Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
used for the applicability analysis. The results of this analysis are presented and
discussed in
Sect. 5
. Finally,
Sect. 6
provides the research conclusions and some
recommendations for future research.
2 Background Information
2.1 Time Concept in Archaeology
Although the theoretical discussion about the temporal concepts has only recently
arisen in the archaeological domain (Lucas
2005
, p. 28), the number of discussions
has multiplied the last three decades (Bailey
2007
). Different directions occur in
these discussions, but two main themes can be distinguished (Bailey
2007
; Lucas
2005
). The first theme is known in literature as 'time perspectivism' and deals with
the measurement of temporal properties, and how resolution can influence archaeo-
logical questions and interpretations (Bailey
2007
). The second direction concerns
the consciousness of people in past societies about time (Bailey
2007
; Lucas
2005
).
In this section, however, no attempt is made to contribute to these theoretical dis-
cussions, but rather to outline the temporal characteristics of archaeological data.
For a detailed description and further references on these discussion themes, refer-
ence is made to specific review papers such as Lucas (
2005
) and Bailey (
2007
).
Assigning phases to excavation objects or parts of sites is a fundamental task
in archaeology (Binding
2010
; Cripps et al.
2004
; Koussoulakou and Stylianidis
1999
; Smedja
2009
). In this way, different objects are grouped together to give
an idea of the story the site objects are telling (Cripps et al.
2004
). Except from
purely scientific dating techniques like dendrochronology and radio carbon dating
(Green
2011
; Smedja
2009
), in archaeology time is typically divided into stages
and thus hypothesized as a discrete phenomenon (Smedja
2009
). Mostly, the phas-
ing is (partly) based on the stratigraphic sequence, thus, on the spatial distribution
of the excavation objects in the 3D space (Cripps et al.
2004
). Establishing a rela-
tive ordering is in most cases easier to perform and agree on than absolute dating
(Binding
2010
). However, Koussoulakou and Stylianidis (
1999
) have identified six
items that can hamper appropriate phasing:
1. begin and end dates of a phase may be fuzzy;
2. limits of phases may be adjusted in the future due to changes in archaeological
interpretations;
3. new phases can be found, where gaps existed;
4. new phases might appear within other phases;
5. an object assigned to phase A can later be reassigned to phase B;
6. it can be impossible to assign an object to a phase, at later time it can still be done.
Although Lucas (
2005
, pp. 9-10) recognizes that phasing, or chronology in gen-
eral, takes a considerable position in archaeological research, he is sceptical
