The interpretation of the stratigraphic material is generally done after the excavation, and it is usually the interpretation which gives rise to raging debates. In general, it is assumed that any archaeologist will have selected the most suitable methodology for the excavation of the site, and thus it is generally viewed as incorrect to criticize the methodology so much as the conclusions which are drawn from it. Regardless, it should be evident that any interpretation can only be based on the stratigraphic evidence, and the quality of that evidence depends upon observation and recording in the field. Usually, any debate about the interpretation of the excavation reflects weaknesses either in the methodology of the excavation or the delay of publication. Usually the delay in publication can be traced back to methodological difficulties during the excavation.
There are thus two fundamentally different aspects of ‘stratigraphy in publications’. The first is the preliminary presentation of the stratigraphy in the publication of an excavation. The second is the discussion of the interpretation of that evidence. This begins with the interpretations presented by the excavator but continues in the academic debate where other scholars exploit the publication for their own purposes.
Publication of Evidence
All of the published material should be based upon observations recorded in the field during the excavations, and thus the observation, recording, and publication are drawn together here.
The interpretation of deposits takes place on several different levels. The lowest level is that of analytical identification and description, separating the units. The following level is that of interpretation. It is only after this analysis and interpretation that chronological, typological, and historical elements should be included.
Analysis In general, the publication of the stratigraphy of an archaeological excavation should consist of (1) sections, (2) plans, (3) descriptions of the deposits, and (4) tables correlating the various elements (either as charts or Harris matrices). The stratigraphic deposits which appear here might include ‘layers’, ‘pits’, ‘walls’, etc. This process should include the presentation of information about, for example, the identification of boundaries of deposits, components, shape of components.
In stratigraphic terms, an effort should be made to distinguish walls, foundation trenches, and floors, etc., so as to facilitate the interpretation of the stratigraphic sequence and to contribute to architectural history. In this context, it is imperative to observe whether or not surfaces were exposed to wind and precipitation (a distinction which will appear as, for example, streets and courtyards as opposed to rooms and halls in the level of interpretation).
In terms of chronology, the key element is to recognize, identify, and follow the most important isochronous lines and to distinguish deposits which may actually be chronologically homogeneous. It is imperative to distinguish between, for example, the isochronous line marking the excavation of a pit which can cut through several layers and the fill of a pit which may represent a very different phenomenon. In certain cases, the fill of a pit might include a tomb or a foundation deposit, but it is more frequently a slow stratified accumulation of rubbish, which itself may be in situ and clearly datable due to sealing by layers above - even though the pit itself is intrusive.
When significant deposits are encountered during excavation, the excavator should be prepared to prepare samples for radiocarbon or micromorphological analysis, etc.
Together, the published material should allow the reader of an excavation report to gain a relatively clear idea of the context of any significant material discussed or presented in the excavation report.
Interpretation There are several levels of interpretation. The most basic involves the classification of the deposits (as, e. g., floors, in situ), and their assignment into bundles of layers (e. g., involving the excavation of foundations of a building, the filling of the foundation trench, the walls, the floors, the collapse debris). Thus, architectural and social history can be followed in an excavation, without any discussion of the artifacts in terms of typological or chronological categories.
Periodization and chronology After the analysis and interpretation of the stratigraphy has been taken as far as possible, it is essential to include the typological characteristics of the objects found in the excavation into consideration. The value of any particular object depends upon its stratigraphic position: a humble easily classifiable potsherd found in situ on a floor or in clearly recognizable collapse has a higher value for the interpretation of the stratigraphy than does a gold coin which was in the fill of a pit that cannot be dated. When the material and sequences are dated by means of the artifacts, it is also possible to return to the stratigraphy to study, for example, architectural and religious practices based upon the stratigraphic evidence (where patterns of movement or methods of construction are recognizable without regard to artifacts) and to assign them a specific historical or chronological identity.
Most of this methodology depends upon defining not only the youngest artifacts in a deposit, but also the character of the deposit itself in stratigraphic terms, before it can be used for chronological purposes. Inversely, the establishment of typologically typical assemblages of artifacts should be based upon clearly identified in situ deposits.
Details
Terminology The terminology used to distinguish the various elements (excavation units, excavation squares, excavation areas, stratigraphic deposits, interpretative units, chronological units, etc.) should be mutually exclusive and easily recognizable. The choice of any specific terminology is not important as the methodology must be stratigraphic; however, it would be useful if archaeologists would agree upon a terminology which facilitated the understanding of excavation reports.
Micromorphology One of the most promising solutions to the challenges of stratigraphic analysis is the micromorphological approach which relies upon the analysis of the components and layering of deposits. The study of the components can permit the student to reconstruct landscapes, recognize seasonal usage, distinguish open spaces from covered ones, and even, in one exceptional case to recognize abandoned buildings left standing.
Stratigraphy in Debate
Debates over stratigraphic analysis take three forms. The most common debates are those over the interpretation of the chronological significance of artifacts and monuments found in different levels (as in the case of Tell el-Dab’a) or over the historical importance of a particular level (such as the date and causes of the destruction level at Hasanlu IV in Iran). The second most common type of discussion revolves around the modification of minor details in a sequence proposed in an excavation report or in a synthetic discussion. The third variety of discussion is that of the polemics over terminology and methodology. It should be evident that until the debate over terminology and methodology has produced some kind of consensus about recording and publication, debates about interpretations of unpublished archaeological levels will continue to flourish, and the underlying problems will continue to fester. Unfortunately, those participating in the debates tend to find themselves isolated from mainstream discussions of archaeological theory (and so the subject rarely appears in discussions of archaeological theory or scientific methods), and thus the most important aspects of stratigraphic analysis have been shunted to a sideline.
Ideally, stratigraphic analysis must be separated from chronological and typological analysis in order for each to occupy its own rightful position in archaeological analysis (see Classification and Typology).
See also: Biblical Archaeology; Classification and Typology; Goals of Archaeology, Overview; Sites:
Formation Processes.
World History
