1 - Interfaces in archaeological stratigraphy

Abstract

This chapter discusses the demerits of geological methods—that of Gasche, Tunca, and Stien—that cannot be extended to a majority of archeological sites. The theory underlying those methods cannot be suitably applied to the discipline of archeeological stratigraphy for two fundamental reasons. First, these critics ignore the overriding importance of the interface in archeological stratigraphy. The interface is fundamental to the interpretation of archeological stratification, simply because there are generally more interfaces than deposits on most archeological sites. In recognition of their importance, the Harris matrix directly incorporates them into the reconstruction of the stratigraphic sequence of complex archeological sites, thereby giving the archeologist the ability to distinguish consistently between deposits, their contents, and most importantly, the actions that created them. Second, the specialty of geoarcheology has produced no workable systems for the construction of stratigraphic sequences, as archeology has in the Harris matrix. One cannot imagine how an archeologist could unravel the complex stratification of archeological sites created largely if not exclusively by human action using the geological system proposed by Gasche and Tunca or the deposit approach advocated by Stein.