Viewing page 62 of 182

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

16.

with the idea that is was an intact region. But all of a sudden, things of modern origin would appear and make one wander whether all the previous observations were at all accurate! This is exactly the case with S3E, which has already been described.

It must be clear now that in a disturbed stratum, great cautions are necessary. Unless it can be proved to satisfaction, that the stratum has never been disturbed, artifacts associated with each other may be merely accidental, and mere co-existence could not mean contemporaneity. However stratification is not the only guidance for identification. Typology is equally important; in a disturbed stratum, it is equally probable that associated artifacts may be of the same origin, if it can be justified on typological ground.

From these general observations, we can adduce three rules to guide our study of the individual artifacts.

(1) Artifacts that are self-identifying must be found [[underline]]in situ[[/underline]]: for instance oracle bones with or without inscriptions.

(2) Within undisturbed and the same stratum, associated finds are to be considered as contemporaneous: for instance, incised wares which are associated with inscribed bones.

(3) Finds of disturbed stratum are to be identified thru the associated finds of the undisturbed stratum and their typology.

But before we proceed to apply these rules to the study of individual artifacts, some further consideration of the formation of the surface layer seem to be necessary.

The present elevation of the site in the immediate neighborhood of Hsiao-t'un Ts'un shows little undulation. The cotton field in the north is, however, significantly higher than the village ground. Our north digging was chosen at a spot, which is on the average about one meter higher than the central and south diggings. The surface layers