Are recorded; i. e., usually rooms. Installations or pits inside a locus may or may not receive special loci numbers, depending on the considerations of tlie area supervisor regarding finds, importance, etc. The locus number must be changed witli the removal of any floor, especially if it had contained vessels for restoration. . . . Start immediately with a locus number in any fresh square. With the appearance of walls, this number may be kept for one of the rooms” (Ahar-oni, 1973; pp. 119-120). In tliis instance, loci clearly relate to the “capital S” Strata.
To reduce tire loss of information caused by focusing on the termination of each major architectural phase, Holladay
(1976) proposes using the terms horizon and period to distinguish between material deriving from synchronic widespread desttuctions (e. g., the 587 bce campaign of Nebuchadrezzar) and diachronic materials deriving from multiple-occupancy tombs, midden heaps, stratified fills, and layers of accumulation. Though the proposal provides the language to use in distinguishing among differing sorts of evidence, it did not bear directly on standards of excavation, workup, or publication. To bridge the gap between traditional publishing by Strata and the radically different locus-by-locus mode exemplified in the Jericho materials (Kenyon et al., 1960-1983)—which still uses only an arbitrarily selected subset of the excavated data—Holladay more recently proposed analyzing, on a “small s” basis, tlie sher-dage and other materials from selected columns (e. g., one or more 5-meter squares per excavation area) of close stratigraphic units, coupled with a more traditional approach elsewhere in the excavation. This method would help to move evaluation and reporting from the excessive periodicity of inherited practice toward the reconsU'uction of the small finds and ceramic corpora of individual short periods in intra-Stratum stratigraphy. (For a test case from Gezer, see Holladay, 1993).
New methods, not limited by reference to massive destruction layers, will enable a fuller comparison of typologies of diagnostic sherds. Typological analysis of the formal characteristics of sherds is tlie most useful form of intersite comparison—particularly to determine subcultures within a given culture/region (e. g., Dan to Beersheba, in biblical terms). Such analysis can be complemented by the publication of most of the recorded diagnostic sherds. If the volume of materials is too overwhelming, it would still be possible to employ a statistically valid sampling procedure as a means of selecting materials for workup. An alternative approach offers hope for nonstatistical comparative seriation tlirough the use of “presence” data. Still under development, this approach is based on concepts derived from graph theory as applied to geological stratification, and works directly with closely defined “types,” either of rim form or of whole vessel forms.
[5ee also Locus; Recording Techniques; Stratigraphy; and the biographies ofAharonU Bliss, Fisher, Kenyon, and Lapp.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aharoni, Yohanan, ed. Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, /pSp-rp/j Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973.
American Geological Institute. Dictionary of Geological Terms. Rev. ed. Garden City, N. Y., 1976.
Bliss, Frederick Jones. A Mound of Many Cities, or, Tell el Hesy Excavated. London, 1894.
Dever, William G., and H. Darrell Lance, eds. A Manual of Field Excavation: Flandbook for Field Archaeologists. Cincinnati, 1978.
Dever, William G., et al. Gezer IV: The ig6g-yi Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis." 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1986.
Holladay, John S. “OfSherds and Stmta.." In Magnolia Dei: TheMighty Acts of God; Essays on the Bible and. Archaeology in Memoiy of G. Ernest Wright, edited by Frank Moore Cross et al, pp. 253-293. Garden City, N. Y., 1976.
Holladay, John S. “The Use of Pottery and Other Diagnostic Criteria, from the Solomonic Era to the Divided Kingdom.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, ipgo: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July 1990, edited by Avra-ham Biran and Joseph Aviram, pp. 86-101. Jerusalem, 1993.
Kenyon, Katlileen M., et al. Excavations at Jericho. 5 vols. London, 1960-1983.
Lapp, Paul W. Palestinian Ceramic Chronology, 200 B. C.-A. D. yo. New Haven, ig6i.
Rast, Walter E. Taanach I: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge, Mass., 1978.
Ussishkin, David. “Lachish.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, pp. 114-126. New York, 1992.
John S. Holladay, Jr.
World History
