Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 1
Temporal categories identified by Katsianis et al. (
2008
)
Temporal categories
Description
Temporal concept
Examples
Excavation time
Recording time
Event
25/5/2003
Database time
Creation time in the
information system
Event
#25-05-2003 00:00:00#
Stratigraphic time
Relative temporal distinction
between deposits
Relative position
Layer X > (is later than)
layer Y
Archaeological time
Cultural temporal
categorization
Duration
Late Neolithic
Site phase time
Excavation chronological
framework
Duration
Phase IV
Absolute time
Absolute chronology
Event
4700 BC
+
/
−
150 years
All or some of these temporal paths apply to different excavation objects depending on the inter-
pretive objectives
about the way in which it “affects the nature of archaeological interpretation”. He
attributes this doubtful status of chronology to the uniform linear representation
of time (Lucas
2005
, p. 10). Green (
2011
, p. 38) summarizes the archaeologists'
conceptualizations of time in two key subjects, namely “the need to move beyond
monolithic chronology and to take a more fluid stance which acknowledges multi-
ple temporalities and non-linear models of change”.
Beside an assigned phase, other temporal values can be recorded for archae-
ological objects (Katsianis et al.
2008
; Koussoulakou and Stylianidis
1999
,
Peuquet
2001
). Analogous to other database recordings, a database time can
be distinguished from valid or world time (Green
2011
; Katsianis et al.
2008
;
Koussoulakou and Stylianidis
1999
; Peuquet
2001
). In this respect, Koussoulakou
and Stylianidis (
1999
) define the time when an object is found as excavation time.
Katsianis et al. (
2008
) distinguish excavation time and database time, where the
latter is the time the recording is entered in the database. Green (
2011
) suggests
that valid time is the most important for archaeologist, while geographers some-
times pay more attention to database time. Peuquet's (
2001
) statement that “it
is not always as simple as valid and database time” is illustrated by Katsianis et
al. (
2008
) who deduct six potential temporal categories for archaeological finds
(Table
1
). The use of these six categories is confirmed by the survey results of De
Roo et al. (
2013
, in press), which show that each of them is used by at least 20 %
of the respondents and that the archaeological time is the most commonly used
(almost 70 %).
Furthermore, a temporal value for an archaeological finding cannot be read
on the object itself, but is the result of analysis and interpretation (de Runz et
al.
2010
; Smedja
2009
; Tsipidis et al.
2011
). Consequently, archaeological dates
are often subjective, uncertain and imprecise (de Runz et al.
2010
; Green
2011
;
Katsianis et al.
2008
). This uncertainty is inherently linked to archaeological data
in general (Cripps
2012
; Katsianis et al.
2008
). An anteriority index is proposed
by de Runz et al. (
2010
) to indicate the reliability associated to a specific date.
