DOCSLIB.ORG

Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology 0632060441_1_pretoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:32 Page iii Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology Paul Goldberg and Richard I. Macphail Department of Archaeology, Boston University and Institute of Archaeology, University College London 0632060441_1_pretoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:32 Page i 0632060441_1_pretoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:32 Page i Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology 0632060441_1_pretoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:32 Page ii Dedicated by RIM to the late Peter Reynolds (Butser Ancient Farm, United Kingdom) and Roger Engelmark (University of Umeå, Sweden): pioneers of experimental farms (see Chapter 12) From RIM: to Mum, Jill, and Flora From PG: to my folks for sending me away to summer camp 0632060441_1_pretoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:32 Page iii Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology Paul Goldberg and Richard I. Macphail Department of Archaeology, Boston University and Institute of Archaeology, University College London 0632060441_1_pretoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:32 Page iv © 2006 by Blackwell Science Ltd, a Blackwell Publishing company BLACKWELL PUBLISHING 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia The right of Paul Goldberg and Richard I. Macphail to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published 2006 by Blackwell Science Ltd 1 2006 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Goldberg, Paul. Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology/Paul Goldberg and Richard I. Macphail. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-632-06044-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Archaeological geology. I. Macphail, Richard. II. Title. CC77.5.G65 2006 930.1’028–dc22 2005018433 A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library. Set in 10/12.5 pt Meridien by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards. For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www.blackwellpublishing.com 0632060441_2_toc.qxd 11/30/05 15:59 Page v Contents Preface ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 Part I Regional scale geoarchaeology 7 Chapter 1 Sediments 11 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2 Types of sediments 11 1.3 Conclusions: sediments versus soils 27 Chapter 2 Stratigraphy 28 2.1 Introduction 28 2.2 Stratigraphy and stratigraphic principles 28 2.3 Facies and microfacies 38 2.4 Correlation 40 2.5 Keeping track: the Harris Matrix 40 2.6 Conclusions 41 Box 2.1 Facies and stratigraphy: The Paleoindian-Archaic site of Wilson–Leonard, Texas 33 Chapter 3 Soils 42 3.1 Introduction 42 3.2 Soil profiles and soil properties 51 3.3 The five soil forming factors 52 3.4 Important soil forming processes 64 3.5 Conclusions 71 Box 3.1 The Five Factors of Soil Formation and Bronze Age Brean Down, United Kingdom 43 Box 3.2 Cold Climate Soils 53 Chapter 4 Hydrological systems I: slopes and slope deposits 72 4.1 Introduction 72 4.2 Water movement on slopes 73 0632060441_2_toc.qxd 11/30/05 15:59 Page vi vi CONTENTS 4.3 Erosion, movement, and deposition on slopes 76 4.4 Conclusions 84 Chapter 5 Hydrological systems II: rivers and lakes 85 5.1 Introduction 85 5.2 Stream erosion, transport, and deposition 85 5.3 Stream deposits and channel patterns 89 5.4 Floodplains 91 5.5 Stream terraces 99 5.6 Lakes 112 5.7 Conclusions 117 Box 5.1 Upper and Middle Palaeolithic sites of Nahal Zin, Central Negev, Israel 102 Chapter 6 Aeolian settings and geoarchaeological environments 119 6.1 Introduction 119 6.2 Sandy aeolian terrains 119 6.3 Examples of sites in dune contexts 137 6.4 Bioturbation in sandy terrains 140 6.5 Fine grained aeolian deposits 140 6.6 Conclusions 149 Box 6.1 Aeolian features in desert environments 123 Chapter 7 Coasts 151 7.1 Introduction 151 7.2 Palaeo sea shores and palaeo coastal deposits 151 7.3 Conclusions 168 Box 7.1 Boxgrove (United Kingdom) – the marine and salt marsh sequence 152 Box 7.2 Drowned coasts of Essex and the River Severn, United Kingdom 163 Chapter 8 Caves and rockshelters 169 8.1 Introduction 169 8.2 Formation of caves and rockshelters 169 8.3 Cave deposits and processes 174 8.4 Environmental reconstruction 186 8.5 Conclusions 187 Box 8.1 Kebara Cave, Israel 180 Part II Nontraditional geoarchaeological approaches 189 Chapter 9 Human impact on landscape: forest clearance, soil modifications, and cultivation 193 9.1 Introduction 193 9.2 Forest clearance and soil changes (amelioration, deterioration, and disturbance) 193 9.3 Forest and woodland clearance features 199 9.4 Cultivation and manuring 202 9.5 Landscape effects 207 0632060441_2_toc.qxd 11/30/05 15:59 Page vii CONTENTS vii 9.6 Conclusions 210 Box 9.1 Cultivation at Late Roman/Saxon Oakley, Suffolk, United Kingdom 204 Chapter 10 Occupation deposits I: concepts and aspects of cultural deposits 211 10.1 Introduction 211 10.2 Concepts and aspects of occupation deposits 212 10.3 Stratigraphic sequences as material culture; concepts and uses of space 216 10.4 Time and scale 217 10.5 Settlement–landscape interrelationships 218 10.6 Origin and predepositional history of occupation deposits 219 10.7 Depositional history 221 10.8 Postdepositional modifications 221 10.9 Conclusions 224 Chapter 11 Occupation deposits II: examples from the Near East, North America, and Europe 225 11.1 Introduction 225 11.2 Tells 225 11.3 Mounds 227 11.4 Urban archaeology of Western Europe 235 11.5 Early medieval settlement 239 11.6 Medieval floors of Northwest Europe 244 11.7 Conclusions 246 Box 11.1 Tells 227 Box 11.2 Grubenhäuser 242 Chapter 12 Experimental geoarchaeology 247 12.1 Introduction 247 12.2 Effects of burial and aging 248 12.3 Experimental “Ancient Farms” at Butser and Umeå 254 12.4 Conclusions 267 Chapter 13 Human materials 268 13.1 Introduction 268 13.2 Constructional materials 268 13.3 Metal working 283 13.4 Conclusions 285 Box 13.1 Brickearth walls 269 Box 13.2 Terra Preta and European dark earth 271 Chapter 14 Applications of geoarchaeology to forensic science 286 14.1 Introduction 286 14.2 Soils and clandestine graves 286 14.3 Provenancing and obtaining geoarchaeological information from crime scenes 289 14.4 Other potential methods 289 14.5 Practical approaches to forensic soil sampling and potential for soil micromorphology 291 14.6 Conclusions 292 0632060441_2_toc.qxd 12/5/05 4:21 Page viii viii CONTENTS Part III Field and laboratory methods, data, and reporting 295 Chapter 15 Field-based methods 299 15.1 Introduction 299 15.2 Regional-scale methods 299 15.3 Shallow geophysical methods (resistivity, palaeomagnetism, seismology, ground penetrating radar) 312 15.4 Coring and trenching techniques 316 15.5 Describing sections: soils and sediments in the field 321 15.6 Collecting samples 328 15.7 Sample and data correlation 333 15.8 Conclusions 334 Chapter 16 Laboratory techniques 335 16.1 Introduction 335 16.2 Physical and chemical techniques 336 16.3 Microscopic methods and mineralogy 352 16.4 Thin section analysis 354 16.5 Minerals and heavy minerals 361 16.6 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), EDAX, and microprobe 362 16.7 Conclusions 367 Chapter 17 Reporting and publishing 368 17.1 Introduction 368 17.2 Management of sites and reporting 368 17.3 Fieldwork and assessment/evaluation reporting 374 17.4 Postexcavation reporting and publication 374 17.5 Site interpretation 380 17.6 Conclusions 387 Box 17.1 How to write a report – a suggested fieldwork report protocol 369 Box 17.2 Reporting – London Guildhall 370 Chapter 18 Concluding remarks and the geoarchaeological future 388 Appendices 391 Bibliography 404 Index 443 Color plate section between pp 224 and 225 0632060441_3_posttoc.qxd 11/30/05 8:35 Page ix Preface Geoarchaeology within the past two decades has become a fundamental discipline whose value is recognized by everyone interested in past human history. First, archaeologists have become increasingly sensitive to the fact that sediments and stratigraphy provide the ultimate context for the artifacts and features that they excavate. Understanding this sedimentary context and its impli- cations is a requisite for carrying out modern archaeology and for interpreting the archaeological record fully and accurately. Environmentalists (e.g. paleoecologists, soil scientists, sedimentologists, geologists, biologists, and climatologists) on the other hand, have turned to archaeology, because it provides a long-term view of human–environment interactions that have shaped both Quaternary and Holocene landscapes. Such knowledge can have a critical bearing on the future, for example, through identifying areas of sustainable landuse. Interpretation of such ecological information depends upon detailed understanding of the pedosedimentary and geomorphological context, as in archaeology. Geoarchaeology is an important discipline, because as shown recently, it increases our understanding of human impacts on the landscape through the study of ancient soils and occupation deposits. These investigations can provide detailed histories of human endeavors up to the present. Although geoarchaeology – though not defined as such – had its roots at least in the eighteenth century (Rapp and Hill, 1998) it never came together as a subdiscipline until the appearance of the edited volume “Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past” by Davidson and Shackley (1976).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Darwin's Legacy
    Darwin’s Darwin’s Legacy: Legacy: 24 TheThe Status Status of Evolutionary of Evolutionary ArchaeologyArchaeology in Argentina in Argentina Tribute to the 200th anniversary of the Editedbirth by of Charles Darwin and the 150th Marceloanniversary Cardillo & ofHernán the publication Muscio of The Origin of Species El Legado de Darwin: El estado de la Arqueología Evolucionista en Argentina Homenaje a los 200 años del nacimiento de Charles Darwin y a los 150 años de la publicación de El Origen de las Especies Access Archaeology o hae pre rc s A s A y c g c e o l s o s e A a r c Ah Edited by Marcelo Cardillo & Hernán Muscio Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78491 270 3 (e-Pdf) ISBN 978 1 78491 276 5 © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2016 South American Archaeology Series No 24 Series Editor Andrés D. Izeta All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Contents PREFACE ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� v Hernán Muscio, Marcelo Cardillo Introduction: Evolutionary Archaeology a comprehensive framework �������������������������������������� vii Hernán MUSCIO, Marcelo CARDILLO References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xiii
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Histories and North American Archaeology
    PAU01 9/17/2004 8:32 PM Page 1 1 Alternative Histories and North American Archaeology Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren North America is one immense outdoor museum, telling a story that covers 9 million square miles and 25,000 years (Thomas 2000a:viii) The chapters in this volume highlight the story of a continent, from the Atlantic to Alaska, from the San Luis mission to Sonora, and from the Kennewick man of nine millennia ago to the Colorado coalfield strikes of nine decades ago (Figure 1.1). Given the considerable span of time and vastness of space, the reader might already be wondering: what holds North American archaeology together? Unlike other por- tions of the world, it is not the study of the sequential rise and fall of ancient states and empires that unified peoples into a people with a single writing system, calen- dar, or economy. No, North America is, and was, all about alternative histories. It is about peoples in the plural. Peoples did things differently in North America. They made their own histories, sometimes forgotten, subverted, and controversial but never outside the purview of archaeology. Yet, in their plurality, the North Americans of the past show us the commonalities of the human experience.The inimitable ways in which people made history in North America hold profound lessons for understanding the sweep of global history, if not also for comprehending the globalizing world in which we find ourselves today. That is, like all good yarns, there is a moral to this archaeological allegory: what people did do or could do matters significantly in the construction of the collective futures of all people.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs May 27, 2020 Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585 Guidance Disclaimer Except to the extent that the contents of this document derive from requirements established by statute, regulation, lease, contract, or other binding legal authority, the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding legal requirements, related agency policies, and technical issues. Cancellation This guidance document cancels and supersedes the previous guidance entitled, “Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585,” dated March 2017, and will remain in effect until cancelled. I. Introduction to Guidelines The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Office of Renewable Energy Programs (OREP) requires an applicant to submit a detailed plan of its proposed activities for review prior to approving the installation of any renewable energy facility, structure, or cable on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in accordance with 30 CFR part 585, subpart F. Depending upon the nature of the proposed activities, these may include a site assessment plan, a construction and operations plan, a general activities plan, or other type of plan (collectively referred to as plans in these guidelines). As part of a plan submission, BOEM requires detailed information regarding the nature and location of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Science in Archaeology: a Review Author(S): Patrick E
    Science in Archaeology: A Review Author(s): Patrick E. McGovern, Thomas L. Sever, J. Wilson Myers, Eleanor Emlen Myers, Bruce Bevan, Naomi F. Miller, S. Bottema, Hitomi Hongo, Richard H. Meadow, Peter Ian Kuniholm, S. G. E. Bowman, M. N. Leese, R. E. M. Hedges, Frederick R. Matson, Ian C. Freestone, Sarah J. Vaughan, Julian Henderson, Pamela B. Vandiver, Charles S. Tumosa, Curt W. Beck, Patricia Smith, A. M. Child, A. M. Pollard, Ingolf Thuesen, Catherine Sease Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 79-142 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506880 Accessed: 16/07/2009 14:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medway Megaliths and Neolithic Kent
    http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS AND NEOLITHIC KENT* ROBIN HOLGATE, B.Sc. INTRODUCTION The Medway megaliths constitute a geographically well-defined group of this Neolithic site-type1 and are the only megalithic group in eastern England. Previous accounts of these monuments2 have largely been devoted to their morphology and origins; a study in- corporating current trends in British megalithic studies is therefore long overdue. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BRITISH MEGALITHIC STUDIES Until the late 1960s, megalithic chambered barrows and cairns were considered to have functioned purely as tombs: they were the burial vaults and funerary monuments for people living in the fourth and third millennia B.C. The first academic studies of these monuments therefore concentrated on the typological analysis of their plans. This method of analysis, though, has often produced incorrect in- terpretations: without excavation it is often impossible to reconstruct the sequence of development and original appearance for a large number of megaliths. In addition, plan-typology disregards other aspects related to them, for example constructional * I am indebted to Peter Drewett for reading and commenting on a first draft of this article; naturally I take responsibility for all the views expressed. 1 G.E. Daniel, The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge, 1950, 12. 2 Daniel, op. cit; J.H. Evans, 'Kentish Megalith Types', Arch. Cant, Ixiii (1950), 63-81; R.F. Jessup, South-East England, London, 1970. 221 THE MEDWAY MEGALITHS GRAVESEND. ROCHESTER CHATHAM r>v.-5rt AYLESFORD MAIDSTONE Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Avebury 2 1,* 2 2 Q13 Q2mark Gillings , Joshua Pollard & Kris Strutt 4 5 6 the Avebury Henge Is One of the Famous Mega
    1 The origins of Avebury 2 1,* 2 2 Q13 Q2Mark Gillings , Joshua Pollard & Kris Strutt 4 5 6 The Avebury henge is one of the famous mega- 7 lithic monuments of the European Neolithic, Research 8 yet much remains unknown about the detail 9 and chronology of its construction. Here, the 10 results of a new geophysical survey and 11 re-examination of earlier excavation records 12 illuminate the earliest beginnings of the 13 monument. The authors suggest that Ave- ’ 14 bury s Southern Inner Circle was constructed 15 to memorialise and monumentalise the site ‘ ’ 16 of a much earlier foundational house. The fi 17 signi cance here resides in the way that traces 18 of dwelling may take on special social and his- 19 torical value, leading to their marking and 20 commemoration through major acts of monu- 21 ment building. 22 23 Keywords: Britain, Avebury, Neolithic, megalithic, memory 24 25 26 Introduction 27 28 Alongside Stonehenge, the passage graves of the Boyne Valley and the Carnac alignments, the 29 Avebury henge is one of the pre-eminent megalithic monuments of the European Neolithic. ’ 30 Its 420m-diameter earthwork encloses the world s largest stone circle. This in turn encloses — — 31 two smaller yet still vast megalithic circles each approximately 100m in diameter and 32 complex internal stone settings (Figure 1). Avenues of paired standing stones lead from 33 two of its four entrances, together extending for approximately 3.5km and linking with 34 other monumental constructions. Avebury sits within the centre of a landscape rich in 35 later Neolithic monuments, including Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures 36 (Smith 1965; Pollard & Reynolds 2002; Gillings & Pollard 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Faunal Remains from an Archaic Period Cave in the Southeastern United States
    Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8 (2016) 187–199 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep Faunal remains from an archaic period cave in the Southeastern United States Tanya M. Peres a, Aaron Deter-Wolf b, Joey Keasler c, Shannon Chappell Hodge c a Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, 1847 W. Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA b Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Cole Building #3, 1216 Foster Ave., Nashville, TN 37243, USA c Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Box 10, 1301 E. Main Street, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA article info abstract Article history: Ancient Native American use of caves in the Eastern Woodlands occurred throughout the entire span of regional Received 18 December 2015 prehistory; however, the ways that these natural features were used varied considerably over time. To date only Received in revised form 31 May 2016 25 cave sites containing deposits dated to the Archaic period (ca. 10,000–3000 B.P.) are recorded in the state of Accepted 3 June 2016 Tennessee, representing just 0.4% of the total known Archaic sites. In 2014 the authors conducted a salvage op- eration, bucket auger survey, and limited testing at the site of Black Cat Cave (40RD299) in Rutherford County, Tennessee to assess looting damage and assist in the installation of a security gate across the cave entrance. Keywords: fi fi Cave These investigations identi ed Black Cat Cave as the site of signi cant mortuary activity during the Middle Archa- Archaic period ic (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Excavation
    An Instructor’s Guide to Archaeological Excavation in Nunavut Acknowledgments Writing by: Brendan Griebel and Tim Rast Design and layout by: Brendan Griebel Project management by: Torsten Diesel, Inuit Heritage Trust The Inuit Heritage Trust would like to extend its thanks to the following individuals and organizations for their contributions to the Nunavut Archaeology Excavation kit: • GN department of Culture and Heritage • Inuksuk High school © 2015 Inuit Heritage Trust Introduction 1-2 Archaeology: Uncovering the Past 3-4 Archaeology and Excavation 5-6 Setting up the Excavation Kit 7-9 Archaeology Kit Inventory Sheet 10 The Tools of Archaeology 11-12 Preparing the Excavation Kit 13 Excavation Layer 4 14 Excavation Layer 3 15-18 Excavation Layer 2 19-22 Excavation Layer 1 23-24 Excavation an Archaeology Unit 25-29 Interpreting Your Finds 30 Summary and Discussion 31 Making a Ground Slate Ulu 32-37 Introduction and anthropology studies after their high school Presenting the Inuit Heritage graduation. In putting together this archaeology kit, Trust archaeology kit the Inuit Heritage Trust seeks to bring the thrill and discovery of archaeological excavation to anyone who Many Nunavummiut are interested in the history wishes to learn more about Nunavut’s history. of Inuit culture and traditions. They enjoy seeing old sites on the land and listening to the stories elders tell about the past. Few people in Who is this archaeology kit Nunavut, however, know much about archaeology for? as a profession that is specifically dedicated to investigating the human past. This archaeology kit is designed to help Nunavummiut learn more The Inuit Heritage Trust archaeology kit can about what archaeology is, how it is done, and be applied in many different contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Archaeology
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 6 Number 1 2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Records Check Coordinator Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Amy L. Johnson Cathy A. Carson Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknow- ledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service‘s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. In addition, the projects discussed in several of the articles received federal financial assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund Program for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Research Services Ltd RECORDING PROCEDURES
    Archaeological Research Services Ltd RECORDING PROCEDURES Contents The Single Context Planning System…………... 1 The Context Recording System…………………. 2 The Burial Recording System………………….... 7 Plans, Sections and Sketches…………………... 10 Environmental Sampling…………………………. 12 Finds……………………………………………….. 14 Photography……………………………………….. 18 ©Archaeological Research Services Ltd. Recording Procedures The Single Context Planning System The key to understanding remains in the archaeological record is through the stratigraphic sequence. The stratigraphic sequence is the accumulated layers of occupation which represent actions in the past. Each ‘context’ is derived from an action of deposition or removal. Within any sequence such as this, the earlier deposits will always be cut or sealed by the later giving the stratigraphic sequence a relative chronology. It is important to note that the only relevant relationship between two contexts is that which lies immediately before or after any given context. All contexts within a site should be given equal consideration when considering the stratigraphic sequence, including physical artefacts such as coffins or walls, along side the more common types of context such as cuts and deposits. The stratigraphic sequence can be represented by a Harris Matrix showing the full interconnectivity of all contexts on a site. Each context is given its own unique context number and is recorded in isolation after the removal of all contexts above. In this way plans can be overlaid to compile and then check the site matrix. 1 ©Archaeological Research Services Ltd. Recording Procedures The Context Recording System (see also Context Recording Sheet) Site Code: Unique site identifier, usually consisting of a three or four letter code denoting the site and a two digit code denoting the year of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medway Valley Prehistoric Landscapes Project
    AST NUMBER 72 November 2012 THE NEWSLETTER OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Registered Office University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/ PTHE MEDWAY VALLEY PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPES PROJECT The Early Neolithic megalithic monuments of the Medway valley in Kent have a long history of speculative antiquarian and archaeological enquiry. Their widely-assumed importance for understanding the earliest agricultural societies in Britain, despite how little is really known about them, probably stems from the fact that they represent the south-easternmost group of megalithic sites in the British Isles and have figured - usually in passing - in most accounts of Neolithic monumentality since Stukeley drew Kit’s Coty House in 1722. Remarkably, this distinctive group of monuments and other major sites (such as Burham causewayed enclosure) have not previously been subject to a Kit’s Coty House: integrated laser scan and ground-penetrating landscape-scale programme of investigation, while the radar survey of the east end of the monument only significant excavation of a megalithic site in the region took place over 50 years ago (by Alexander at the The Medway Valley Project aims to establish a new Chestnuts in 1957). The relative neglect of the area, and interpretative framework for the Neolithic archaeology its research potential, have been thrown into sharper of the Medway valley, focusing on the architectural relief recently by the discovery of two Early Neolithic forms, chronologies and use-histories of monuments, long halls nearby at White Horse Stone/Pilgrim’s Way and changes in environment and inhabitation during the on the High Speed 1 route, and by the radiocarbon period c.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacred Smoking
    FLORIDA’SBANNER INDIAN BANNER HERITAGE BANNER TRAIL •• BANNERPALEO-INDIAN BANNER ROCK BANNER ART? • • THE BANNER IMPORTANCE BANNER OF SALT american archaeologySUMMER 2014 a quarterly publication of The Archaeological Conservancy Vol. 18 No. 2 SACRED SMOKING $3.95 $3.95 SUMMER 2014 americana quarterly publication of The Archaeological archaeology Conservancy Vol. 18 No. 2 COVER FEATURE 12 HOLY SMOKE ON BY DAVID MALAKOFF M A H Archaeologists are examining the pivitol role tobacco has played in Native American culture. HLEE AS 19 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SALT BY TAMARA STEWART , PHOTO BY BY , PHOTO M By considering ethnographic evidence, researchers EU S have arrived at a new interpretation of archaeological data from the Verde Salt Mine, which speaks of the importance of salt to Native Americans. 25 ON THE TRAIL OF FLORIDA’S INDIAN HERITAGE TION, SOUTH FLORIDA MU TION, SOUTH FLORIDA C BY SUSAN LADIKA A trip through the Tampa Bay area reveals some of Florida’s rich history. ALLANT COLLE ALLANT T 25 33 ROCK ART REVELATIONS? BY ALEXANDRA WITZE Can rock art tell us as much about the first Americans as stone tools? 38 THE HERO TWINS IN THE MIMBRES REGION BY MARC THOMPSON, PATRICIA A. GILMAN, AND KRISTINA C. WYCKOFF Researchers believe the Mimbres people of the Southwest painted images from a Mesoamerican creation story on their pottery. 44 new acquisition A PRESERVATION COLLABORATION The Conservancy joins forces with several other preservation groups to save an ancient earthwork complex. 46 new acquisition SAVING UTAH’S PAST The Conservancy obtains two preserves in southern Utah. 48 point acquisition A TIME OF CONFLICT The Parkin phase of the Mississippian period was marked by warfare.
    [Show full text]