Large Scale Geochemical Signatures Enable to Determine Landscape Use in the Deserted Medieval Villages

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.…”

Tracing the spatial organization and activity zones of an Early Mediaeval homestead at the Pohansko stronghold (Czechia) by combining geophysics and geochemical mapping

“…The approach of non‐invasive geochemical surveying has already been applied with the purpose of exploring ancient activities at archaeological sites in Eastern‐Central Europe. It has been demonstrated that it is a cost‐effective tool that can help reveal anthropogenic geochemical signal of settlement activities or agricultural practices of different ages (e.g., Danielisová et al, 2022; Horák et al, 2018; Horák & Klír, 2017; Janovský et al, 2020; Janovský & Horák, 2018; Salisbury, 2013; Šantrůčková et al, 2020). The design of research varies in these types of surveys (e.g., the depth sample collection, the soil horizons sampled, the grid of the sample area) and are adapted to local environmental conditions, the geological background and to the research questions asked.…”

“…The main advantage of geophysical prospection is that extensive areas can be examined in a relatively short time, which facilitates the identification of a wide range of archaeological features (Aspinall et al, 2008; Gaffney, 2008; Milo, 2014). Geochemical surveying enables us to identify the organization of the space and distinguish boundaries or the particular functions of objects and structures, which significantly helps us to understand land‐use activities on archaeological sites (e.g., Janovský & Horák, 2018; Salisbury, 2013; Save et al, 2020). The use of these methods can be especially important in the study of archaeological sites where the objects were situated at the level of the Early Mediaeval surface (and thus were not sunken into the subsoil) and their remains have not been preserved due to unfavourable environmental conditions or where the infilling of archaeological objects cannot be distinguished from the surrounding cultural layer (Seren et al, 2013; Simniškytė et al, 2021).…”