<p>As I see it there are no clear differences. There are, however, processes that are not compatible with a superposition principle. In geology, it is possible for layers to be folded and result in inverse age relationships. Packs of sediments can also be pushed over other layers during, for example mountain building, so that sequences are out of order or even repeated, almost like shuffling a deck of cards. It is also possible for, for example, magma to penetrate into rocks and generate much younger layers within an older rock mass. A depth, mass is added to the crust by melting and solidification while cooling such that rock units of different age can be found parallel (in a stratigraphic context) to each other. Hence the superposition principle only applies in sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated sediments that has not undergone and significant tectonic activity. But, I can also imagine that archaeological material can (although not extensively) be subject to disruptions in certain environments where active tectonics are at play or for example where glaciers act to push material forward and generate repeat sequences. </p>

<p>To expand on the second part of the post. Geological stratigraphy is established from physical exposures and by measuring structural shapes such as the strike and dip of strata (a branch of geology called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_geology">Structural geology</a>. Very little is gained from created exposures such as open day mines, mine shafts of other dug pits. It is also possible (as in archaeology) to use geophysical methods to infer layer by ground penetrating radar, seismics etc. It should be mentioned here that methods and possibilities vary between bedrock and unconsolidated sediments, where I would venture to say that archaeology and studies of the unconsolidated sediments are very similar using test pits and coring with the addition of understanding transport mechanisms to understand how and why certain sediment layers exist where they are.</p>

<p>Visualisation pof geological data is usually done in sections or logs of boireholes with attempts to connect between observed sections. In bedrock where there is not only vertical variability but also significant horizontal, such as in igneous rocks, obtaining a precise image is very difficult</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-16T10:56:29.083Z
Yeah, inverse stratigraphy is rare in Archaeology, but it occurs sometimes. You didn't answer the other part - are stratigraphic unit (stratum) typology and other features that might be specific to archaeology also used in geological stratigraphy?
Pavel V.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-16T10:50:37.200Z
2014-04-16T11:06:01.593Z
2014-04-16T11:06:01.593Z
Peter Jansson
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy">Stratigraphy</a>, or study of rock or soil layers (strata), was originally introduced as a branch of geology. However, it is often applied in other disciplines, especially in archaeology and paleonthology. As an archaeologist (though not a field archaeologist), all I learnt about stratigraphy was taught from archaeological perspective. So I'm curious how the approach of other disciplines to stratigraphy differs from the archaeological. I'm especially interrested in geology - because it is the main and original discipline for stratigraphy, and because the geological time is very different from the archaeological time.</p>

<p>I know the basic principles such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition">law of superposition</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_original_horizontality">principle of original horizontality</a> are common. On the other hand, the time (hundreds or thousands of years x millions of years before present), materials on which stratigraphy is studied (sediments often created by human culture x rocks) and dating methods differ.</p>

<p>But how do these differences affect the "theoretical" methodology? That it is usually not possible to dig 100 million old strata with a spade is natural, but how about interpretation?</p>

<p>Is geological stratigraphy visualized with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-matrix">Harris matrix</a> or something very similar too? Are there any special principles that usually apply only on very old strata? Or is geological stratigraphy simpler, so some archaeological stratigraphy rules don't apply? Is there any distinctions between various stratigraphic units (layers and cuts, or other distinctions)? If yes, which categories are usually distinguished?</p>

<geology><stratigraphy><archaeology>
Which are the biggest methodological differences between the archaeological and geological approaches to stratigraphy?
Pavel V.
# Which are the biggest methodological differences between the archaeological and geological approaches to stratigraphy?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-04-16)

[Stratigraphy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy), or study of rock or soil layers (strata), was originally introduced as a branch of geology. However, it is often applied in other disciplines, especially in archaeology and paleonthology. As an archaeologist (though not a field archaeologist), all I learnt about stratigraphy was taught from archaeological perspective. So I'm curious how the approach of other disciplines to stratigraphy differs from the archaeological. I'm especially interrested in geology - because it is the main and original discipline for stratigraphy, and because the geological time is very different from the archaeological time.

I know the basic principles such as [law of superposition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition) and [principle of original horizontality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_original_horizontality) are common. On the other hand, the time (hundreds or thousands of years x millions of years before present), materials on which stratigraphy is studied (sediments often created by human culture x rocks) and dating methods differ.

But how do these differences affect the "theoretical" methodology? That it is usually not possible to dig 100 million old strata with a spade is natural, but how about interpretation?

Is geological stratigraphy visualized with [Harris matrix](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris-matrix) or something very similar too? Are there any special principles that usually apply only on very old strata? Or is geological stratigraphy simpler, so some archaeological stratigraphy rules don't apply? Is there any distinctions between various stratigraphic units (layers and cuts, or other distinctions)? If yes, which categories are usually distinguished?

**Tags:** geology, stratigraphy, archaeology


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-04-16. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

As I see it there are no clear differences. There are, however, processes that are not compatible with a superposition principle. In geology, it is possible for layers to be folded and result in inverse age relationships. Packs of sediments can also be pushed over other layers during, for example mountain building, so that sequences are out of order or even repeated, almost like shuffling a deck of cards. It is also possible for, for example, magma to penetrate into rocks and generate much younger layers within an older rock mass. A depth, mass is added to the crust by melting and solidification while cooling such that rock units of different age can be found parallel (in a stratigraphic context) to each other. Hence the superposition principle only applies in sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated sediments that has not undergone and significant tectonic activity. But, I can also imagine that archaeological material can (although not extensively) be subject to disruptions in certain environments where active tectonics are at play or for example where glaciers act to push material forward and generate repeat sequences.

To expand on the second part of the post. Geological stratigraphy is established from physical exposures and by measuring structural shapes such as the strike and dip of strata (a branch of geology called [Structural geology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_geology). Very little is gained from created exposures such as open day mines, mine shafts of other dug pits. It is also possible (as in archaeology) to use geophysical methods to infer layer by ground penetrating radar, seismics etc. It should be mentioned here that methods and possibilities vary between bedrock and unconsolidated sediments, where I would venture to say that archaeology and studies of the unconsolidated sediments are very similar using test pits and coring with the addition of understanding transport mechanisms to understand how and why certain sediment layers exist where they are.

Visualisation pof geological data is usually done in sections or logs of boireholes with attempts to connect between observed sections. In bedrock where there is not only vertical variability but also significant horizontal, such as in igneous rocks, obtaining a precise image is very difficult

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Yeah, inverse stratigraphy is rare in Archaeology, but it occurs sometimes. You didn't answer the other part - are stratigraphic unit (stratum) typology and other features that might be specific to archaeology also used in geological stratigraphy?  

---

