Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T10:48:14.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Holistic Approach to the Analysis of Archaeological Deposits, Illustrated Using a Late Roman Urban Sequence From Northwest Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Orpah S. Farrington
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Birkbeck College (London University), Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, U.K.
Richard M. Bateman
Affiliation:
Departments of Earth and Plant SCiences,Oxford University, Parks Road, Oxford, Ox1 3PR, U.K.
Get access

Abstract

Dark Earth deposits immediately overlie late Roman urban stratigraphy across northwest Europe, representing the crucial but poorly documented collapse of provincial Roman urbanism. Deficient in artefacts, they have proved recalcitrant to traditional methods of archaeological interpretation. Here, they are used as a vehicle to promote a more integrated, holistic approach to scientific archaeology. This recognises the great potential value of applying a wide range of geoanalytical techniques to the finer-grained matrices that enclose (or, more precisely, grade into) artefacts in archaeological sequences. As this multifaceted approach is time-consuming, deposits chosen for analysis should contain potential answers to profound historical questions. Comparative studies are necessary, in which samples of known age, provenance, environment and mode of deposition outnumber those of a more equivocal nature. Considerable knowledge is required to select the optimal range of complementary techniques for application to a particular suite of materials; this case study outlines the relative merits of analyses for fabric orientation, particle size, micromorphology, bulk geochemistry (ICP), particle geochemistry (microprobe), heavy mineralogy, plant remains (pollen, phytoliths, wood), animal remains, macroscopic artefacts, and radiometric dating. The resulting large bodies of data are best summarised by multivariate analyses (notably ordination algorithms), together with semivariograms for spatial data. Interpretations should take full account of the range of anthropogenic processes and products inherent in archaeological deposits.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wilson, P. and Bateman, R.M., Boreas 15,137153 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Wilson, P. and Farrington, O.S., Proc. R. Irish Acad. B 89, 123 (1989).Google Scholar
3. Catt, J.A., Paleopedology Manual (Quat. Int. 6, Pergamon, 1990).Google Scholar
4. Stein, J.K. and Teltser, P.A., Geoarchaeology 4, 130 (1989).Google Scholar
5. Milletn, M., The Romanization of Britain (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar
6. Vince, A.G., Saxon London: An Archaeological Investigation (Seaby, London, 1990).Google Scholar
7. Jones, R.F.J. (editor), Roman Britain: Recent Trends (Collis, Sheffield, 1991).Google Scholar
8. Jones, M., England Before Domesday (Batsford, London, 1986).Google Scholar
9. Farrington, O.S., 28th Int. Geol. Cong. Abstr. 1, 473 (1989).Google Scholar
10. Bateman, R.M., 28th Int. Geol. Cong. Abstr. 1, 9798 (1989).Google Scholar
11. Crummy, P., Current Arch. 103, 238245 (1987).Google Scholar
12.Tacitus, Agricol (AD98).Google Scholar
13. Dunnett, R., The Trinovantes (Duckworth, London, 1975).Google Scholar
14. Briggs, D.J., Sources and Methods in Geography: Sediments (Butterworth, London, 1977).Google Scholar
15. Bullock, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., and Tursina, T., Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description (Wayne, Wolverhampton, 1985).Google Scholar
16. Kemp, R.A., Soil Micromorphology and the Quaternary (Quat. Res. Ass. Tech. Guide 2,Cambridge, 1985).Google Scholar
17. Murphy, C.P., Thin Section Preparation of Soils and Sediments (Pudoc, Wagenigen, 1985).Google Scholar
18. Bridgland, D.R. (editor), Clast Lithological Analysis (Quat. Res. Ass. Tech. Guide 3, Cambridge, 1986).Google Scholar
19. Piperno, D.R.. Phytolith Analysis (Academic Press, New York, 1988).Google Scholar
20. Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A., and Collinson, M.E, Pollen Analysis (Blackwell, Oxford, 1991).Google Scholar
21. Scaife, R.G., Pollen Analysis of some Dark Earth Samole” (unpubl. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Rep. 3001, 1980).Google Scholar
22. Avery, B.W. and Bascomb, C.L., Soil Survey Laboratory Methods (Soil. Surv. Tech. Monogr. 6,Harpenden, 1974).Google Scholar
23. Folk, R.L. and Ward, W.C., J. Sed. Petr. 27, 326 (1957).Google Scholar
24. Bateman, R.M. and Moffat, A.J., Tertiary Res. 6, 75103 (1987).Google Scholar
25. Payne, A.W., et al., Genstat 5 Reference Manual (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar
26. Gower, J.C., Biometrika 52, 325338 (1966).Google Scholar
27. Gower, J.C., Biometrics 27, 857872 (1971).Google Scholar
28. Gower, J.C. and Ross, G.J.S., J. R. Stat. Soc. C 18, 5464 (1969).Google Scholar
29. Zubrow, E. and Harbaugh, N., in Simulation Studies in Archaeology, edited by Hodder, I. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1978) pp. 109122.Google Scholar
30. Vieira, S.R., Hatfield, J.L., Nielsen, D.R., and Biggar, J.W., Hilgardia 51, 175.Google Scholar
31. Dahlquist, R.L. and Knoll, J.W., Appl. Spectrom. 32, 130 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Hodgson, J.M., Soil Survey Field Handbook (Soil Surv. Tech. Monogr. 5, Harpenden, 1976).Google Scholar
33. Thornton, I. and Webb, J.S., in Applied Soil Trace Elements, edited by Davies, B.E. (Wiley, NewYork, 1980) pp. 381439.Google Scholar
34. Morton, A.C., Proc. Geol. Ass. 93, 263274 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Perring, D. and Roskams, S., Early Development of Roman London West of the Walbrook (CouncilBr. Arch. Res. Rep. 70, London, 1991).Google Scholar
36. Bateman, R.M. and Catt, J.A., Catena 12, 121 (1985).Google Scholar