Guide to Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology: Definitions and Principles Hermann Gasche; Onhan Tunca Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 3. (Autumn, 1983), pp. 325-335. ble URL: bttp//links jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-4690% 28 198323% 29 10%3A3%3C325%3AGTACAT%3E2,0.CO%3B2-E Jounal of Field Archaeology is currently published by Boston University ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at butp:/\vww jstor.orglabout/terms.huml. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hp: /\vwwjstor-org/journals/boston html Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ereating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contaet support @jstor.org, hupswwwjstororg/ Wed Nov 22.06:20:11 2006Guide to Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology: Definitions and Principles Hermann Gasche Onhan Tunca Belgian Archaeological Expedition to Iraq Ghent, Belgium Recent developments in archaeological research have highlighted the need 10 build up a Guide to Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology. Its reparation was undertaken by Workshop 2 ("Classification et Terminologie Archéostratigraphiques’') in the context of the International Geological Cor- relation Programme. The paper below is the first version of this Guide proj- ect; itis intended to propose some basic definitions and principles. 1, Introduction! 1.1 Procedure ‘The preparation of a Guide 10 Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology? was undertaken by Workshop 2 in the context of the activities of the “In- temational Geological Correlation Programme. Project 146: River Flood and Lake Level Changes". The objec- tives were defined during a first meeting in Baghdad, Iraq, October 26-30, 1977. Since then, two meetings hhave been held at the University of Ghent in Belgium.? This present “Guide project’ is already being diffused in Europe on as wide a scale as possible. It should allow an increase in the number of those concerned and the collection both of a wide range and a large volume of experience in the field of archaeological stratigraphy*. To further this, a questionnaire has been included at the back of this paper. Itis intended for those who might be willing to offer their cooperation to the final preparation of the Guide. Because of the wide geographical distribution of the investigators, the Workshop has operated and will con- tinue to operate largely by correspondence. Some re- stricted or even extended meetings may, however, be called to examine distinet points. It is to be hoped that all the constituent elements of the Guide will be pub- 1, Words marked with an asterisk(*) are defined in the glossary at the end ofthe paper. 2. Inonder to eliminate ll erminologicl ambiguities, the substantive "archaeoscatigraphy" is used for stratigmphy* related to archaeol ony. 3. CF, Acknowledgments, ine, lished under the aegis of the Workshop, which will un- dertake their diffusion to all those interested, but under the scientific responsibility of each author. As with the final version (should it finally appear), the progressive versions would be thus works of information Kept up to date by the whole of the investigators, 1.2 Some Reasons for Producing an Archaeostratigraphic Guide Recent developments in archaeological research and the continuous increase of associated disciplines have highlighted the need to build up a Guide to Archaeo- stratigraphic Classification and Terminology. It should serve to facilitate and even to stimulate the exchange and. correlation of all information produced from archaeolog- ical sites*, within the framework of all the disciplines involved in their study. Appropriate methodologies have not yet been equally developed in each discipline. The aim of the Guide is to ‘establish a cross-referencing system, which would be as, “objective as possible. This system would attempt to elim- inate the ambiguities brought about by an arbitrary lan- ‘guage that produces premature statements. In order to be effective, precise definitions must be proposed and they must be sufficiently flexible to allow for future devel- ‘opment. ‘The Guide in its present provisional form has two dis- tinct aspects: to propose a method of stratigraphic elas- sification* and a related terminology*. The specific descriptive problems of each type of stratigraphic unit® will not be detailed here (see in particular 2.3.4.) Consequently, the terminology* suggested concerns, strictly speaking, only the stratigraphic approach. To326 Guide 10 Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology/Gasche and Tunca avoid using large numbers of neologisms, it is composed of terms very often borrowed from an empirical didactic vocabulary, which are, of course, subject to revision. Moreover, given the present stage of development of the Guide, it has been decided not to apply the definitions and principles proposed. Given the variety of archaco- logical situations, each study may necessitate a particular strategy. This multiplicity of situations could also ne- ‘essitate the addition of numerous applications drawn up ‘ideally by specialists in each field of study. Later appli- cations may be able to fill this gap and allow, if neces- sary, the readjustment and even the recomposition of the clements of the Guide. Stated simply, it is possible to divide into two the process involved between excavation and publication: re- cording information (i., the work in the field with the teamwork of all the disciplines involved) and the studies, analyses, and interpretations leading from this (e.g., ar- chacostratigraphic classification). A common method- ology is defective notably in the first part of this process. One of the objectives of the Guide is to remedy this defect by defining lithologic units.* ‘At the first meeting of the Workshop, it was decided to use the International Stratigraphic Guide® as a basis for the preparation of an Archaeostratigraphic Guide. It is considered thatthe approach to a geological sediment and to an archaeological one is similar. C. Renfrew sums up this viewpoint in the following way. Geology has always played a major role in archaeological theory and practice. The principle of stratigraphic succes- sion, upon which all archaeological excavation rests, is itself 1 construct of the geologists.® Thus, although the processes of archaeological and ‘geological sedimentation are, generally, subject to dif- ferent causes, and although man is involved much more in the first type of deposition than in the second, it seems that the two processes are subject to similar rules and 4. Most ofthe archaeological deposits have, infact, litho-organic* ‘composition, For reasons of simplicity, we suggest, nevertheless, the term “lthologie, which can be used even shen the deposits have a larg organic composition 5, H. D, Hedberg, ed., International Stratigraphic Guide. A Guide to Sivatigraphic Classification, Terminology. and Procedure (John Wiley-and Sons: New York 1976), from which certain definitions have been borowed, adapted or not to archacosratigraphy, without specific reference being made each time. 6, ©, Renfrew in D. A. Davidson and Myra L. Shackley, eds. Geoarchaeology. Earth Sclence and the Past (Duckworh: London 1976) 2 7, For a different viewpoint, see iner alia EC. Hawis, Principles The presence of either natural* or complex* sediments in an archaeological site* is more frequent than is gen- erally indicated in publications. Where, however, they are mentioned, questions relative to the origins or to the ‘causes governing the laying down of these sediments remain largely unanswered. Nevertheless, the study of these phenomena can lead to an enrichment of the un- derstanding of the palacoenvironment and can produce important information as to the influence of the environ- ment on man's behavior. This example, among many ‘others, shows the necessity for multidisciplinary coop- ration (something generally recognized but relatively litle observed) particularly with the Earth Sciences, Nat- tural Sciences, and the Physico-chemical Sciences. As these sciences function with a more developed méthod- ‘logy than archaeology, a collaboration with them obliges the creation of common conventional language available to all involved. 1.3. Outline and Method 1.3.1 Stratigraphy: the Concept and Its Restrictions Stratigraphy* is etymologically the descriptive science of strata®. AS such, it is only a part of archaeological investigation in general, and of excavation in particular. ‘A fundamental point of stratigraphic methodology consists of dissociating concepts of a different nature. Indeed, the numerous characteristics of an archaeologi cal deposit, whatever they may be, cannot be grouped in either a single or the same category of stratigraphic ‘The lithologic units, for instance, may be established thanks to the different lithologic characteristics of a de- posit; but their limits do not necessarily correspond with those of units definable on the basis of other character- istics, as the beginning and the end of an occupation Phase in a building, or the limits of the presence or absence of definite classes of artefacts in the deposit in question. Thus, the changes in certain characteristics do rot necessarily correspond to the changes observed in others; this is one of the most pertinent reasons for de- veloping as many stratigraphic units* (whether or not these be organized in categories* of units) as there are different characteristics in an archaeological deposit. ‘Among the numerous possibilities those developed here seem the most useful ones: lithologic units, and cate- gories of both chrono- and ethnostratigraphic units (Fi6. ». ‘The Guide should be able to provide a methodological of Archaeological Stratigraphy (Academie Press: London and New ‘York 1979) 3-14CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY Journal of Field ArchaeologyiVol. 10, 1983 327 ETHNOSTRATIGRAPHY p40 the study of topographtoat retest LITHOLOGY the gathentng of artefacts Figure 1. Diagram showing the relations among the different types of stratigraphic unis. framework to archaeological excavations in general. It ‘would then seem legitimate that certain branches of ar- chaeology (prehistory, historical archaeology, archaco- logical research in specific geological or geographic areas, etc.) should use or develop, according to their needs, certain categories* of stratigraphic units, rather than oth- ers. Relations exist among all categories, though they ‘may not be useful and necessary to all types of investi- ation, Notions outside the purely stratigraphic ones are not included in the Guide. For this reason, Periodization and other types of archaeological classification are not con- sidered here. It should be emphasized that the Chronolo- gies, either relative or absolute, are not stratigraphic data The example given by H. D. Hedberg is significant in this respect: a stratigraphic unit* can be compared to a quantity of sand which flows in an hourglass during a certain interval of time. 1 may be said that the duration of the sand flow measures 8 certain interval of time—an hour, for instance—but the sand itself cannot be said to be an hour." 8. HL D. Hedberg, ed. op. ct. (in note 8) 11 1.3.2. Relationship between Stratigraphy and Other Data Going beyond the descriptive stage of stratigraphy* as it is conceived in the Guide, one can try to place stra- tigraphic units* into relationship with such non-stra raphic data as, for example, historical facts*. Non-stratigraphic data can have two sorts of relation- ships with the units. An historical fact*, for example, can characterize either a given unit, or one of the ele- ‘ments contained in the units. Chronological signs or indications, whatever be the ‘methods used (C", thermoluminescence, etc.), also have a relationship with stratigraphic units*, but they cannot bbe considered to be stratigraphic characteristics (see also 13.1), ‘Through these correlations, an additional significance can be given to the envisaged stratigraphic unit. Never- theless, stratigraphy* must remain descriptive and inter- pretations based thereon must not be considered to be ‘characteristics of these units. 2. Lithology (FIG. 2) 2.1. The Term “Lithology” ‘The use of this term in the archaeostratigraphic vo-528 Guide to Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology/Gasche and Tunca horizontal surface represénts that ofa lithologic column, M48. 43nd locus 4, Layer 5, ~, Inclusion 1 cabulary may cause some reservations. It should, how- ever, be pointed out thatthe vast majority ofthe elements constituting an archaeological deposit are rocks*, such as clays, loams, etc.? The fact that these materials may have been displaced or reworked does not change their (On the other hand, itis just these deposits that are removed in an excavation, and itis their lithologic characteristics that inform us as to the causes of their sedimentation, at least in a large number of cases. The use of this term, then, is fully justified; this is not to suggest, however, that the aim of an excavation should be limited to the identification and the delimitation of deposits according to their lithologie characteristies Nevertheless, the identficarion of archaeological depos- its (in the widest sense of the term) constitutes the first analytic step in all operations in the field 21.4. Observation Resulting from the meeting of 26.2.1979 of Workshop 2, the organization of a category* of lithostratigraphic units was abandoned. The principal reason for this is tied to the succession of deposits whose characteristics may certainly be different, but whose repetitive nature clim- inates, for practical purposes, any possibilities of cor- relation from one excavation to another, 2.2. Aim of the Identification of Lithologic Units ‘This identification is necessary in order to: confer as clear and objective an identity as possible ‘on the different deposits that are found in an ar- chacological site*; 9, Cf. Susan Limbrey, Soil Science and Archaeology (Academic res: London and New York 1975) 3-7 Figure 2. Simplified sketch ofa lithologic drawing; not to scale. The i party-wall No. I of the loci 4 and 8; 8.2. = locus 8, Layer 2; 44.1. = locus 4, Layer 4, Subslyer I; ~ facilitate the study of the causes and of the dynamic of sedimentation, erosion, or denudation* and also the sedimentary evolution of a site* or any part of = state exactly the topographical relationships among, the different deposits as well as those between the deposits and the man-made structures*; — permit the separation and the gathering of the arte- facts* contained in each unit, 2.3. The Principal Lithologic Units 2.31. Definition AA ithologie unit is a three-dimensional body charac terized by the generalized presence of a dominant of a Certain lithologic type, or by the combination of two or ‘more of these types, or even by the presence of other particularities that confer on the unit a homogeneous character, ‘Among other particularities, detailed attention should be paid to the structure*, texture, and color of the deposit forming a unit. The units may be composed of anthropic*, natural*, ‘or complex* deposits, 2.3.2. Nomenclature of Lithologie Units ‘The lithologic units in hierarchical order are as follow. Layer the basic unit*; a Layer may be composed. of one or more Sub-layers Sub-layer_lithologic unit that forms a part of a Layer Inclusion smaller lithologic unit that is a part of a Layer or a Sub-layerJournal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 10, 1983 329 w Figure 3. Chronostratgraphic interpretation of Figure 2. The units include the deposits whose sedimentation Ba taken place during a spcifc time interval. The study ofthe phenomena mentioned in 3.3.3 allows the correlation across Stratigraphic ruptures (walls, ditches, etc). The vertical hatchings represent the residual oeeupation floors. Only the Publication of lithologic drawings permits a (limited) checking ofthe chronostatigraphic interpretation. M. 4/8 wall M.4i8, 2; T. 5 = grave No, 5. ‘These units will be written with a capital letter, in ‘order to distinguish them from other common current meanings. Lithologic units are designated by Arabic numerals followed by a dot. They are preceded by the number of. the higher hierarchical unit and by the locus number" If an Inclusion is included in the composition of a Layer, the absence of the Sub-layer is to be indicated by a dash (€.g:9.3.-.1. = locus 9, Layer 3, Inclusion I; see also FIG. 2). Lithologic units are numbered from the top of each lithologic column’. 2.3.3, Extension and Limits of Lithlogie Units The extension of a lithologic unit is entirely dictated by the continuity of its lithologic characteristics Stratigraphic ruptures* are numerous in an excavation; the limits of lithologic units must then be defined within the perimeters of these ruptures (walls, foundations, ditches, etc.). Asa result, there will be as many litholog- ie columns* as there are spaces delimited by the strati- ‘graphic ruptures* As has just been shown above, Sub-layer and Inclu- sion are units in hierarchical relationship with the Layer. ‘The limits of all these units must be plotted at the level of a horizon* resulting from a lithologie change, if pos- sible at the level of contrasting lithologie contacts; but 10. The locus is planimetic division, delimited arbitrarily (walls, ‘t.); one or more lei determine the surface of lihologie column ary-wall No, 1 of the loci 4 and 8; I'd 1 = Set I, Phased, Sub-phase 1: F. 4% foundation ofthe party these may equally be arbitrarily designated inside a zone of lithologic gradation. 2.3.4, Desription of Lithologe Units ‘The units will be described taking into account: = their lithologic content; ~ the structure and texture of this content; = the degree of erosion or denudation* and their ge- ometry, Any description should be made taking into account the different types of sediments peculiar to each field. This procedure implies both mineralogical and sedimen- ‘ological studies, similar to those foreseen for the flu- viatile context of southern Mesopotamia, 2.4. Peculiarities of Lithologic Units Lithologic units are discerned, delimited, and de- scribed by direct observation. They constitute then the ‘most objective possible data that can be recorded in an excavation. They serve as the basis for all the later stages of stratigraphic classification and must consequently be plotted and described in the field with particular care. 3. Chronostratigraphy (1G. 3) 3.1. Definition Chronostratigraphy is a stratigraphic classification in which the units are characterized by their duration and by their temporal relationships.330 Guide 10 Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology/Gasche and Tunca 3.2. Aim of Chronostratigraphic Classification The aim of this classification is the systematic orga- nization of sequences of strata from an archaeological site (or part of it) 3.3. The Principal Chronostratigraphie Units 3A, Definition A chronostratigraphic unit includes one or several strata* whose sedimentation has taken place during a specific time interval (compare FiGS. 2 and 3). 3.3.2. Nomenclature of Chronostratgraphic Units ‘The chronostratigraphic units in hierarchical order are as follow, Set it includes sometimes one, but usually sev- cral Phases Phase basic unit* Subphase subdivision of the Phase For the reasons mentioned in 2.3.2., the chronostrat graphic units will be written with a capital letter. ‘The Sets may be indicated by Roman numerals, the Phases by small letters, and the Sub-phases by Arabic numbers. 3.33, Extension and Limits of Chronostratigraphic Units ‘Theoretically, the limits of a chronostratigraphic unit should be isochronous* surfaces. It is necessary to find, therefore, those whose layout is clear on as large a sur~ face as possible. The localization of isochronous* sur- faces, however, is seldom as easy as would be hoped, and in the field they often have to be extrapolated. As a result, in practice, the limits of a chronostratigraphic unit ‘must be established simultaneously by: = the identifiable isochronous* surfaces; ~ the study of topographical relations between the di ferent lithologic units and the man-made structures*; = the study of the dynamic of sedimentation, erosion cor denudation of the lithologic units; ~ the study of artefacts* contained therein. The limits of a chronostratigraphic unit do not nec essarily cut across those of a lithologic unit or those of a unit belonging to another category of stratigraphic clas- sification, 334, Constitution of Chronostatigraphie Units In a Phase (the basic unit*) will be grouped: ~ the adjacent strata* (either vertically or horizontally) of anthropic* origin. According to the context of each excavation, in chronostratigraphy an attempt would be made to distinguish the anthropic* depos- its whose sedimentation is caused by positive oc- ‘cupation by man (occupation of living floors) or negative occupation by man (fillings, raisings, etc.) N.B. A deposit containing the debris of a ruined or de- stroyed building is to be considered as of anthropic* origin fr of complex* origin, according to whether there is an abandonment, or not, of the place before or after one or other of the phenomena mentioned. Abandonment will be shown by lithologie characteristis. ~ the adjacent strata* (either vertically or horizontally) of natural* origin or complex origin which justifies a subdivision of the Set concerned. In a Set will be grouped: = the Phases whose sedimentation results from a con- tinuous occupation by man. By this kind of sedi- ‘mentation is meant sedimentation during which no indication of prolonged stoppage has been provided by the analyses that have preceded the delimitation of a chronostratigraphic unit; ~ the Phases of natural* or complex* origin. In a Sub-phase would be grouped the adjacent strata* that permit a finer division of the Phase. 3.4. The Notion of Occupation or Living Floor ‘The notion belongs to chronostratigraphy because it depends upon the interpretation of a certain type of lith- ologic deposit. It is, however, often difficult or even impossible to consider an occupation floor (= an iso- chronous® surface, therefore of a very thin depth) as a chronostratigraphic unit, In fact, in most cases, the lay- out of a floor is difficult, if not impossible to locate over a relatively large surface (e.g., stratigraphic rupture*, erosion, denudation*, stoppage in the sedimentation, etc.) Itis to be considered, then, that a Phase or Sub-phase of positive occupation includes the totality of the occu- pation floors (or fragments of floors) whose sedimenta- tion had taken place during the time interval delimited by the Phase or Sub-phase in question. It is also clear that when a floor can be traced over a large surface, it ccan constitute a Sub-phase, or even a Phase (paving of bricks, stones, etc.)."! 11, For an analysis ofthe notion of living floor, see F. Bors, "Sur 1a notion de sol habitat en pehisoie puolhique,” BSPF 72 (1975) 139-148,4, Ethnostratigraphy (FIG. 4) 4.1, The Term “‘Ethnostratigraphy’ 4 |. Definition Ethnostratigraphy is a stratigraphic classification whose units are characterized by their contents of anthropic or- igin, ie., by artefacts. 1.2. Observation This term has been formed from the class of words such as “‘ethnolinguistics, ethnobotany, ethnomineral- ogy. . .”” which are used both in linguistics and eth- nology." As is the case with these disciplines, the term hhas no ethnic connotation or even a cultural one; it is 12. CF. J. Poitier et a., Ethnologie générale. Encyclopédie de la Pleiade 24 (Gallimard: Paris 1968) 1740, 1767, Figure 4. Theotei in etnostatigraphy” Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 10, 1983 331 introduced to underline the link that exists between man and ethnostratigraphic units. 4a ‘Bases of Ethnostratigraphy In theory, it can be admitted that the deposit of every ethnostratigraphic unit took place during a given time interval and during the presence of a human group that produced the artefacts* contained in the unit. This pro- cess may be represented in the following way. Human group —> Artefacts C- Ethnostratigraphic unit This diagram shows clearly the limits of ethnostrati- ‘graphic classification. That a human group produced ar- tefacts® is undeniable; that these artefacts® were localized in stratified deposits is provable by observation; to or- ganize the deposits in ethnostratigraphic units on the ba- sis of the artefacts they contain is theoretically possible, since one can classify the “*containers"* (i.e., the depos- its) taking into account their contents (i.c., the arte- facts*). But, a priori, the human group is not characterized by the ethnostratigraphic unit. How a unit can be rep- resentative of a given human group has to be shown, for example, by means of explicit indications that have to be inferred from the artefacts ‘The exploitation of artefacts in ethnostratigraphic clas- sification depends on their division into classes. It is these classes that, by their presence or absence, char- acterize the ethnostratigraphic units. Insofar as its characteristics are known and definable, any artefact* found in its stratigraphic context can be taken into consideration. The delimitation of this context is a problem inherent in an excavation and must, fur- thermore, be validated by the sheer volume of the ob- servations in the field. Prudence, however, is necessary in evaluating, given the wide range of possible interfer~ cence, the length of usage of certain objects observable in any archaeological context, and also the limitations of ‘our methods of excavation.1™ 4.2. Aim of Ethnostratigraphic Classification The aim of ethnostratigraphic classification is to or- ‘ganize the sequences of strata® in units characterized by their artefacts* and thus to establish definite correlations between deposits interrupted by stratigraphic ruptures* and, especially, by stratigraphic gaps" 13. CE. F. Bordes, op. ct. in note 11); Francine Davi, etal, “AP- proche d'un niveau archéologique en sédiment homogene,”” in Lhomme, hier et aujourd hui. Recueil études en hommage dA. Lerot-Gourhan (Cojas: Pats 1973) 65-72332 Guide to Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology/Gasche and Tunca 4.3. The Principal Ethnostratigraphic Units 4.31. Definition ‘An ethnostratigraphie unit comprises the lithologic units containing definite classes* of artefacts whose separate identity has been assumed respectively. In the case of complicated stratigraphies*, one can take into account, should the case arise, the position of lithologic units envisaged in their chronostratigraphic classification. But in order to render later verification possible, the ethnostratigraphic units should be consi cred to be constituted exclusively of lithologic units (cf. 2.4.) 4.3.2. Nomenclature of Ethnostratigraphic Us ‘The ethnostratigraphic units in hierarchical order are as follow. Supra-zone can contain one or more Zones Zone basic unit* Sub-zone subdivision of a Zone ‘They can also be denominated Supra-cthnozone, Eth- nozone and Sub-ethnozone, when itis necessary to spec ify, clearly, that they belong to ethnostratigraphy. For the reasons stated in 2.3.2., these units will be written with a capital letter. ‘The units should be specified by numbers or letters, by adjectives or nouns. 4.3.3. Extension and Limits of Ethnostratigraphic Units In fixing the limits of each unit, one must take into account the distribution of the definite classes* of arte- facts that have been utilized to characterize the unit Every unit has spatiotemporal limits, but without being provided, a priori, with cultural or chronological signit= ‘The limits of an ethnostratigraphic unit do not neces- sarily cut across the limits of a unit from another cate- ‘gory of stratigraphic classification. 4.34. Constttion of Ethnostratigraphie Unlts ‘The classifier begins with a registration and as com- plete as possible an examination of the artefacts con- tained in each lithologic unit. All the lithologic units that ccan be characterized with the same classes of artefacts are then regrouped in the same ethnostratigraphic unit. In practice, the classifier might run up against prob- lems associated essentially with the complex nature of archaeological sedimentation, such as stratigraphic in- terferences, reworked strata*, displacement of arte- facts*, etc. The choice of the artefacts* that characterize each unit and that distinguish it from the adjacent units depend on their relevance. This can be determined em- pirically by successive approximations or by statistical procedures and verified by repeated observations. To overcome the practical difficulties and to optimize the field observations, it is also necessary to dispose of classification artifices. It is possible t0 exploit the classes* of artefacts through different combinatory sets that do not call into question the value of the classification, as long as the method of classification adopted is explicitly stated."* A Zone, for example, can be considered as any cone of the following 1. a) A Total-Assemblage-Zone, when it is charac- terized by the totality of artefacts* it contains. b) A Partial-Assemblage-Zone, when it is char- acterized by a part of the artefacts*, being rep- resentative of the totality contained, 2. a) A Taxon-Range-Zone, when it is characterized by the presence of a definite class* of artefacts. b) A Concurrent-Range-Zone, when it results from the coincidence of two or several Taxon-Range- Zones. 3. An Acme-Zone, when it is characterized by the ‘maximum frequency of a class* of artefacts that is, not taken into consideration through all its exis tence 4. An Interval-Zone, when it is not defined by a class* Of artefacts, but situated between two Zones char- acterized by classes* of artefacts. ‘The theoretical illustrations that show the different combinatory possibilities can be adapted to the practical ‘cases under consideration. Each unit, for example, can be constituted, according to the available observations, using a different combinatory set. 4.4, Peculiarities of Ethnostratigraphic Units Ethnostratigraphy must be limited to the classification ‘of rough data observed as objectively as possible. In ‘accordance with the significance and the relevance given to the units, it can have a bearing on the interpretations at a later stage of archaeological investigation. In spite of the link that exists between classification and interpretation, an ethnostratigraphic unit must be considered as simply taxonomic, without a priori cultural ‘or chronological significance. The ethnostratigraphic unit is generated by the simple establishment of facts in a (modern) geographical environment. It is based on con- crete stratigraphic references, i.e., the lithologic units and their artefact® content, and it is dissociated from the 14, The principle is borrowed from biostatgraghy (stratigraphic cls sification refering to fossil content of sata) ef. H. D. Hedber. ed ‘op. cit. (im note $) 45-65,chronological scale, Consequently, ethnostratigraphic units should not be confused with chronological, peri- odical divisions or others, currently used in archacology and which ate based on widely interpreted stratigraphic or other data, Ethnostratigraphic classification is conceived in con- formity with the discursive method; it excludes intuitive and implicit criteria; it constitutes an explicit taxonomy, controllable and revisable. It is possible to have a con- stant process of verification among the different stages of the procedure, without altering the nature of the doc- umentation. Thus one could found on it more rigorous chronological or cultural interpretations (see 1.3.2.). 4.5. Revision and Redefinition of Ethnostratigraphic Units Each ethnostratigraphic unit can be revised, trans- formed, redefined, or abandoned, if it proves to be im- precise, deficient, or erroneous. Glossary antheopic adj, (sodiment, deposit); whose Sedimentation results from human activity (including man-made structures). vertical or horizontal aecumula- tion of residual deposits whose sedimentation is eased largely by human activity. Nevertheless, itis possible to come across in an archaeological sitela deposit whose sedimentation is cased by natural phenomena, of even by interaction ofthese and human activity ‘all objects ll constructions, oll remains ofan anthropic or igi, which have «known or supposed purpose." (See also servcture 1) ‘iit best suited to giving come- lation between different columns ofthe same nature category of stratigraphic a class in which are growped ‘nits stratigraphic units of the same ature any taxonomic entity that groups archacological site artefact basic (stratigraphic) unit class of artefacts 15. This definition i based on the etymology ofthe phrase arte fa: ‘um, ef. Oxford Dictionary of English Enology 8. ot artis factum [Phe f. Dictionnaire Le Robert. 5.v. For aber definitions se, ©.8 + D. L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology (Methuen: London 1978, 2d cd.) 489 (a nartower meaning) and C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilization (Methuen: London 1972) 9,19 (a wider meaning) Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 10, 1983 333 artefacts with common character- istics," see stratigraphic classification. see stratigraphic column, ‘adj. (sediment, deposit); whose sedimentation results from the in- teraction of human activity and a natural occurrence (narrow inter- stratification of the anthropic and natural sediments, infilling by rman of a flooded or a marshy area, a deposit containing both ruined or destroyed structures and natural sediments, etc.) ‘ns; mechanical removal of mate- rial from ground (by man), fact see historical fact. ap see stratigraphic gap. historical Fact all knowledge of the past a quired through written docu- ments. rn, (stratigraphic); a surface (therefore of a very thin depth) indicative of a certain position in the stratigraphic sequence (litho- logic horizon, chronostratigraphic horizon). Stratigraphic horizons are not only the limits of strat ‘graphic units, but also specific reference points in the interior of these units, points that are partic~ ularly useful for correlation pur- poses. ‘adj. (surface); having the same period of discovered exposure at all points. level rn altimettie notion; the degree of elevation with reference either to an arbitrarily fixed horizontal surface or, preferably, to a sup- posed horizontal sea level whose altitude is fixed at O meter. adj; composed of material of ‘both mineral and organic origin, adj. (sediment, deposit); whose dominant cause of sedimentation is of natural origin (wind, flood, voleanic eruption, etc.) rock znsall material constituting stata whether it be natural, altered, oF ‘modified, without judging its physical State or its degree of classification ‘column ‘complex denudation horizon isochronous litho-organie natural question relative tothe puticulr problems ‘of archaeological classitication (on which no position is taken inthe Guide) see J. E. Doran and F. R. Hodson, Mathematics and Com puters in Archaeology (lnburgh Univesity Pest: Edinburgh 1975) 93-108, 158-185,334 Guide to Archaeostratigraphic Classification and Terminology/Gasche and Tunca rupture site stratigraphic classifiea- stratigraphic column, stratigraphic gap stratigraphic rupture stratigraphic unit stratigraphy ‘cohesion (e-g., sand, clay, gran- ite, ete.) see stratigraphic rupture see archaeological site the systematic organization of strata (found in normal se- quences) in units with reference to the characteristics and peculiar: ties possessed by their contents ‘There are a great number of characteristics or peculiarities that exist in the contents of the strata; for this reason, numerous ‘categories of stratigraphic units are possible 1 vertical or horizontal accumula tion of deposits of any nature that have been the object of a stratigraphic classification (Litho: logic column, chronostratigraphic column, etc.) stratigraphic hiatus between the deposits of different excavation areas separated by unexcavated stratigraphic break between the deposits discovered in the same area of excavation stratum oF collection of strata that form a homogeneous ele- ‘ment in the classification of a se quence of strata, and this having regard to the numerous character- isties and particularities that their contents possess. The strati- graphic units of one category do ‘not necessarily correspond with those of another category. ing from the Latin stratum and the Greek graphia, stratigraphy is the descriptive science of strata, It deals with the form, the farangement, the distribution, the chronological succession, the classification, and the interrela- tion of strata (and of all other as sociated bodies), in normal sequence, having regard to cer tain of all characteristics and par ticularties possessed in their contents. This definition includes the study of the origin, the com- position, the environment, the age, the history, the relations ‘with organic evolution, and a large number of other particular ties of the contents of stata. ‘ns three-dimensional body of sediment of any origin apt to be integrated into a stratigraphic classification, structure ‘i; 1) totality of immovable man- ‘made elements (wall, pavement, foven, ete.). This tenm is pre- ferred to installation", under which are grouped the totality of both movable and immovable ‘man-made elements (see also ar- tefact). 2) the internal arrangement of a lithotogic unit terminology ‘nll nomenclature using struc tured classficatory criteria.” unit see stratigraphic unit and basie (stratigraphic) unit. Acknowledgments ‘The following scientists took part in one or other of the meetings of Workshop 2, or have an interest in the preparation of the current version of the Guide. The at thors are most grateful for their remarks, criticisms, and ‘suggestions throughout the production of this text. Dr. Cecile Baeteman (Geologische Dienst van Belgié, Brus- sels); Prof. Dr. L. De Meyer (Rijksuniversiteit Gent and Director of the Belgian Archaeological Expedition to Iraq); Prof. McG. Gibson (University of Chicago); M Hatziotis (Athens); Dr. R. Mortier (Vrije Universiteit Brussel); A. Orcel (Bern); Prof. Dr. R. Paepe (Vrije Universiteit Brussel); J. Sommé (Marcq-en-Baroeul, France); Dr. M.-J. Steve (Nice); Prof. Dr. J. Thorez (Université de Liege); Dr. Helga Trenkwalder (Inns- bruck); A. Tuffreau (Lambertsart, France); Dr. F. Ver- haeghe (N.F.W.O., Ghent); Prof. Dr. P. Vermeersch (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Questionnaire 1) Do you agree with the methodological approach that underlies the Guide? Yes No No reply 2) If yes, would you be prepared to take part in the further preparation of the Guide by giving the benefit Of your experience and personal suggestions? Yes No 3) If your reply to question | is negative, would you be kind enough to state whether your objection is be~ cause of: a) the fact that there are several categories of strati- ‘graphic units? 17, Alter A. Rey, La terminologies nome et notions. Que saisje? 1740 (Presses Universitaites de France: Paris 1979) 28») the fact that you think that stratigraphic description is unnecessary? ©) the terminology used to designate the categories of stratigraphic units? 4) the fact that notions such as Periodization, seria- tion of artefacts, etc., are not included in the Guide? 4) If you have not replied to question 1, do you require additional information and on which subject? 5) If you have critical observations and suggestions to be made, would you be kind enough to send these in an annex with, each time, the reference of the rele- vant paragraph and, should the case arise, a concrete example that would only be used in the Guide with ‘your authorization? You are urged to send your responses to these questions to: Belgian Archaeological Expedition to Iraq c/o Prof. Dr. L. De Meyer Rijksuniversiteit Gent Sint-Pietersplein 6 B-9000 Gent, Belgium. You will receive the results of the questionnaire as soon as they are available, H. Gasche was formerly a member of the Délégation archéologique francaise en Iran (1962-1968) and of the Belgian Archaeological Expedition to Greece (1967-1970). He has been a member of the Belgian Archaeological Expedition to Iraq since 1970. ©. Tunca received his degrees in archaeology and Assyriology, and a Ph.D. in Mesopotamian archaeology from Liége University (Belgium). He was fan assistant at the same university (1976-1982) and is a member of the Belgian Archaeological Expedition to Iraq. Journal of Field Archaeology!Vol. 10, 1983 335