Modernizing Spatial Micro-Refuse Analysis: New Methods for Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting the Spatial Patterning of Micro-Refuse from House-Floor Contexts

Ullah, Isaac; Duffy, Paul R.; Banning, Edward B.

doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9223-x

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Microartefact studies have been highlighted as having greater potential as primary refuse, as they are likely to escape the cleaning and deliberate removal that frequently occurs with larger material (Hull 1987, LaMotta and Schiffer 1999, Ullah et al 2015. The main conclusion from this work however is that microdebitage patterning is not a reliable tool for identification of 'in situ' activity, as was initially hoped.…”

Section: Changing Approaches To Activity Areas At çAtalhöyükmentioning

confidence: 87%

Multivocality and multiproxy approaches to the use of space: lessons from 25 years of research at Çatalhöyük

Shillito

2017

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Changing Approaches To Activity Areas At çAtalhöyükmentioning

confidence: 87%

Multivocality and multiproxy approaches to the use of space: lessons from 25 years of research at Çatalhöyük

Shillito

2017

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Until recently, most archaeological studies of spatial patterns of activity areas have focused on reconstructions of the location of activities based on the distribution of artifacts (Hardy Smith & Edwards, 2004;Hodder & Orton, 1979;Kuijt & Goodale, 2009;Simek, 1987;Whallon, 1973). This approach carries limitations in the form of both prior-and postdepositional taphonomic processes influencing the location of artifacts, and often portray problematic links between the location of artifacts and other contextual, functional, or chronological evidence (Manzanilla & Barba, 1990;Ullah, Duffy, & Banning, 2015). The need for geoarchaeological approaches for the study of spatial activity patterns at archaeological sites has driven several research projects in the past two decades seeking to test and apply various microscopic techniques to the study of activity areas, such as micromorphology (Banerjea, Bell, Matthews, & Brown, 2015;Milek & Roberts, 2013;Shillito & Ryan, 2013), geochemistry (Middleton & Price, 1996;Terry, Fabian, Fernández, Parnella, & Inomata, 2004;Vyncke, Degryse, Vassilieva, & Waelkens, 2011), phytolith and spherulite analyses (Cabanes, Mallol, Expósito, & Baena, 2010;Portillo, Kadowaki, Nishiaki, & Albert, 2014;Tsartsidou, Lev-Yadun, Efstratiou, & Weiner, 2009), and mineralogy (Shahack-Gross & Finkelstein, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Vos

Jenkins

Palmer³

2018

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…A much wider variety of scientific techniques are now commonly applied to household contexts in East Polynesia, similar to patterns in household archaeology worldwide (Estévez Escalera and Clemente-Conte 2013; King 2008;Kovács 2013;Robin 2003;Ullah et al 2015). For example, Kahn and Ragone (2013) discuss excavations at a round-ended house in the Society Islands where systematic flotation of subsurface feature contents allowed for the recovery of small carbonized fragments of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) exocarp.…”

Section: Household Archaeology In Polynesia: History and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household Archaeology in Polynesia: Historical Context and New Directions

Kahn

2016

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review highlights archaeological investigations of precontact and historic house sites in Polynesia, a region noted for its diversity of chiefdoms in terms of scale and elaboration. Anthropological and historical perceptions of the Polynesian household have shifted over time, influencing the ways in which the household has been defined in archaeology. Early research emphasized houses as a unit of study within settlement pattern archaeology and as a means of delineating formal variability between sites and communities. Current studies stress a more holistic view of the household as a nexus of economic, social, and ritual activities. Diverse theoretical perspectives, such as the analytical concept of house societies, feminist archaeologies, landscape approaches, and agent-based models, have led to new archaeological approaches engaged with both the material and the nonmaterial aspects of the house and, in particular, how social relations structure the household. Current prominent themes include functional identification of house sites, understanding social variability, articulation of the household with the community, and comparative analyses of social complexity.

show abstract

Modernizing Spatial Micro-Refuse Analysis: New Methods for Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting the Spatial Patterning of Micro-Refuse from House-Floor Contexts

Cited by 27 publications

References 26 publications

Multivocality and multiproxy approaches to the use of space: lessons from 25 years of research at Çatalhöyük

Multivocality and multiproxy approaches to the use of space: lessons from 25 years of research at Çatalhöyük

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

Household Archaeology in Polynesia: Historical Context and New Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About