just in case you'd been wondering (as indeed i have been) just how it's done:
> By the way, I have just been to a conference in Cambridge (Interpreting
> Strat., our 8-year old baby is cicking again) there was someone who works in
> Chtalhuyuk "post-processual"-style. Now I understand what that means: They
> apply contexts in the post-processual frame of mind they know already that
> this is pretty arbirtary and "imperical"; then they take soil samples which
> provide a micro-morphology. Then they realise from the sample results the
> post-processual processes within the record. Then they change the context
> numbers or insert new ones; (then they are quite confused and rearrange the
> sequence, he admitted, which is complicated and takes a long time to sort
> out). All I think would be clear if they worked on two levels: ex and
> post-ex. If they stuck to their ex stratigraphy record they could make an
> overlay according to sampling results. That would be really scientific, two
> approaches compared. Instead of throwing the safty net away they could make
> really nice piroettes in the air afterwards with the micro-results -
> summersolts.
geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]
|