A dual geochemical‐phytolith methodology for studying activity areas in ephemeral sites: Insights from an ethnographic case study from Jordan

Abstract

This study aims to contribute to the interpretation of ephemeral sites by exploring the efficacy of geochemistry and phytolith analysis to identify activity areas in seasonally occupied ethnographic sites. The application of a portable X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) instrument and phytolith analysis to soil samples from six Bedouin campsites at Wadi Faynan, Jordan, provided insights about anthropogenic enrichment patterns and the effects of short periods of abandonment on these. The compatibility of the two analysis techniques and means to combine the results of both are addressed. The results of this study suggest that soil signatures can be found in ephemeral sites following abandonment, even in dynamic and harsh environments. The efficacy of the geochemical analysis to indicate variance within the data was found to be greater than that of the phytolith analysis in these case studies, while certain trends within the phytolith results were more useful in identifying specific activities. Due to the compatibility of the geochemical and phytolith data, it is proposed that a serial or parallel approach should be taken for their statistical analysis.

Large‐scale geochemical survey by pXRF spectrometry of archaeological settlements and features: new perspectives on the method

“…Part of the reason for the limited use of pXRF spectrometry is due to the relative 'new-ness' of the technology, but also due to the reputation of pXRF spectrometry as being less precise or less accurate than laboratory-based technologies such as ICP. While we would agree that there are certainly limitations to what pXRF spectrometry can measure, it is clear from recent research, including our own work, that questions about the utility, accuracy, precision, and reputability, in particular for questions requiring only qualitative or semi-quantitative data, have been answered in the positive (Booth et al, 2017;Carey & Moles, 2017;Hunt & Speakman, 2015;Janovský & Horák, 2018;Vos et al, 2018).…”

“…More recently, geochemistry has experienced an increase in interest from archaeologists in search of new methods to investigate the internal spatial organization of sites and/or to determine the specific function of features, structures or spaces within sites. Geochemical data responding to these objectives has been and is being provided by the development of new technologies and techniques including: phosphate concentration (Crowther, 1997;Holiday & Gartner, 2007;Parnell, Terry, & Golden, 2001;Roos & Nolan, 2012;Rypkema, Lee, Galaty, & Haws, 2007), inductively coupled plasmaoptical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) (Dirix et al, 2013;Middleton & Price, 1996;Oonk, Slomp, Huisman, & Vriend, 2009a;Vyncke, Degryse, Vassilieva, & Waelkens, 2011;Wilson, Davidson, & Cresser, 2008, inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) (Knudson, Frink, Hoffman, & Price, 2004;Linderholm & Lundberg, 1994), inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) (Cuenca-García, 2015;Huisman, 1998;Misarti, Finney, & Maschner, 2011), and laboratory-based and portable Xray fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometry (Booth et al, 2017;Ciminale, Gallo, Pallara, & Laviano, 2009;Cook, Clarke, Fulford, & Voss, 2014;Coronel, Bair, Brown, & Terry, 2014;Cuenca-García, 2015De Langhe, 2015;Frahm et al, 2016;Huisman, 1998;Hunt & Speakman, 2015;Janovský & Horák, 2018;Oonk, Slomp, Huisman, & Vriend, 2009a, 2009bTereygeol, Arles, Foy, Florsch, & Llubes, 2010;Vos, Jenkins, & Palmer, 2018).…”

“…site. Taking as a starting point the work ofMisarti et al (2011), Cook et al (2014,Sulas et al (2019),Booth et al (2017),Carey and Moles (2017),Janovský and Horák (2018),Hunt and Speakman (2015),and Vos et al (2018) amongst others, the framework we have developed allows us to determine: if polluting activities took place within a landscape, site or building; determine what the (likely) activity was that produced the elemental signature; provide indications of how polluted the site was (and is); and generate data that allows relative comparisons to be made between different landscapes, sites, buildings, features and empty spaces. It is not the absolute values of each measured element that is important, but rather the presence, combination, and organization of individual elements that informs our work.Because the underlying geology for each site is different and affects the absolute values of the elements detected, comparing absolute values between sites, while necessary for questions of provenance and sourcing, is not necessary for the investigation of paleo-pollution.…”

A model based on Bayesian confirmation and machine learning algorithms to aid archaeological interpretation by integrating incompatible data

“…Associated activity in this study P Hearths, animal dung [11]; food preparation and consumption [31][32][33], burning and food storage [34], refuse areas [31], excrements [33], Byres [35], Meat [36] General anthropogenic occupation (all WJ sites), bedrock features (WJ13)…”

“…Many geoarchaeological techniques produce complex, high dimensional data which are difficult to interpret in relation to one another. The results of multiple analysis techniques are therefore often quantitatively analysed separately even when they are used within a combined methodology, and then described side by side to form a qualitative synthesis [7,[11][12][13][14][15]. One way to approach this issue is through standardization and normalization of the data prior to their integration in multivariate statistics [16][17][18].…”