A Mechanical Device for Drawing Excavation Sections
Author(s): Seth Reichlin Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 373-375 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279597 . Accessed: 10/03/2011 11:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
COMMENT
tion within this logical and conceptual frame.It
is a remarkablecontributionto the study of the problem of the relationships between archaeologicalmeaningand formalization. THETOOLSOF THE DEMONSTRATION It is significant of a certain methodological state of archaeology that the critical lucidity which enlivens Whallon'swork bears but little on the problems raised by the description of objects. It is not that the fundamentalrole of the perceptualdata is not recognized(p. 28, for example), but rather that the authoraccepts as self-evident the fact that the regularity of correspondence between objects and the symbols assigned to representthem is assured. The difficulties and precautionsthat have to be taken in this field are well known (Gardin, AMER.ANT. 32:13-20, 1968). Whallon himself underlines the many empirical modifications (rules of thumb) that he inflicts on the rules of formalvalidity of his algorithm to reproduce the traditional typology. There is, therefore,no reasonto hold this against him. One can, however, observe that the delusion of the "new archaeology"that the rigor of the mathematicalapparatus implies the rigor of the archaeologicalresultshould not make one forget that without its rigor, the mathematicaltool has only a limited interest. In the case of Whallon's work, for example, if the procedure followed by the author remains explicit, his personalchoice of approximations(value limits, x2, and so on) reintroducesthe subjective components which methodologicalresearchin archaeologytries to eliminate. ON THE GENERALITYOF THEMETHOD AND ITS STRUCTURE Whallon rightly notes certain parallels between the treelike structure of his results and the structure that can be displayed in other anthroplogicalfields on data of different types (pp. 31-32). It is obvious that the pursuit of these possible homologies is an important step toward a better knowledge of cultural phe-
373
nomena. Nevertheless, nothing in the facts
presented here supports a conclusion that the generality of this structure makes it the structure which gives the best account of "space-time reflective types." Such an extrapolation would be unfounded, and Whallon introducesit only as a conjecture. Incidentally,I will mention that any attempt at generalizationbased more or less explicitly on assumptionsabout the mental structureof individualsseems to me to appealto arguments of a transcendentalnature and, therefore, to escape the field of scientific investigation.What is certain, and Whallon'spaperis perfectly clear on this point, is the fact that from now on the archaeologist, in the heuristic phase of his work, must try the proceduresbased on the 2 principlesmentioned above (association analysis), as well as traditional "paradigmatic" procedures. The essential quality of Whallon's work seems to me to rest in the fact that it constitutes one of the most advancedattempts in the field of archaeology to verify the following dictum (which can also be held to be an assertion without true justification): "Scientific inquiry in any field must begin not with some method taken over a priori from some other field, but with the character of the problems of its own field and the analysis of these problems (Northrop, The logic of the sciencesand the humanities,1959).
A MECHANICAL DEVICE FOR
DRAWING EXCAVATION SECTIONS SETH REICHLIN ABSTRACT A mechanicaldevice for makingscale drawingsof excavationsections is described.In limitedtestingthe machinehas shownitself to be capableof substantially reducing the time requiredfor this operation,while increasingthe accuracyof the results. Departmentof Anthropology HarvardUniversity July, 1972
In his classic work on archaeologicaltechnique, Sir MortimerWheelerwrote:
374
ameCRcan antiquity
It must be confessed that a well-drawn, i.e.
intelligently recorded section is relatively a rarity. But it is nevertheless a basic necessity for modern field-work. The published sections are the readiest guide to the value of the excavation report
[Vol. 39, No. 2, 1974
savings in the time required for the task. A
prototype of the machine has been developed and given a partial field test at Teotihuacan, Mexico, but it still contains several major bugs. [Archaeologyfrom the earth, 1954:59]. This prototype is described here in the hope of WhileSir Mortimerrightly stressed the concep- stimulating further development and testing of tual problemsinvolved in section drawings,it is the device. clear that these problemsare not helped by the A sketch of the machine is shown in Fig. 1. long and tedious process of the drawingitself. The basis of operation is the pantograph The present paper describes a mechanical principle, whereby the ratio of the size of the apparatusfor performingthis operation which original to the size of the drawing is equal to is simple to use, accurate, flexible, economical, the ratio of the length of the pointing arm to and which can result in a very substantial the length of the drawing arm. Reducing
4 4
Fig. 1. The machine in operation.
COMMENT
pantographsof this sort are commonly used in
engravingand drafting.For this applicationthe pantograph arms have been adapted to hang over the edge of the excavation. To operate the device, the squarebase is set on the edge of a pit, as shown in Fig. 1. From a given setup the machine is capable of drawing the area within 2 m of the pivot P. For pits wider than 4 m the base can be moved and the resulting profiles spliced together; and with a special extension (not shown), the depth range can also be increasedto 4 m. The base itself is about 30 cm square, supported on 4 posts which are adjustablefor leveling. For drawing, the legs are adjustedso that the pivot is about 30 cm above the ground. The pantograph arms are attached to a sliding rack which can be extended some 40 cm into the pit. Such a featureis useful for clearing such obstacles as protrudingrocks and "steps" left in the course of excavation. If the obstacle or step should extend more than 50 cm from the edge of the pit, the machine can be set up with the base restingon that obstruction. A drawing board about 25 x 40 cm is attached to the end of the sliding extension. The pantographarms pivot on a shaft which is attached to the sliding extension and which passes through a hole in the drawing board. These arms can be removedwhen the machine is not in use. The pointer at the end of the pantograph arms slides in and out a distance of about 15 cm to clear small obstacles, reduce parallax distortion by keeping the pointer close to the wall of the pit, and compensate for the extension of the pivot itself. This pointer has a gun grip with a trigger which controls the
375
movement of the pencil at the drawingpoint D
(see Fig. 1). The pencil is held by a springso that its normal position is approximately0.5 cm away from the paper. Whenthe triggerat P is pulled, a solenoid is energized at D, which pulls the pencil against the paper. Currentis provided by 3 size D batteries. A mechanical pencil with a screwadvanceis used to eliminate the need for pencil sharpening. To draw a particular feature, such as a hearth or a pot in situ, the pointer P is first brought in contact with or close to an edge of that feature. The triggeris pulled, bringingthe pencil in contact with the paper, and the pointer is moved around the borders of the feature. At this time the pencil traces an exact scale reductionof the feature.Whenthe pointer reaches the point of origin, the trigger is released, the pencil retracts,and the pointer is moved to the next feature. This procedureis repeated until all the features of the section havebeen outlined. The prototype described here was constructed largely from standard extruded aluminumshapes, with stainless steel rods for the legs of the base and the pivot of the pantographarms. The weight of the prototype is about 9 kg, although it seems likely that a refinement in machining techniques could reduce this significantly.The author welcomes any questions regarding construction, operation, or applicationof this device. Acknowledgments. This prototype was developed under the auspices of the Teotihuacain Mapping Project of the University of Rochester, supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (# 5-28771). The machine would never have materialized were it not for the encouragement and assistance of Professor Rene Millon, director of the project.