The lost art of stratigraphy? A consideration of excavation strategies in Australian indigenous archaeology

Abstract

Archaeological interpretation is increasingly an interdisciplinary effort between archaeologists and specialists of various archaeological sciences. In such integrated work, excavation data are the primary reference to provide context for the vast range of cultural and biological material that are later investigated. A review of over three decades of published Australian archaeological data shows that there is a widespread practice in the use of arbitrary excavation units, not only as excavation tools but also as analytical units. Building from the lectures of Smith on the Lost Art of Stratigraphy and other published literature, this paper explores some of the issues surrounding different excavation strategies applied today, particularly in Australian prehistoric archaeology, and the implications and impacts on interpretation of archaeological and palaeoenvironmental results. It is argued that, while arbitrary excavation is appropriate in certain circumstances, the best method for excavation, sampling and interpretation of archaeological sites is by stratigraphic context because it provides a more precise understanding of the original depositional context and what that might tell us about past environment and past human behaviour.

Home Is Where the Hearth Is: Anthracological and Microstratigraphic Analyses of Pleistocene and Holocene Combustion Features, Riwi Cave (Kimberley, Western Australia)

“…This study also signifies the importance of understanding site formation processes; as already stated by several Australian researchers (Holdaway et al 2008 ; Langley et al 2011 ; Vannieuwenhuyse et al 2017 ; Ward and Larcombe 2003 ; Ward et al 2016 ). The exceptional preservation of flat type A hearths in Riwi provide an archaeological case study for how heating can impact underlying sediments in this type of fine sand substrate, in the Riwi example: several centimetres below the surface where the fire was lit.…”

“…Fires which were lit directly on the ground surface, like the type A hearth structures, are far less likely to produce quantifiable charcoal within the structure itself, as the direct exposure to oxygen will often combust the fuel entirely. Increase in charcoal abundance in itself should not then necessarily be correlated with an intensification of occupation (Ward et al 2016 ), as the prevalent type of combustion structure, its formation and length of use as well as its degree of preservation must also be considered. Similarly, changes in deposition dynamics ( e.g.…”

“…The anthracological analysis provided background information on charcoal wood species and the context of charcoal production (see Table 1 ). These data are usually limited or not available in the construction of radiocarbon chronologies in Australian archaeological contexts (Ward et al 2016 ), which are often only based on the age of charcoal fragments with little reference to the context of that charcoal’s production (Wood 2015 ; Wood et al 2016 ). The limited reporting of these data is in spite of recent work conducted elsewhere that characterises the spatial relationship between charcoal and charred seeds selected for radiocarbon analysis and associated archaeological materials and features (Asscher et al 2015 ; Boaretto 2015 ; Boaretto et al 2009 ; Rebollo et al 2011 ; Toffolo et al 2012 ).…”

Sedimentary unknowns constrain the current use of frequency analysis of radiocarbon data sets in forming regional models of demographic change

“…Similarly, the historic tendency, notably in Australia, to define the distribution of cultural material from arbitrary depth “spits” implicitly or explicitly assumes, incorrectly, that records within these necessarily constitute a cultural or functional unit, and such an assumption tends to mask the natural formational context of excavated assemblages (I. Ward et al, 2016). Rather than a default tendency to interpret observed trends as cultural (Ward & Larcombe, 2003; see also Arponen et al, 2019; Otte et al, 2003), a more pragmatic and rewarding approach is to rationalise the archaeological record in the context of natural formation processes and not dismiss these as unwanted noise (Karkanas et al, 2015, p. 2).…”

Complexities of assessing palaeocave stratigraphy: reconstructing site formation of the ∼2.61 Ma Drimolen Makondo fossil site

“…While stratigraphy is a fundamental concept understood by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists, understanding it dictates an in-depth understanding of the site’s formation processes, as the site is an active part of the landscape ( Ward, Winter & Dotte-Sarout, 2016 ). This is vital to selecting ideal excavation methods and subsequent laboratory analysis, and arguably, the more complex the stratigraphy, the more this principle is applicable.…”