Archaeological soil and pollen analysis of experimental floor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient Farm, Hampshire, UK

Macphail, Richard I.; Cruise, G.M.; Allen, Michael J.; Linderholm, Johan; Reynolds, P. H.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2003.07.005

Cited by 147 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the micromorphological . Theoretical model (not to scale) for the formation and preservation of the archaeological record of a fireplace or waste pit in different paleoenvironments: multiphase mound sites in central Sudan and site on dune slope in the central Sahara (Cremaschi & Zerboni, 2011). approach (e.g., Courty, Goldberg, & Macphail, 1989;Macphail et al, 2004;Goldberg & Berna, 2010) facilitated the interpretation of the paleoenvironment and supplied a functional definition of features in prehistoric open-air sites in arid regions, whose potential to provide archaeological information has generally been underestimated due to strong erosion and post-depositional processes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micromorphology revealsin situMesolithic living floors and archaeological features in multiphase sites in central Sudan

Zerboni

2011

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Khartoum region of central Sudan, Mesolithic sites were established on sandy ridges distributed along the Nile. Most of the excavations carried out in recent decades have revealed limited preserved archaeological structures or layers corresponding to subsequent phases of human presence due to the disturbance of the deposits. Post-depositional processes affecting Mesolithic sites include (1) the excavation of Neolithic to Post-Meroitic cemeteries at the same sites, (2) surface erosion, and (3) pedoturbation leading to the mixing of the stratigraphy. During a recent field operation along the western bank of the White Nile, archaeological contexts that were only partially disturbed were identified. Employing a geoarchaeological approach and the micromorphological study of sediments (supported by 14 C dating), settlements were placed in their paleoenvironmental contexts and differences between in situ Mesolithic layers and those disturbed by later processes were identified. Furthermore, it was possible to interpret the functional aspects of three categories of pits containing Mesolithic pottery (fireplace pits, fireplace pits with shell accumulations, and waste pits) and to discuss their significance within the wider framework of North African archaeology. Finally, this project has demonstrated the importance of integrating the geosciences (especially micromorphology) and archaeology in the study of processes leading to the formation and preservation of openair prehistoric sites in arid landscapes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micromorphology revealsin situMesolithic living floors and archaeological features in multiphase sites in central Sudan

Zerboni

2011

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has helped archaeologists to understand the construction of earthworks, house floors, and stables (Gebhardt, 1992;Matthews, 1995;Macphail and Goldberg, 1995;Gebhardt and Lanhogr, 1999;Macphail et al, 2003); identify and interpret the nature of agricultural soils and the impact of farming and deforestation on them (Macphail et al, 1987;Courty et al, 1989;Gebhardt, 1992;French and Whitelaw, 1999); and determine the depositional histories of complex archaeological sites, such as caves and rockshelters (Goldberg 1979a(Goldberg , 1979b(Goldberg , 2000Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1998;Goldberg and Arpin, 2000;Schuldenrein, 2001;Sherwood, 2001). Micromorphological studies have also allowed for a more refined analysis of burned deposits, including their form, function, and diagenesis (Courty et al, 1989;Schiegl et al, 1996 ;Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1998;Karkansas et al, 2000;Sherwood, 2001;Homsey, 2004).…”

Section: Micromorphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating geochemistry and micromorphology to interpret feature use at Dust Cave, a Paleo‐Indian through middle‐archaic site in Northwest Alabama

Homsey

Capo

2006

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors develop an integrated method using geochemistry and micromorphology to examine the use of archaeological features at Dust Cave, a Paleo-Indian through Middle Archaic (10,650-3600 cal. B.C.) site in northwest Alabama. Samples analyzed using ICP-AES for aluminum (Al), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), sodium (Na), phosphorous (P), strontium (Sr), sulfur (S), and zinc (Zn) and suggest that cultural features differ chemically from geogenic sediments in several ways: (a) K-means cluster analyses indicate that features of known origin and suspected features of the same origin cluster together, thereby allowing for a preliminary separation into discrete functionalities; (b) phosphorus serves as an indicator of human occupation intensity; and (c) Sr/Ca and K/P ratios help identify anthropogenic materials. Micromorphological observations allow for a finer subdivision of feature types and help highlight postdepositional processes affecting cave sediments, and interpretation of activity at the site. These findings show that feature diversity and occupation intensity increased through time, peaking during the Middle Archaic.

show abstract

“…Cases of trampling have been identified in prehistoric contexts of varied age (e.g., Dibble et al 2009;Gé et al 1993;Goldberg et al 2009;Ismail-Meyer et al 2013;Karkanas 2006;Miller et al 2013;Zerboni 2011) and corroborated with experiments (Balbo et al 2010;Banerjea 2011;Macphail et al 2004;Rentzel and Narten 2000;Wallace 2003). Comparisons with these cases will be used in future work at El Salt.…”

Section: Contacts Interfaces and Primary Depositional Processesmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…In younger sites, a classic example of an interfacies event is the constructed floor and its overlying crust (sensu Macphail et al 2004) or its microstratigraphic zones (sensu Gé et al 1993). According to Gé et al (1993), floors can be divided into passive, active, and reactive zones.…”

Section: Contacts Interfaces and Post-depositional Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contacts under the lens: Perspectives on the role of microstratigraphy in archaeological research

Mallol

Mentzer

2015

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving an accurate perception of time and context remains a major challenge in archaeology. This paper highlights the potential benefits of microstratigraphic study to address this goal, drawing on case studies from Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Iron Age archaeological sites. First, we discuss the importance of site formation reconstruction and the ways in which current field methods approach the sedimentary record. Then, we focus on both field identification and highresolution study of stratigraphic contacts, which are ubiquitous in archaeological deposits. Examples are presented to highlight the role of microstratigraphy in characterizing the nature of contacts and their significance for archaeological interpretation. A microstratigraphic approach is especially useful for distinguishing between contacts that originate from changes in depositional processes and contacts that form as a result of postdepositional processes such as pedogenesis, diagenesis, or burning. Further examples show how "invisible" anthropogenic surfaces and different kinds of occupation deposits can come to light at a microscopic scale of observation. Finally, we illustrate cases in which what appeared to be sterile layers in the field yielded anthropogenic elements. In the end, we discuss how archaeological projects might incorporate microstratigraphic analyses and their results within broader research frameworks that prioritize site formation process reconstruction.

show abstract

Archaeological soil and pollen analysis of experimental floor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient Farm, Hampshire, UK

Cited by 147 publications

References 20 publications

Micromorphology revealsin situMesolithic living floors and archaeological features in multiphase sites in central Sudan

Micromorphology revealsin situMesolithic living floors and archaeological features in multiphase sites in central Sudan

Integrating geochemistry and micromorphology to interpret feature use at Dust Cave, a Paleo‐Indian through middle‐archaic site in Northwest Alabama

Contacts under the lens: Perspectives on the role of microstratigraphy in archaeological research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About