| PREVIOUS | CONTENTS | FORWARD |
To make sure that we start analysis at the same level of recording, find a recap of the manual SCP method in the appendix (Appendix 1.1).
The best way to communicate methods is by using examples. There are certainly many ways resulting in 'structures of phasing' suitable for a database. The aim here is to show one consistent method and make it explicit. I have included an example of minimal size, 'Fictive Excavation', and its analytical structure in Appendix 1: There are eight Areas, four recorded in trenches as single contexts (but shown for convenience of space on a multi-context plan) and four as sections, of which the context descriptions, section drawings and a sequence diagram for the multi-layer plan are provided (Appendix 1.2). While we go through the procedures of structural analysis, readers are invited to try establishing their own post-excavation record. Some examples are given as figures and a suggestion of how to structure the field data is appended. During the stages of analysis (Chapters 2 and 3) I shall refer to the post-excavation examples of 'Fictive Excavation'.
In contrast to an excavation in the real world, the number of contexts in the example is minimal and this also reduces the size of the groupings to a ridiculous minimum. Normally the amount of grouping levels would depend on the complexity of a site and on the number and extent of trenches included into one publication project. The aim here is to introduce the principle of interpretative transition from single context to period, using all possible levels of sub-group, group, land use and phase. You of course can organise and divide your database into as many levels of interpretation as is necessary for your sites.