Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I do believe we are getting to the basis of the original question... and intersting it is / was in getting there.
A tree bole is (at least this is my definition... so I expect it to change in the next few posts!)
A bole is indeed another name for the trunk of a tree.. different from branch and crown however you also have the root bole... which is what I think you are reffering to, which is the same but underground - therefore a root bole is the solid part of the tree which is subsurface before it 'branches' out into a lateral root system. So from top to bottom (simplified) you have a Crown
Tree Bole
Root Bole
Root system
when a tree crashes to the ground, or is removed..for example then the hole formed by this is actually the area of the root bole.. the root system basically remaining in the ground.
So I would describe a hole that is evidence for a tree formally standing in that location as a root bole hole..
er........... I think.... <prepares to be shot down in flames>
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
So in the geoarchaeological definition of a "primary" fill, a feature which does not display erosion of the cut does not have a primary fill? Such as a well cut into heavy clay, for instance. Can it have secondary and tertiary fills without the existence of a primary fill?
Ugh, I knew there was a reason I gave geoarchaeology a wide berth at uni. [?]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
pesky geo-archaeologists! just trying to confuse things...
I think Sparky is right:
"there's needs to be an understood and widely used terminology" otherwise one persons primary fill is anothers secondary
But hold on... if you don't have a primary fill, how can you go straight to secondary... secondary to what? something that did not happen? Though I think I am grasping that geo-archs see the world differently... and they can have fills (or not) describing erosional or natural events as opposed to human events.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
From an archaeological point of view I would even suggest (ducking head below parapet) that you can have multiple primary fills within a cut - i.e. a fill or group of fills relating to the primary function of the cut, secondary fills relating to any subsequent change of use/activity and tertiary fills relating to the final use/depositions within a cut.
The geo-archaeological (not sure it is strictly just geo-archaeological) terminology, from the above explanations seems to relate to specific formation processes relating to the filling of a cut feature through 'natural' processes - collapse, erosion and silting?
I've certainly found this an interesting and head-scratching thread. As others have said perhaps before we can answer the original question we actually need to decide/agree what a primary fill is
!
Austin Ainsworth
Unregistered
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I do believe we are getting to the basis of the original question... and intersting it is / was in getting there.
A tree bole is (at least this is my definition... so I expect it to change in the next few posts!)
A bole is indeed another name for the trunk of a tree.. different from branch and crown however you also have the root bole... which is what I think you are reffering to, which is the same but underground - therefore a root bole is the solid part of the tree which is subsurface before it 'branches' out into a lateral root system. So from top to bottom (simplified) you have a Crown
Tree Bole
Root Bole
Root system
when a tree crashes to the ground, or is removed..for example then the hole formed by this is actually the area of the root bole.. the root system basically remaining in the ground.
So I would describe a hole that is evidence for a tree formally standing in that location as a root bole hole..
Agreed, or to simplify "root bole hole" = tree throw.
One of my bugbears is reading context sheets where a tree throw has been described as a tree bole when no evidence of the bole was ever found.
edit: typos
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
I would have thought it was simple,whichever deposit seals the base of a cut feature is the primary fill.If that's a tricky one try this for a matrix:-when you have medieval conduit ceramic pipe coming from a spring about a mile and a half away feeding into your priory site,the pipe is given its own number to fit into the matrix-but the fill of the pipe which i sampled was also given a number,but where on the matrix do you put it as it is wholly contained by the pipe?[?]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
It is one of those annoting floating contexts. (pardon the pun).. the 'fill' takes place after the pipe is laid, but depending on what you have, the deposition of layers/fill happen up to the present day...
try this one... a body in a coffin
Is it a fill?
is the sequence...
Burial cut -> Coffin -> Skeleton -> Fill
or, as the body was placed in the coffin prior to deposition in the ground
Burial cut -> Skeleton -> Coffin -> Fill
or even
Skeleton -> Coffin -> Burial cut -> Fill
hmmmmmmmmmm chronological and stratigraphic being different
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Shouldn't it be-coffin base-body-coffin lid? plus,don't forget once the coffin is lowered into the ground people usually then drop some earth on top;there's two extra numbers to add to the matrix!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrg
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I would have thought that is is not usually possible to determine (on site) whether the deceased had been placed in the coffin prior to burial. If off-site surely the process is not part of the recorded stratigraphic sequence, in the same way as the manufature of say a pot is not? Deposition of the coffin and contents is a single act. Fill(s) of the grave (cut) follow.
