Talk:Stratigraphy (archaeology)

message: I don't know where the anon copied this from, but it is a bunch of essentially meangless jargon to me. If anyone want to interpret it and maybe salvave something readable from it be my guest. Probably need to check for copyvio> 
:Archaeological stratigraphy is the dynamic superimposition of "positive" "protecting" solid volume body entities - "deposits/fills", formed in a single "action" or combination of "site formation" and or "taphonomic" processes and by the "negative"  action of the removal of a "solid body volume", the destruction/demolition/truncation of a deposit which produces "zero thickness surfaciques" - "cuts"  in 4 dimensional space/time. Theses "actions" are called "stratigraphical units" or "contexts". The matter removed during the process of cutting is deposited elsewhere in one or more seperate new deposits. Immediate stratigraphical relationships between "cuts" and "deposits" form "interfaces". Combinations of "interfaces" form a "primary interface" which individually or in combination form a "phase". The chronological superimposition of stratigraphical relationships of an archaeological site is recorded using a Harris Matrix, a type of "flow chart". Archaeological stratigraphy is chronologically positively linear and episodic. Archaeologists use "the single context system" invented by Pete Addyman allied with the Harris Matrix to record 4 dimensional space/time on what is effectively a 2 dimensional piece of paper.
 
Above removed from article. Vsmith 01:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Dating methods are a menas of identifying the age of a context or artifact be it relative or absolute. stratigraphy is about the sequence of events and can be used as a tool in relative dating but is NOT in itself a dating method Boris 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: stratification and all topics directly related to stratigraphy are not dating methods

message: Would anyone strongly object to the changing of this page's name? the spelling used in the page name is inconsistant with the use in the article. I propose using the "ae" spelling as opposed to the current spelling. --Tainter 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page name 

message: I've only just come across this and how unsatisfactory it is. Now I've moved it and (slightly) cleared up the opening paragraph I intend to clear up the rest of it. Feel free to remind me if I forget! PatHadley (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found this image from Harris' book that isn't used on WP!? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stratigraphy-Relationships.jpg PatHadley (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing 

message: The problem with precise, expert-written copy is that it is often obfuscatory, abstruse or entirely opaque. Welcome to "Stratigraphy (architecture)."
The following is not acceptable as an English sentence, argot, scientific accuracy, or not:
The principle of stratigraphic succession states that any given unit of archaeological stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the undermost of all units which lie above it and the uppermost of all those units which lie below it and with which it has a physical contact, all other superpositional relationships being regarded as redundant.
Perhaps this:
The principle of stratigraphic succession states that any layer of archaeological stratification fits into a site's "stratigraphic sequence" based on its position between the layers directly above and below it, and with which it has contact. All other  relationships are regarded as superfluous.
I'm pretty sure that "redundant" is incorrect, given that it means replicative. "Superfluous" means unnecessary, which seems to be the operating principle.
I hope it's more fun in the field than the copy suggests.
All Best,
Dstlascaux (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try this entry in plain English