Someone cuts into that to dig a ditch and drops a bit of pot in bottom of ditch, while doing it.
Let ditch stand open as a field boundary for many years, ditch slowly sags inwards, and silts up from rainfall.
Eventually ditch falls out of use, fills up completely.
Then much later, someone builds a house.
Foundations dug going across the old ditch.
Coin dropped into bottom of foundation trench. Covered by foundations and wall.
Coin and pot at same height. Coin could even be deeper. May even lay within feet of each other laterally. But are in distinguishably different archaeological contexts.
Each provides date evidence for the respective phases.
Where's your problem? Which artefact is not in a securely sealed context?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 5 Nov 2015, at 15:42, John Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, Constantinos Ragazas
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> But how do you systematically "layer solid ground" in the dry open fields without such
>> disturbing and disruptive natural processes? In my view, no archeological
>> site can be said to have a "secure context" based on such stratigraphy.
> The archaeological 'layering' is the primarily the result of man-made
> 'disturbing and distruptive' pocesses.
>> Archeological dates based on stratigraphy does not make sense to me. Though
>> it certainly can provide archeology "secure" dating methodology.
> Doesn't this contradict your paragraph above? Pourquoi?