1. science

CHAPTER TWO
THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM
Ilan Sharon
DEFINITIONS
An area is an arbitrary unit comprising a number of adjacent
5 x 5 m. squares excavated under one supervisor and/or
recorded by a single recorder. Areas are designated by a letter
denoting merely the chronological order in which they were
opened. A large area may be divided between different
supervisors. in which case the independent sub-areas are
each denoted by an additional digit.
In the following stratigraphical analysis, the areas have
been divided into logical sub-areas, each of which comprises
an architectural unit and is discussed separately. An attempt
was made to define these sub-areas and designate them in
accordance with the excavational (sub)-areas. However, this
was not feasible in all cases, and the reader is forewarned
that not all loci discussed under 'The Stratigraphy of Area
Cl' were originally excavated as Cl. For further details, see
Tables 2.1, 2.2, Chapter 7, as well as the introductory section
of each sub-area.
The locus is the primary stratigraphical unit, usually comprising a single homogeneous deposit occupying a contiguous volume in an excavation unit. We make no distinction
between architectural elements (walls, etc.), features
(installations, pits, etc.), and debris layers; all are considered
loci. This is consistent with a view of construction, occupation, and destruction as facets of a depositional cycle in
which the tell is built up, largely as a result of intentional
human activity. The locus represents a single depositional
action (e.g. the construction of a wall, the formation of an
ash level on a floor, or the dumping of a dirt deposit in a fill).
Loci are divided into two classes: dirt deposits, whose
number is preceded by the letter 'L', and walls, preceded by
the letter 'W'.
Rarely, a locus may contain several deposits, provided
that they are clearly parts of the same feature (e.g. the walls,
capstones, and contents of a drain need not be each given a
different locus); that the minor sub-elements do not contain
enough artifacts to constitute a representative sample; and
that artifacts retrieved from each of the sub-features are
given separate basket numbers (see below) with their exact
provenance clearly marked. On the other hand, a single
deposit is occasionally divided into different loci for various
technical reasons (e.g. it appears in two different excavation
units, or is a deposit divided by a late wall which was left
standing on a balk).
Each locus is designated by a unique number (three digits
for the 1980 season, and four digits subsequently). To ensure
uniqueness, locus numbers are assigned sequentially by the
area supervisor or the recorder out of a 'bank' of hitherto
unused numbers assigned to the area at the beginning of each
season. As a rule, all locus numbers of an area start with the
same digit, and this first digit is different for different areas,
for ease of identification. Table 2.1 gives the 'banks' oflocus
numbers for Areas A and C.
Table 2.1. 'Banks' of loci for Areas A and C.
From
I
400
1001
1060
II 50
1220
4000
4300
4435
4450
4501
4600
4650
4700
4801
4850
4930
4970
To
52
672
1052
Il30
1219
1245
4260
4373
4449
4491
4583
4633
4680
4762
4849
4929
4966
4999
Season
80
80
81
82
83
84
81
82
84
86
82
83
84
87
83
84
85
86
Area
AO+A2*
CO+CI
AO+Al+A2
Al+A2*
AI
···AI
CO+CI*
Cl
Cl
Cl
c2. ....
C2
C2
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
*
The areas were not subdivided during these seasons. For the attribution
of individual loci consult the locus index (Chapter 7).
**With the exception of L450 l, L4505, L4506, L4511, L45 12, L4522,
L4532. \vhich arc in Area CO.
An interface- the surface marking the boundary between
any two loci (Harris 1979: 41-48)- is named after the later
of the two loci. Thus a floor is named by the locus number
of the deposit immediately above it. (Note that sometimes
the constructional makeup of a floor was assigned a separate
locus number, but that is not the number of the floor.)
Apparent exceptions are cases where one deposit overlies
several different features; for instance, while digging a fill
one may simultaneously reach two different patches of floor,
separated by a hitherto unrecognized robber trench. In order
13
to provide a unique identification of each feature, we assign
locus numbers to each, closing the loci immediately. A
closely related occurrence is the assigning of a locus number
to a pit seen in the balk after the relevant deposits have been
excavated. Such a locus, which has no deposit of any kind
(and hence no artifacts) associated with it, is called a phantom locus. We attempt to avoid these wherever possible.
The opposite phenomenon, several deposits relating to
the same interface, is more common. An example is when
the same floor surface is reached while excavating several
different deposits. In such a case the floor is named arbitrarily after one of these deposits. A note is made of the other
deposits in the text and block diagram, e.g. 'floor 2326 (~
2329).' The same may occur when walls which were initially
thought to be different turn out to be continuous.
Features composed of more than one deposit are named
after the earliest. Thus, a room is named after the number
of its floor (which, in turn is named after the locus immediately above it), a pit with several deposits of debris inside it
is named after the lowest one, etc.
Occasionally, the stratigraphical interpretation is that
what was seen to be one locus in the field should actually be
split into more than one unit (e.g. constructional stages in a
wall, or a 'post mortem' division of a deposit into two different phases). In such cases, a small letter is appended to the
locus number (Wl107a, Wll07b etc.).
Robbed-out walls, which are delineated only by a robber
trench, are referred to by the locus number of the robber
trench. We call these ghost walls.
A basket contains artifacts of a single class (e.g. pottery,
glass) retrieved from a single locus in one day (or less). 'Special' finds of any kind are usually each given a separate basket. While in general the basket is a purely technical
subdivision of the locus, it may assume stratigraphical significance in one of the following cases. (1) When a
stratigraphical division in a locus (e.g. a floor) has been
missed, a 'post mortem' separation can be carried out
according to the spits from which the baskets were retrieved,
reassigning each to one of the subdivisions. (2) Several different deposits relating to the same feature may be combined
into one locus in order to simplify the registration procedure
(see above).
Each basket has a unique five-digit number (four digits in
1980) assigned sequentially from a 'bank' which is reserved
for each area at the beginning of the season. The first digit
of all basket numbers reserved for an area is usually the same
as the first digit of the locus numbers for that same area.
Table 2.2 gives the 'banks' of basket numbers for Areas A
and C.
The registration number of each artifact is composed of its
basket number and an optional sequence number, the two
being separated by a slash. Thus the sherds in basket 34025
which are kept for further processing will be numbered
3402511, 34025/2 etc. If there is only one artifact in a basket
(e.g. a 'special find'), the slash and the sequence number are
omitted.
Table 2.2. 'Banks' of basket numbers for Areas A and C.
From
1000
4000
10000
10400
11500
11800
40000
43000
45001
46000
46500
47000
48001
48201
49301
49420
*
To
1240
5480
10314
10619
11753
11973
41043
43422
45518
46438
46734
47366
48189
48525
49414
49673
Season
80
80
81
82
83
84
81
82
82
83
84
87
83
84
85
86
Area
AO+A2
CO+C1'
AO+Al+A2
Al+A2
A1
A1
CO+C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
Cl
Cl
Cl
The areas were dug without subdivision during these seasons. Attribution of baskets and registration numbers to sub-areas can be done only
through the locus.
taining to the stratigraphical position of the locus, as well as
summary information about artifacts found in it (see Fig.
2.1 ).
All the header information (except for the 'Phase' and
'Arch. unit' items) is recorded in the field. The verbal
description of the locus must include every item in the
checklist in the lower right-hand corner. The emphasis of
this description is on the stratigraphical relationship to all
adjacent loci. A sketch plan and schematic section of these
relationships as observed when the locus is closed is given
in the upper left-hand corner of the card.
When the locus has been excavated through, all of the relevant information has been recorded, and all baskets have
~ J;,-Jt
-==----------
c
~
~-
-
B.~::-~
i L~"':,"'
;
'
----------
'
:..
, __ ____]_______J___
~-
pho<o~
ploas~
G
chock(•or-J whan clooinu
lccuo•
reoson lor oponlng
G d<>Hnition/ ""'''~
[8 ro&oon lor clooing
GJ "''"''"" to othor "'"manu
D ""orking photoo. noo'
LD "'" " " " ····'··_···- _j~=' .,.,.,=--~---,·-i
FORMS
The locus card is the main stratigraphical record. One card
is kept per locus; on it is recorded all of the information per-
14
0
p"bljc~t!on photoo
~·· _
'·-·=··
Fig. 2.1. Locus card.
undergone preliminary reading, it is considered a closed
locus.
After the season, when the unit in which the locus is
located undergoes stratigraphical analysis, the architectural
sub-area under which it was analyzed (not always identical
with the excavational sub-area- see above) is noted in the
'Arch. unit' field and the phase number(s) within the area
according to the most reasonable interpretation are noted in
the 'Phase' field. The arguments for placing the locus in this
particular phase, and sometimes other alternatives, are
added to the verbal description ofthe locus. Some summary
information (e.g. dates) may also be added to the description
by the various artifact analysts.
The basket list contains one line of numerically coded
information which is filled in for each basket. The code list
in Table 2.3 is largely self-explanatory. Each such record is
written in two copies: once in the daily basket list of each
area (Fig. 2.2), where the records are kept in numerical
order, and once on the back of the relevant locus card.
Table 2.3. Basket and locus code list.
Stratigraphical Definition
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
-
Surface soil
Unstratified
Stratified Accumulation
Destruction layer
Fallen stones
Fallen bricks
Loose earth
Ash layer
Accumulation on floor
Floor makeup
Pit
Wall cleaning
Baulk cleaning
Foundation trench
Wall removal
Baulk removal
Contents
01 - Sherds
02 - Sherds for restoration
03 - Complete vessel
04 - Bronze
05 - Iron
06 - Figurine
07 - Seal
08 - Stone
09 - Other small finds
10 - Material for analysis
11 - Bones
12 - Coin
13 - Glass
14 - Jewellery
15 - Worked bone
16 - Statue
17 - Oil lamp
18 - Inscribed material
Pe~iods
01 - ByL.antine
02 - Roman
03- Hell/Rom
04
05
06
07
08
-
Hellenistic
Persian
Iron llb-c
Iron Ila
Iron I
09 · LB III
10-LBII
11- LB1
12 - Mixed
13 - MB lie
14-MBIIb
15-MBIIa
16 - MB 1
17-EBIII
18- EBll
19 - EB 1
20 - Chalcolithic
Reading
0 or1
2
3 orR
Basket discarded
Something was kept
All indicative pieces kept
Restoration, all sherds kept
The identifying fields, as well as the codes for the contents
and the stratigraphical provenance, are recorded in the field,
as soon as the basket is opened (i.e., when the first artifact
of any kind is found in the locus). The level is the exact level
of the findspot for 'special' finds, which receive a separate
basket number, and the bottom level for the locus for the day
(or the closing level for the locus, if it was closed during that
day) for baskets containing a collection of artifacts.
The codes specifying the contents of the basket and its
stratigraphical provenance are given in Table 2.3. This list
is designed to be concise rather than exhaustive, and practical rather than mutually exclusive. Ambiguities may be
resolved and amplifications given in the verbal description
in the 'comments' field.
During the pottery reading (or preliminary sorting of
other kinds of artifacts), a preliminary identification and
dating of the basket is noted by the artifact analyst. Three
m
OMY
00,
""""'"'"".
1,••,•• ""· '"""" .,.... '"""'
•••
-~~
..
""
'"'""
I
I
~~~
••
I'
'
! ("J
·.··
'period' fields are available for the analyst to enter observations from the code list in Table 2.3. The second and third
fields are for cases where artifacts from more than one period are represented in the basket. In such cases, the relevant
periods are noted in order of decreasing abundance (a basket
in which more than three periods are represented is considered mixed). Note that these datings are preliminary; the
detailed observations of the artifact analysts, as expressed in
the typological reports, take precedence over the field observations as soon as they become available. The basket is then
placed in one of four categories noted in the 'R +-'field:
0. (-)Periods present are noted, and all sherds discarded.
Into this category fall baskets from unstratified loci, as well
as ones from loci which do not contain enough pottery to
merit further processing.
I. Something is saved. As above, but one or more sherds
are saved (e.g. when a sherd not hitherto represented in the
typology is found in an unstratified context, or a sherd of
each period from a disturbed locus is saved for the record).
2. All indicative pieces are saved. Into this category fall
'clean' loci, and only these baskets should be used for statistics. All rim pieces are saved, as well as, in some cases, handles, bases, and decorated parts. At least one piece of each
period represented should be saved, and if no
rim/base/handle is available, the most significant body piece
is saved.
3. (R) Restoration basket; all sherds are saved.
In the 'comments' field the supervisor may enter a brief
remark (e.g. elaborating the 'content' or 'stratigraphical
provenance' codes); any special observations made during
pottery reading are added; and short notes (especially dates)
are added when advanced analysis of the artifacts has been
carried out.
A tag (Fig. 2.3), on which are written the basket number
and locus number, as well as the area, the number of the
excavation license given by the Antiquities Authority before
each season, and the date, is attached to each basket. Care is
taken to write the tag in indelible ink so that the writing is
not washed away in water or bleached in the sun.
After the preliminary reading, the basket number, locus
number, and license number are written on every sherd
15
L.~9:,'\
Lj'l:,":>g
d\o..."S'S
~
r
I
--- --
_j
I
Fig. 2.3. Basket tag.
I
I
saved, together with an identifying sequence number if more
than one object from the basket is saved. The basket number
and the sequence number will henceforth serve as the registration number for a particular object.
The daily top plan or graphic diary (Fig. 2.4) is a sketch
plan drawn every day for each area. The blank plan is photocopied every evening from a set of master plans kept by the
architectural staff, and the area supervisor sketches in features which have been discovered since the master plan was
last revised. All current locus numbers are then entered
(deposits in red, walls in green). Basket numbers are added
in blue. General collection baskets are entered by locus number, while the exact findspot is indicated for 'special' finds
or baskets limited to specific parts of the locus. At the end
of the day, levels are taken on all the loci still open, and
entered (in black) by the locus number. When a locus is
closed during the day, a circle is drawn around the locus
number, and the closing level is added. The new locus number(s) are then noted in their appropriate place. A wall locus
is closed only when the wall is physically removed. The closing level of the locus, in this case, is the level of the foundation of the wall (and not that of an earth balk on which it
may be standing). The wall is simply crossed out of the blank
plan until the master plan is updated.
Artifact cards of various formats are kept for different
kinds of artifacts. The exact format of each of these is determined by the person doing the analysis, according to common standards and nomenclature for this particular kind of
artifact, and his or her preference. All such records contain
the full identification of each artifact (locus, basket,
sequence number). In some cases, especially for nonartifactual materials, a separate record is not kept at the individual object level, but rather information is aggregated at
the locus or basket level. Each of the artifact analysts
prefaces his or her chapter with a short introduction to the
method used to register and present artifacts of a particular
type. The policy of the excavation, as host to differing disciplines, is to impose as few restrictions as possible upon the
methodologies and registration systems of the guest disciplines (see further discussion below). The disadvantage of
this policy is lack of unity in the method of registration and
presentation of different artifact types. Occasionally, where
there are overlaps between disciplines, one may even find
the same artifact referred to under two different nomenclatures.
16
~I
I
;'"-1
I
~ -----"'+
I
I
I
I
I
'I
i
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
:r
"" t
I
I
I
I'
iI
Fig. 2.4. Daily top plan or graphic diary.
THE METHOD OF PRESENTATION OF THE
STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
While we generally follow the model for stratigraphic interpretation known as 'Architectural,' 'Israeli,' or 'ProtoScientific' (Chapman 1986, and see bibliography there), we
felt compelled to make certain modifications in response to
some problems general in Palestinian archaeology, and
some which are peculiar to Dar.
An excavation report should be structured to cater to the
needs of its users. We find that these fall into 3 categories:
1. The casual reader needs to familiarize himself with the
major conclusions reached by the excavator. Most of the
users of field reports are in this group. The report should give
them easy access to these results, without having to wade
through a sea of details to reach them.
2. The critical reader wants to know how a particular conclusion was reached, and perhaps offer a differing point of
view. Even if we grant the maxim that given all the raw data
any excavation can be reconstructed on paper, a good criterion upon which to judge a report is to which extent a critique can be argued without having to reconstruct all the
data from scratch.
3. The corollary collector hunts through the report for a
specific item. This user essentially uses the report like a telephone directory. What he needs are exhaustive catalogs and
extensive cross-indices, to enable him to reach any item with
a minimal amount of reading.
Usually, two different topics find their way into the same
chapter of an excavation report. These are the description
of the strata, and the discussion of why a certain
stratigraphical scheme was adopted. Whereas the natural
way to present the former is horizontally (describing allelements of one stratum before moving on to the next), the latter should be discussed vertically (taking a single excavation
unit, or a group of them, and working from top to bottom or
vice versa). Whichever method the excavator chooses, one
of the two topics will suffer.
Though it is well known that two or more schemes for
grouping loci into strata are often plausible in a complex
stratified site, this fact rarely finds its way into excavation
reports. This is due primarily to the fact that the excavator
is forced to choose one scheme in order to be able to present
coherent plans and complete assemblages for each stratum.
After having made a choice, which may be an imperfect one,
the investigator tends to interpret all further evidence in
favor of the chosen theory and gloss over its drawbacks
(Janis and Mann 1977: 82-85). Be that as it may, we are
rarely offered in an excavation report any but one chosen
interpretation, much less the pros and cons of various other
possibilities. Sometimes the writer even neglects to list the
arguments which led him to pick his chosen scheme.
This writer holds the architecturalist view of excavation
as an interpretive process in which the excavator plays an
active role. Decisions taken by the excavator in the process
of excavation form an inseparable part of the final view of
the site as presented in the report. Consequently, the emphasis of the final report should be not descriptive but interpretive. Thus, rather than attempting to 'objectivize' the raw
observations (no observations in archaeology are 'raw' in the
sense that they are free of the observer's conception of the
excavation), one should try to explain the reasoning and
chain of decisions which led to a given interpretation.
Like most big projects today, Doris dug, and will be published, by the coordinated effort of a large multinational
staff. It would be unreasonable to expect consensus among
the excavators on every single question, and unfair to the
readers if a differing opinion is muted. The structure of the
phasing system should be flexible enough for different viewpoints to be expressed within the existing framework, or
with minimal changes to it.
The excavation of Tel Doris planned as a long-term project, publishing several interim reports rather than a single
final one. When publishing such interim reports, one cannot
be certain that the proposed stratigraphy will not later have
to be revised. A strategy must be used whereby such revisions can be made with a minimum of change to previous
publications.
A 'viciouf circle' often develops between the person(s)
analyzing the stylistic development of artifacts and those
analyzing the stratigraphy. The first requires, even for preliminary work, an established stratigraphical sequence. The
second would often like to see at least a relative typological
chronology before committing himself to a particular
stratigraphical scheme.
A significant feature of the architecture at Dor, at least in
the late (Persian-Roman) periods, is the extraordinary continuity of the town plan. This feature has caused many of our
stratigraphical problems. Some walls remained in use for
several centuries and have several floors and/or partition
walls reaching them on either side (often not the same number). In such a case the stratigrapher can judge whether a
phase on either side is early or late within the sequence on
that side, but it is impossible to establish, on purely
stratigraphical grounds, an exact correlation of the phases
on both sides of the wall. Thus it is usually possible to build
a reliable stratigraphy within each architectural unit, using
the slight changes of the internal plan between different periods, but the correlation of phases between units is often
uncertain.
A probable explanation for the continuity in the plan of
the site is that the town was not totally destroyed at any time
between the 6th/5th centuries BCE and the 2nd/3rd centuries CE. A similar continuity seems to characterize the transition between the Iron Age and the Persian period. Such a
phenomenon, however, challenges the very basis of the usual
'locus to stratum' stratification model. Two implicit
assumptions of this model are that the whole stratum was
constructed simultaneously and that it was destroyed at one
time. These assumptions generally provide a useful approximation of reality, though obviously rarely a literal description of it (especially the former). Given a period of several
centuries without a major catastrophe, one wonders whether
a model which assumes that a 'stratum' begins and ends
simultaneously over the whole site is of any value. To give a
concrete example, it is obvious that when Dor was
refortified early in the Hellenistic period, all of the insulae
along the eastern edge of the tell had to be demolished and
rebuilt adjoining the new town wall. It is possible, however,
that this event is not reflected at all in the insulae across the
street, which may have undergone structural changes at
some unrelated date. Under such conditions, correlation of
the stratigraphy between different architectural units may
be not only difficult to determine, but completely out of
place.
In order to deal with these problems, the following principles were established at the outset of stratigraphical analysis:
l. Stratigraphic analysis is independent of any other consideration; consequently artifactual analysis may be used as
a crosscheck of the stratigraphy. The stratigrapher presents
his interpretation to the artifact analysts without prior
knowledge of absolute or relative chronologies. Artifact analysts may then rule out some (one hopes not all) of the
options presented by the stratigraphical analysis.
2. There is a complete separation between the description
of the strata (Chapter 4) and the stratigraphical discussion
(Chapter 5). The stratigraphical discussion attempts only to
describe the arguments which led to the adoption of a certain
stratigraphical scheme, and give plausible alternatives
where they exist.
3. The stratigraphy is presented hierarchically, to fit the
type of interest of the reader. A synthesis of the results of the
stratigraphic analysis, without the argumentation, is found
in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, the stratigraphical analysis of
each area begins with an overview, presenting the general
stratigraphic scheme for the area, and the reasoning behind
it. Only readers interested in specifics need go into the unitby-unit discussion which follows. Several different indices
17
and tables enable instant referencing of each individual
locus.
4. Strict modularity is maintained, so that a revision (by
a staff member or a critic) of the stratigraphy of one area,
sub-area, or unit will not affect the stratigraphy of another.
Similarly, a change in the correlation between different areas
can be effected without altering the internal discussion of
each area.
Let us examine the process of stratigraphical analysis by
following the analysis of a typical unit:
The first step is a separate stratigraphical analysis of each
excavation unit (usually, though not always, a grid square),
starting with the sequence of walls, and then adding the
floors and the relationship between the two. The end of this
step is the proposal of a stratigraphic scheme for that unit
alone. Each subdivision within that scheme is called a stage
and is marked (from the top down) with a lower-case Roman
numeral (i, ii, iii, iv, etc.). Each locus is assigned to one of
these stages in the unit. Where more than one possibility
exists, the more likely is given first, and the less likely is
marked with a question mark.
The next step is the grouping of excavation units into a
logical area. This is a contiguous group of excavation units,
in which many features cross over from one to the next.
These serve as 'pegs' upon which a correlation of the stages
of adjacent units can be 'hung' to form a common
stratigraphical scheme. In defining these 'logical areas' an
effort is made to conform to the spatial definition and names
of the original excavation areas. However, as the extent of a
'logical area' is dictated largely by the architectural divisions
of the ancient town, and the division into excavation areas
by the logistics of the excavation, the two are never completely synonymous.
A scheme for the stratigraphy of the 'logical area' is now
put forward. Each subdivision of this scheme is called a
phase and marked (from the top down) with an Arabic
numeral. The second part of the analysis of each unit concerns the relationship of the stratigraphical scheme of the
unit to that of the rest of the 'logical area.' In it, a correlation
is proposed between each stage of the unit and a particular
phase of the logical area.
Sometimes a stratigraphical distinction is found in one
unit in the area, but is not recognized in others. In such cases
we talk of subphases at the area level, and mark them (from
the top down) with a lower-case letter (4a, 4b, etc.). Where
the loci of one unit are designated as 4, while in another we
have 4a, 4b, and 4c, it means that we do not know which
subphase(s) are represented in the deposit designated 4. The
usual interpretation in this case will be to regard finds in situ
on a phase 4 floor as dating from the very end of phase 4 (i.e.,
4a), while artifacts from a phase 4 fill will be regarded as
mixed 4a, 4b, and 4c. Similarly, when phase 4 is divided into
4a and 4b in one part of the logical area and, say, 4a, 4b, and
4c in another, it does not necessarily follow that subphase 4a
in the first instance was built at the same time as 4a in the
other (though it is late within the lifespan of phase 4 in both).
If we had been able to follow the subdivision across the
whole area we would usually have assigned two different
phases to begin with.
Another case where subphasing is commonly used is
where there are several floors reaching the same wall system.
The argumentation here is similar to the above: two super18
imposed floor levels on either side of a wall, which are not
associated with a destruction (in which case architectural
changes would be evident), need not have been laid at the
same time.
The final step ofthe analysis, which is attempted only after
collating the stratigraphy with information obtaineq by
artifactual analysis, and is presented in the general description of the stratification of the entire field, is the building of
a general framework for the site, in which each subdivision
is called a stratum, and marked with a capital Roman
numeral. Where a division exists in one area which was not
found in others, substrata may be marked by appending a
capital letter (e.g. IliA, IIIB etc.).
Note that unlike other systems of notation there is no real
hierarchy between the stage, the phase, and the stratum (i.e.,
the stage is not a subdivision of the phase). There is a unique
correlation between each stage in the unit and an individual
(sub)phase in the area. The same should hold for the phase
and the (sub)stratum. For example, if stages i and ii in unit
K 27 correspond to phase I oflogical area B I, which is designated stratum I of the tell, then one is able to say 'L2203 is
stage ii (inK 27) ~phase I b (in Bl) ~stratum IB.'
It is hoped that this modularization, though somewhat
cumbersome, will ensure that the analytical system as a
whole can withstand the following types of changes:
I. The general framework of the area is accepted but
changes are made in the attribution of specific loci to stages
within one or more units.
2. The internal phasing of each unit is accepted but a different framework is proposed for the stratigraphy of the area
as a whole.
3. The internal phasing of each area is accepted but
changes are made in the correlation between areas.
Moreover, the complexity of the system can be completely
bypassed, since the casual reader who does not wish toquestion the stratigraphy need not concern himself with the interpretation at the stage and phase level, but rather can confine
himself to the descriptions of the strata.
Summary of the Strategy for Stratigraphic Analysis
The excavated area is divided according to broad architectural units into logical areas, chosen because they have
enough common architectural features to establish a
stratigraphic relationship between all units in the 'logical
area' and named, if possible, according to the original excavation area.
Each excavation unit is analyzed independently from top
to bottom, starting with the sequence of walls and then relating floors and other features to that sequence. An independent relative stratigraphy for the unit is proposed, in which
each stratigraphic unit (aggregate of loci) is called a stage.
Stages are marked with a small Roman numeral.
After the independent analysis of all units of the 'logical
area,' the correlations between the resulting relative
stratigraphies are studied, and a stratigraphic scheme for the
area is presented. Its units are called phases and are labeled
with Arabic numerals.
Eventually these independent schemes for the logical
areas are integrated into a comprehensive stratigraphy for
the whole site. The unit of this final scheme is the stratum,
and it is numbered with capital Roman numerals.
HOW TO USE THE STRATIGRAPHY SECTIONS OF
THIS REPORT
I
Or: e.g. '4b?/5a?' means 'either phase 4b or phase Sa.'
'4b?/5a??' means as above, but more likely 4b.
Chapter 4 presents a synthesis of the results of the
stratigraphical interpretation. Each stratum is described,
and its date is discussed on the basis of a summary of absolute dates. This chapter defines the major architectural
assemblages of each stratum. Previous knowledge of these is
assumed in the subsequent chapters.
Chapter 5 describes the stratigraphic analysis which led to
this interpretation. One section is assigned to each 'logical
area.' Each section has an introduction defining the 'logical
area' and presenting the stratigraphic framework (phases) of
the area. Following this is a description of each excavation
unit, in which the scheme for the unit (stages) is discussed,
together with its relation to the general scheme of the area.
Next are an index of all loci in the unit, with their proposed
phasing (relative to the area), and a block diagram connecting each locus to loci above and below (see below for details).
At the end of each section is a short discussion of the possible
correlations between the stratigraphical framework of that
'logical area' and those of adjacent areas.
To obtain the results of the excavation you need read only
the descriptions of the strata (Chapter 4).
To understand the reasoning for the general phasing
scheme, read the description of the strata, the introduction
to the stratigraphy of each of the areas, and the sections
about correlations between the areas.
To find out why an architectural unit was assigned to a par·
ticular phase, read the general description of the strata, find
out (from the plans) which 'logical area' the structure is in,
and read the introduction to the stratigraphy of that particular sub-area.
To find out why a particular locus was assigned to a particular phase look up the locus in the locus index (Chapter 7),
and note what unit it is in. Then look up the locus in the block
diagram for that unit. Find out from the index of excavation
units on what page the unit is discussed and where its locus
list and block diagram appear. If the locus does not contain
a floor, note which is the next floor below and which floor
seals it. Then read the general description of the strata, the
introduction to the stratigraphy of the sub-area, and the
detailed stratigraphy of the unit. If the locus you are looking
for is not specifically mentioned, study the phasing of the
floor below it and the floor above it. The reason for the attribution of the specific locus to a phase may easily be deduced
from these.
+(or&)
And: e.g. '4 + 5' means 'an element existing in both
phase 4 and phase 5.' '2 & 3 & 4a?' means 'in use in
phase 2 and phase 3 and possibly also in 4a.'
To (inclusive): e.g. '2-5' means 'existing from phase 5
to phase 2.'
>
Later than (stratigraphically above): e.g.
'W3919 > W3050' means 'W3919 is stratigraphically
above (floats over, is built on top of, cuts, etc.) W3050.'
,.
Later than and/or contemporary with: e.g. if W2960
abuts W2702, one may note 'W2960,. W2702.'
<
Earlier than. Used as above.
~
Earlier than or contemporary with. Used as above.
=
Contemporary, in the same phase as: e.g. 'i W3919 =
floor L3880 = L3777 > ii W3050 =floor L31!5' means
'stage i (in unit) consists of the (contemporary) elements W3919, floor L3880, and L3777. It is
stratigraphically above stage ii, which consists of
W3050 and floor L3115.'
The same as: e.g. 'W2152 (~ W2070)' means 'W2152,
alias W2070.' The same wall was given two locus num-
bers (e.g. in two different units). Note the difference
between = and=.
i, ii, etc.
Small Roman numerals mark stages within an individual unit; should usually appear with a unit number, e.g.
'stage ii (in L 27).'
1, 2, etc.
Arabic numerals denote phases in a logical area; e.g.
'stage ii (in L 27) ~phase 3 (in Cl)' means 'stage ii in
grid square L 27 is phase 3 oflogical area Cl.'
I, II, etc.
Capital Roman numerals mark strata, which are
stratigraphical divisions discernible over the whole
site. E.g. 'W3050 ~ ii (in L 27) ~ 3 (in Cl) ~liB' means:
'W3050 belongs with stage ii of its unit, which is phase
3 of the area, stratum liB at Tel Dar.'
Elevation: e.g. 'floor L3880 (116.06-15.92)' means
that the highest point of the floor surface is at an eleva-
tion of 16.06, and the lowest point at 15.92. 'W3050
(~ 16. 78-15.85),' on the other hand, means that the top
of preservation is at 16. 78, and the highest base eleva-
tion is 15.85.
SEMANTICS AND NOTATION
BLOCK DIAGRAMS
In the stratigraphy chapters, I have used an individual terminology, as well as a kind of pseudo-mathematical shorthand
notation. Some of these symbols are:
A 'block diagram' is attached to the stratigraphical discussion of each excavation unit. The diagram notes all loci in
the unit. Each locus is connected to the loci above and below
it. A floor in the locus is noted by an additional line across
the bottom of the block. (A dashed line means a possible
floor, and a partial line means a floor fragment.) Walls are
usually marked by elongated blocks.
The concept of a 'block diagram' is similar to that of the
'Harris matrix' (Harris 1979: 103-121). The difference
between the two is that the 'Harris matrix' connects loci
according to the order in which it is supposed that they were
?
Possible: e.g. 'floor(?)' means 'possibly a floor.' '4b?'
or '4b (?)'mean 'probably in phase 4b (in this area).'
'4(b?),' on the other hand, means 'in phase 4 (in this
area); my guess is subphase b, but other subphases are
possible.'
??
Improbable. Used as above to denote the less likely
possibility.
19
Ll
L3
floor 2
floor 3
* interface of destruction for W 4
Fig. 2.5. Hypothetical section (center) with block diagram (right) and 'Harris matrix' (left).
deposited. That is, it is a schematization ofthe finalinterpretation of the analysis. The 'block diagram' merely notes the
physical relationship between loci (which locus was opened
below which), and as such is a schematization of the raw data
for analysis. The difference is shown in Fig. 2.5.
The block diagram is a two-dimensional projection of a
three-dimensional situation. Moreover, it is drawn so as to
be optimally readable, and to have as few 'knots' in the connecting line as possible, rather than to conform with the
space of the locus on the site. Therefore, the physical setting
of the blocks, their size, or the distance between them in no
way reflect the setting, size, or distance between the loci in
the squares.
The block diagram is meant to be used, together with the
section drawings, schematic sections, and line plans, as a visual aid to the text. It is useful, for instance, for understanding
the phasing of loci not specifically mentioned in the text.
You should locate the locus on the diagram, and follow the
connecting lines to the next floor levels above and below. It
is especially handy for staff members working on material
from the given unit (e.g. for locating all loci which may contain potsherds restorable with a locus being worked on).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chapman R.L. 1986. Excavation Techniques and Recording Systems - A Theoretical Study. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
118: 5-26.
Harris E.C. 1979. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.
Janis, I. and Mann, L. 1977. Decision Making. New York: Free
Press.
20