts (and ecofacts) 'suspended' in a relatively homogeneous matrix that comprises deposits of geological/ pedological origin and may be a reflection of long-term environmental change. They are sometimes (falsely) called 'one-layer sites'. These mainly concern the archaeology of open-air sites of the Stone Age (cave sites were generally the result of other processes), but can also occur in the archaeology of other earlier prehistoric periods also. 

Here what has happened is that material that was originally lying on a ground surface has sunk into the material under them through natural pedological processes (such as worm-sorting [Link] *** or frost-heaving and other mechanisms). This may be accompanied by accumulation processes, such as aeolian processes (wind deposition). The layers that contain the artefacts are a complex mixture of a matrix that predates the human activity that has been affected by a complex series of processes post-dating the activity(ies).  Their interpretation involves interdisciplinary knowledge mainly related to the natural sciences (geology, pedology, geomorphology and others).

In the excavation of such sites the cross-section of the deposits plays an important role and one of the means by which they are investigated in small trenches excavated in a grid-pattern, allowing ongoing observation of these sections. The surface of the grid square is generally reduced in shallow mechanical spits a few centimetres in thickness and generally level. Finds are individually plotted within each grid and within each spit in three dimensions. The spoil from each trench is usually sieved, as lithic flakes and spalls may be missed, no matter how carefully the holes are excavated. Sometimes there are encountered 'hard' archaeological features, the burnt stone surrounds of a hearth for example and rarely dug features (though in sites from the distant past, their fills are often heavily leached and difficult to spot).

This method is especially frequently used in the US to study open Native American sites, and there are a number of North American excavation manuals (and online resources) that describe it. Sometimes it is presented to the exclusion of other excavation methods and approaches. Some archaeologists have attempted to apply this methodology to other types of sites, though the effects there are often very unsatisfactory. The method has an advantage that it is relatively simple and mechanical. 

Excavation of Late Upper Palaeolithic
flint scatter, Old Windsor (Wessex Archaeology)

Excavation of Late Upper Palaeolithic 
site at Guildford Fire Station (Oxford Archaeology)



Excavation of Late Palaeolithic site at
 the Renaudin Islet, Angoulême SW France
Sometimes such sites may also contain some 'hard' archaeological features such as pavements of stones or hearth remains embedded in the same kind of relatively homogeneous matrix. The determination of the method of formation of such sites needs individual analysis. Certainly such complex entities cannot be called 'one-layer sites'.

Excavation of late Palaeolithic site at Khotylevo 2, Briansk, Russia 
The material plotted out in such excavations can show various activity areas, such as this Late Upper Palaeolithic feature (postulated to have been a 'shrine') represented by concentration of material:
Upper Palaeolithic feature, Banghor in Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh (after Chakrabarti). 

Planigraphy of Upper Palaeolithic site with mammoth remains, Pushkari I, Chernigov oblast, Ukraine (Fig 23) 

Planigraphy of Upper Palaeolithic site with mammoth remains,
 Pushkari I, Chernigov oblast, Ukraine (Fig 20) 


Tamara Kroftova comments:
"Even though these sites may be seen as 'simpler' than multilayer stratified ones, it is clear that to interpret the pattern of artefacts across and within them, one needs to open up a larger area. A small artefact hunter's hole quite simply does not allow any possibility of observing the evidence of pattern, let alone making a meaningful three-dimensional record of it".
Though loose artefacts may be retrieved,
the typical dimensions of an artefact hunter's
hole will prevent observation and recording
of any information (adapted from
a Guildford Fire Station site photo)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

3.3: Archaeological layers

Image
In talking about archaeological context we tend to think of it in terms of being composed of individual layers. These are discrete units of sediment, debris, rock, and other materials that form or accumulate as the result of natural processes, human activity, or both. In order to describe them and indicate their position on a site and in its sequence, these layers are generally numbered sequentially (with the lowest number being that removed first). An individual layer or deposit may be termed (following geological nomenclature) a stratum, and multiple layers are called strata. Therefore the study of their sequence is called stratigraphy (description of what we call the stratification). One of the simplest ways to depict layers is to depict them as a vertical sequence and this is frequently done in the form of a section (or 'profile') through them. Here is an explanation from Michigan State University 'Campus Archaeology' page "Archaeology 101: Reading strati
Read more

9.4: Curation - Access to Information

Image
Many collectors object to archaeologists and conservation professionals criticising the notion of a "private collection", saying that the material in their own personal portable antiquities collection is available to bona fide researchers for study. While this is laudable, it should not be imagined that this is an ideal situation for any researcher. Even if an object has been recorded in a public database like the PAS, t here is no mechanism to follow the movement of objects between various ephemeral private collections after it leaves the collection of the finder. If they are not accompanied by their own documentation, even objects that had been shown to archaeologists and recorded a decade or more earlier are in effect later  totally lost to science. Even if a few decades from now a coin or brooch surfaces anonymously, it will be difficult to relate it to one of the mass of records of similar-looking objects in archived archaeological records.  Many artefacts in private
Read more

9.1: Curating Archaeological Information as a Personal Collection

Image
Antiquities collection Since the archaeological record is finite and fragile, responsible artefact hunters who are removing material and information from it must replace any information destroyed by a permanent and as full as possible documentation. The objects in a responsibly-created private collection should not be held loose, but in a form that allows them easily to be linked back to the documentation of the archaeological interference that produced them. As Ian Longworth (1992, 5) puts it, if the collected objects are to be used to fulfil their potential, then their care becomes a matter of paramount importance. It should be noted that preservation, far from being a passive role, is a task that must be worked at that calls for the use of many resources to turn good intention into reality. To be effective in this task private collections must seek to reach attainable standards and these need to apply to all aspects of the problem - the environmental conditions under whic
Read more