Your assignment is to reconstruct the occupational history of this site using the sectional diagram and other information provided. For the purposes of this assignment, we will 1) assume that this trench is representative of the entire site and 2) that if a datable artifact or feature belonging to a particular period is reported, it means
that the site was actually occupied then. In real life, it often happens that some parts of a large site may have been abandoned at a particular time, while other parts were occupied, but we will ignore that possibility here.
We will also assume 3) that if we do not have datable artifacts or features from a particular period, the site was abandoned then and 4) that any direct scientific dates have been calibrated using the best means possible.
First, identify the basic times of occupation and abandonment using the pottery data, datable artifacts and C-14 dates provided. By “times,” I mean continuous episodes of people occupying the site, which may extend across several archaeological periods. For example, “The site was occupied continuously between the Late Pleonastic and Middle Chiastic Periods, based on the presence of wheel-made pottery with red spirals on pale surface,
white circles on dark surface, and white rectangles on dark surface in Strata X, Y, and Z. It was abandoned during Late Chiastic Period ….” Indicate briefly what evidence leads you to your conclusions. You do NOT need to regurgitate all of the evidence given for each stratum. Second, identify any probable buildings and what features belong to them (these might include walls and floors between walls), any graves, or other features evident in the sectional diagram and with what latest period they are associated; if a more specific latest terminus post quem than a whole period is possible because of a more specifically datable item associated with it, provide that as well for any graves, buildings, or other features that you have identified. Third, answer the
specific questions below.
1) Mitch Igan believes that there is a serious problem with Stratum 4, because the C-14 date on the log (625 ± 25 AD) is much earlier than the other datable material in the stratum. Al Aska says that there is at least one perfectly obvious reason for the apparent discrepancy. What is it?
2) Arie Zona believes that Stratum 5 and Walls A, B, and C provide the conditions for being a terminus ante quem for the strata underneath. Is this true or not and why?
3) Neb Raska argues that the Paleolithic stone tool found in Stratum 8 provides the latest terminus post quem (125,000 BC) for that stratum. Explain whether this is true or not.
4) Indi Anna believes that the walnut shell in Wall E, C-14 dated to 910 BC ± 50 must be wrongly dated, because 910 BC would be in the Early Chiastic Period, and she does not see any pottery of that kind, so the site was not occupied then. Is her reasoning correct? If not, how could that date fit in with what has been excavated?
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more
Recent Comments