The article compares the practical, methodological, and theoretical implications of two major excavation strategies: the stratigraphical method, which is interface-oriented, and the planum method, based on artificial levels. Drawing on the experience from the Uivar project in Romania and subsequent research on Neolithic circular enclosures (rondels) in Germany, the author demonstrates how stratigraphic excavation allows for a finer spatial-temporal solution, a more reliable assignment of complexes, and superior control over stratigraphic contamination, but requires greater effort in specialists training and field data recording. In contrast, the planum-section approach favours the acquisition of comparable two-dimensional plans and sections, and facilitates volumetric calculations and analyses of artefact density, but transfers part of the interpretative work to the post-excavation stage and tends to underemphasise the evidence of human intervention. The paper also highlights recent technological advances in 3D model recording, in three-dimensional digital measurements, including dense TST recording, laser scanning of three-dimensional surfaces, and 3D photogrammetry (Structure-from-Motion). All these developments provide cost-effective and accessible solutions for documenting interfaces and propose a nuanced conceptualization of excavation methodologies.
[1] In the sense of Edward C. Harris, Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, 2nd ed. (London: Academic Press, 1989).
[2] Timothy C. Darvill, The concise Oxford dictionary of archaeology. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) – ‘single-context recording’. A detailed description of the single-context approach is given by Steve Roskams, Excavation. Cambridge Manuals in archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 114-117 and 140-141.
[3] But cf. Philip Barker, Techniques of archaeological excavation, 3rd ed., fully revised (London: Routledge, 1993): 168-169, with a sceptical comment, and Sarah Croix, Pieterjan Deckers, Claus Feveile, Maria Knudsen, Sarah Skytte Qvistgaard, Søren M. Sindbæk, Barbora Wouters, “Single Context, Metacontext, and High Definition Archaeology: Integrating New Standards of Stratigraphic Excavation and Recording,” in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26, 4 (2019): 1591–1631, for a critical assessment.
[4] Ibid., 100-104.
[5] Harris, Principles, 72-73.
[6] Marley R. Brown and Edward C. Harris, “Interfaces in archaeological stratigraphy,” in Practices of archaeological stratigraphy, Eds. Edward C. Harris, Marley R. Brown, and Gregory J. Brown (London: Academic Press, 1993), 2-6.
[7] Cf. Wolfram Schier, “Stratigraphy vs taphonomy? Towards an integrative approach to stratification,” in Ed. Herausgeber* innenkollektiv, Pearls, Politics, and Pistachios. Essays in Anthropology and Memories on the Occasion of Susan Pollock’s 65th Birthday (Berlin: Ex Oriente), in press.
[8] The Eastern European approach, as far as known to the present author, is similar in the excavation and treatment of stratigraphic units defined by interfaces but usually does not involve a separate recording on single-context plans as in British archaeology.
[9] Brown and Harris, “Interfaces,” 5; Nicky Pearson and Tim Williams, “Single-context planning: its role in on-site recording procedures and in post-excavation analysis at York,” in Practices of archaeological stratigraphy, Eds. Edward C. Harris, Marley R. Brown, and Gregory J. Brown (London: Academic Press, 1993). Roskams, Excavation, 239-266 discusses the relation between on-site and post-excavation stratigraphical analysis at length.
[10] David I. Bibby, “Building stratigraphic sequences on excavations: an example from Konstanz, Germany,” in Practices of archaeological stratigraphy, Eds. Edward C. Harris, Marley R. Brown, and Gregory J. Brown (London: Academic Press, 1993), 104-121.
[11] Total Station Theodolite.
[12] Described as Demirant and Quadrant Excavation by Laura Evis, Forensic archaeology. The application of comparative excavation methods and recording systems (Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 2016), 7-10.
[13] In German, this excavation strategy is described as Artificial Layer excavation method [‘Grabung nach künstlichen Schichten’, according to Friedrich Linke, “Grabungsmethoden. Grabung nach künstlichen und natürlichen Schichten,” in Handbuch der Grabungstechnik, Ed. Jörg Biel (Stuttgart: Ges. für Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Württemberg und Hohenzollern, 1998), 16.5], whereas in English ‘artificial layers’ are rather known as Arbitrary Levels [US – Evis, Forensic archaeology, 10-12] or spits [GB – Martin Carver, Archaeological investigation (London: Routledge 2009), 118]; Martin Carver cited the term Schnitt method for what is called planum-and-section method here (Carver, Archaeological, 117) which does not appropriately characterise the method (Schnitt meaning excavation trench). His assessment of this method as ‘… ruthless – but effective’ (Carver, Archaeological, 117) is a harsh, but justified criticism. Nevertheless, despite the wide-spread application of the planum method, in German methodological literature committed pleas for the stratigraphical method and its practice can be found since the 1970s (Gersbach, Ausgrabung heute, 31). Also, an official manual for Excavation Technicians (Grabungstechniker, a recognised profession in Germany) issued 1998 suggests both the planum and the stratigraphical method as alternative approaches, depending on the type of site and stratigraphical situation encountered (Linke, “Grabungsmethoden,” 16.5.3-4).
[14] Stratified deposits outside feature contexts are usually encountered only in special topographic situations such as colluvial deposits or ancient watercourses. Otherwise, intercutting features (Darvill, The concise, 438) are the only aspect of stratigraphy that is omnipresent in typical multi-period large-area excavations.
[15] Gersbach, Ausgrabung heute, 4-28.
[16] E.g. for Bavaria: https://www.blfd.bayern.de/mam/information_und_service/fachanwender/dokuvorgaben_april_2020.pdf
North Rhine-Westphalia: https://bodendenkmalpflege.lvr.de/de/service/grabungsrichtlinien/grabungsrichtlinien_1.html.
[17] In German, the colloquial term ‘BMW Schnitt’ is sometimes used for excavating opposite quadrants and recording two half sections in both quadrants.
[18] Rolf Hachmann, Vademecum der Grabung Kamid el-Loz (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1969) [Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 5].
[19] See Harris, Principles; Brown and Harris, “Interfaces,”.
[20] Evis, Forensic archaeology, 10-12.
[21] Bernhard Hänsel (mit Beiträgen von Horst D. Schulz and Horst Willkomm), Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund (Berlin: Verlag Volker Spiess, 1989) [Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 7], 45 ff., Fig. 6.
[22] Manfred Korfmann, Demircihüyük I: Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde (Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 1983), 15–19, Figs. 28–29.
[23] In the sense of Wolfram Schier, “Measuring Change: The Neolithic Pottery Sequence of Vinča-Belo Brdo,” in Documenta Praehistorica 27 (2000): 188-189; Schier, “Stratigraphy vs taphonomy?”.
[24] Harris, Principles, 54-68.
[25] Ibid., 54.
[26] Ibid., 57.
[27] Ibid., 55.
[28] Ibid., 60.
[29] David A. Warburton, “Stratigraphic Analysis,” in Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Ed. Deborah M. Pearsall (San Diego: Academic Press, 2008), 2108.
[30] Gavin Lucas, Understanding the Archaeological Records (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 84.
[31] Evis, Forensic archaeology, 10-12.
[32] Wolfram Schier, “The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Vinča: New Evidence from the Type Site,” in The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections. International Symposium on the Vinča Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections, Timișoara, Romania, October 1995, Ed. Florin Drașovean (Timişoara: Mirton, 1996) [Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica 2], 141–162; Schier, “Measuring Change".
[33] Harris, Principles, 144; Roskams, Excavation, 134-141; For an early example of a CAD-based contour plan see Barker, Techniques, 191, Fig. 60a, b.
[34] Recent examples: Yoshiki Hori and Luke Lavan, “The Potential of Laser Scanning for the Study of Roman Buildings,” in Field Methods and Post-Excavation Techniques in Late Antique Archaeology, Eds. Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015), 595–660; Croix et al., “Single Context”.
[35] Matthew J. Westoby, James Brasington, Neil F. Glasser, Michael J. Hambrey, John M. Reynolds, “Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications,” in Geomorphology 179 (2012): 300–314.
[36] Since most ditches did not show a clear and differentiated backfill stratigraphy, an interface-oriented excavation of the backfill appeared very difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, the backfill was excavated in artificial levels of 10 cm, always respecting the lateral interface of the ditch.
Fig. 1. Excavation approaches in multi-layered sites: A) in arbitrary levels (planum-and-section method), B) following the layer interfaces and excavating negative features in the reverse order of their temporal sequence (stratigraphic method). Modified following Gersbach 1998, Fig. 13, diagram by J. Müller-Edzards, Berlin.
Fig. 2. Various ways to produce cross-sections, using boxes around and across features in the Central-European planum-and-section method. Modified following Egon Gersbach, Ausgrabung heute. Methoden u. Techniken d. Feldgrabung. With contributions of Joachim Hahn, Martin Schaich, 3rd ed. (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft/Die Archäologie. Einführungen, 1998), Illustration 14: diagram by J. Müller-Edzards, Berlin.
Fig. 3. Demircihöyük (Turkey). Projection of the excavation units (Behälter-Overlay) onto the recorded and interpreted South profile of Area K8 (Korfmann, Demircihüyük, Fig. 29, extract).
Fig. 4. Frequency polygons (‘battleship diagram’) displaying relative frequencies of diagnostic wares in the Deh Luran sequence, Iran. Here, the sequence is composed of stratified assemblages from different sites whose respective total of diagnostic sherds is set to 100% [Frank Hole and Kent Flannery, “The Prehistory of Southwestern Iran: A Preliminary Report,” in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33 (1967): Fig. 10].
Fig. 5. Gura Baciului (Cluj County, Romania), Early Neolithic pits. Only the contour of pits and relative depth values are indicated; neither cross-sections nor contours inside the negative features have been recorded [Gheorghe Lazarovici and Zoia Maxim, Gura Baciului. Monografie Arheologică (Cluj-Napoca: Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 11, 1995), Fig. 33 – extract].
Fig. 6. Reflector-less dense TST recording of feature interfaces. Above (a): recording of ditch terminal at Quedlinburg I 2012, using two TSTs. Below left (b): ditch segment at Hopferstadt, triangulation of TST elevational data; right (c): rendered surface on triangulation mesh.
Fig. 7. Quedlinburg I, Area 5. Left (a): recording of the ditch interface with a suspended SLR camera; right (b): exposed interface of ditch junction.
Fig. 8. Hopferstadt, 2014. Left (a): recording of the ditch interface with a photo drone – the white balls on the ground are tachymetric reference points; right (b): 3D model of ditch intersection – a photo-realistically rendered surface of a triangulated 3D model (screenshot).
Fig. 9. Quedlinburg I, Area 6, 2014. Left (a): 3D-model (generated by drone-based SfM) of a unique entrance situation formed by rectangular palisade ditches; right (b): 3D model (screenshot) of palisade corner during excavation (baulks still standing), corresponding to the lower left corner of Fig. 9a.
Fig. 10. Quedlinburg I, Neolithic enclosure, Area 6, causewayed north-western entrance. Above (a): 3D view of ditches. The ditch in the background is feature no. 6030, the opposite no. 6031 (3D model: J. Meyer). – Below (b): vertical distribution of pottery weight (bars) and density (gram per cubic metre) across arbitrary levels of 10 cm (diagram W. Schier).