image/svg+xml
199
XI/2/2020
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Thematic review
Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
Roderick B. Salisbury
a,b*
a
Department of Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, 1190 Vienna, Austria
b
OREA Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Hollandstrasse 11+13, 1020 Vienna, Austria
1. Introduction
Soils and sediments are archaeological materials,
archaeological resources that contain an archive of past
events and cultural behaviours. For nearly one hundred
years, archaeologists and soil scientists have accessed parts
of this archive through applications in archaeological soil
chemistry. Central Europe has been home to several key
developments in archaeological soil chemistry, from the
earliest applications of soil phosphate analysis to recent
practical application of portable X-ray Fluorescence
spectroscopy. Established methods, including phosphate
analyses and multi-element ICP-MS/OES, have provided
interpretations of the use of space within settlements and
houses, and the function of specifc archaeological features.
As archaeology continues to evolve as a discipline, micro-
remains are becoming increasingly important sources of
data about past human mobility, diversity, production,
consumption, and human ecodynamics. These data come
from a range of sources, including both human and animal
remains, primarily bones and teeth (proteomics, Charlton
et al.
, 2019; strontium isotopes, Giblin
et al.
, 2013), and
portable artefacts (
e.g.
starch grains on grinding stones and
ceramics, Duke
et al.
, 2018; ceramic residue analysis Dunne,
et al.
, 2019; residues on lithics, Rots
et al.
, 2015).
Chemistry of soils and sediments have been recognized,
and utilized, for a longer time. In addition to soil phosphate
analysis, soil chemical methods for archaeology traditionally
include multi-element chemistry, soil pH, magnetic
susceptibility, and soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Recently,
research in the Central European Palaeolithic have combined
these, for example, assessing carbon, nitrogen, and magnetic
susceptibility at the Pod Hradem cave to aid in interpreting
soil formation and potential climatic changes (Nejman
et al.
2018; 2020). Nevertheless, full exploitation of the soil
archive remains sporadic.
Cultural soilscapes (Salisbury, 2016; Wells, 2006)
hold ancient human and environmental DNA (Slon
et al.
,
2017; Willerslev
et al.
, 2003), biomarkers (Kovaleva and
Kovalev, 2015; Zocatelli
et al.
, 2017), traces of pollution
(Martínez Cortizas
et al.
, 2016; Veron
et al.
, 2014), evidence
of ecological changes and the environmental impact of
Volume XI ● Issue 2/2020 ● Pages 199–211
*Corresponding author. E-mail: roderick.salisbury@univie.ac.at
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 9
th
September 2020
Accepted: 27
th
November 2020
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2020.2.5
Key words:
archaeological soil chemistry
archaeological prospection
settlement patterns
activity areas
Central Europe
ABSTRACT
Analytical technologies for the evaluation of archaeological soils have developed rapidly in recent
decades, and now support a range of innovative research and interpretations of archaeological sites
and landscapes. Established methods, including phosphates and multi-element ICP-MS/OES, have
provided interpretations of the use of space within settlements and houses, and the function of specifc
archaeological features. Recently, portable X-Ray Fluorescence has been introduced to archaeological
soil science, but published results have generated knowledge gaps. The correspondence between
archaeological geochemical anomalies and specifc human activities is partly dependent on geology
(including sediment type and relative acidity and permeability of the soil), topography, and formation
processes, as well as infuence of human activities. At the same time, which elements, and fractions
of elements, are measured is largely dependent on instrument parameters and extraction methods.
This paper provides an overview of archaeological soil chemistry in Central Europe, and the current
state-of-the-art, followed by an assessment of future developments in archaeological soil chemistry,
molecular biogeochemistry, and the signifcance of geoarchaeology in multi-disciplinary research.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
200
cultural behaviour (Schumacher
et al.
, 2016; Sprafke, 2016),
archaeological site formation processes (Nicoll and Murphy,
2014), raw material provenance for components of ceramic
matrices (Riebe and Niziolek, 2015), and the contamination
of cultural heritage and artefacts by modern pollution (Nord
et al.
, 2005). Continued development of archaeological
biogeochemistry is beginning to recognize the archaeological
potential of proteomics, genomics, and other biomarkers in
the soil archive.
Several reviews of archaeological sol chemistry have been
published (Oonk
et al.
, 2009a; Wilson
et al.
, 2008); of especial
import was the detailed summary of soil phosphate methods
in archaeology by Holliday and Gartner (2007). A vast body
of literature exists for archaeological soil chemistry (Table 1).
This review of the history and development of archaeological
soil chemistry focuses on examples from Central Europe,
and the current state-of-the-art, followed by an assessment
of future developments in molecular biogeochemistry and
the signifcance of geoarchaeology in multi-disciplinary
research. Currently, trends are changing from the traditional
roles of archaeological soil chemistry – site prospection
and delimiting habitation areas – into a complex, multi-
disciplinary endeavour integrating various strands of
Table 1.
Selected references for archaeological soil chemistry, with focus on Central Europe (arranged chronologically).
Type of studyReferences
Soil chemistry & soil scienceFeigl, 1960; Bowen, 1979; Füleky, 1983; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1984; Sposito, 1998;
Sparks 1996; 2003; Holliday 2004.
Early archaeological investigationsArrhenius, 1929; 1931; Lorch, 1930; 1940; 1941; 1951; Schnell, 1932; Christensen, 1935; Bandi,
1945; Stoye, 1950; Lutz, 1951; Dauncy, 1952; Pelikán, 1954; Dietz, 1957.
Methdological reviews and historiesSjoberg, 1976; Eidt, 1977; Keeley, 1981; Bethell and Máté, 1989; Zölitz and Heinrich, 1990;
Walker, 1992; Kondratiuk and Banaszuk, 1993; Bjelajac
et al.
, 1996; Aston
et al.
, 1998; Klamm
et al.
, 1998; Leonardi
et al.
, 1999; Haslam and Tibbett, 2004; Wells 2004a; Holliday and Gartner,
2007; Wilson
et al.
, 2008; Oonk
et al.
, 2009a; Pastor
et al.
, 2016.
Applications in Central Europe
PhosphateGundlach, 1961; Schwarz, 1967; Grimm, 1971; Sjöberg, 1976; Kiefmann, 1979; Zölitz, 1980;
1982; 1983; 1986; Gebhardt, 1982; Majer, 1984; Zimmermann, 1995; 2001; 2008; Stäuble and
Lüning, 1999; Majer, 2004; Sarris
et al.
, 2004; Ernée, 2005; Ernée and Majer, 2009; Hlavica
et al.
, 2011; Schreg and Behrendt, 2011; Petřík
et al.
, 2012; Salisbury, 2012; Lauer
et al.
, 2013;
Salisbury
et al.
, 2013; Weihrauch
et al.
, 2017; Weihrauch and Söder, 2020; Weihrauch
et al.
, 2020.
Multi-element
Hejcman
et al.
, 2011; 2013a; 2013b; Gauss
et al.
, 2013; Salisbury, 2013; Pető
et al.
, 2015; Lubos
et al.
, 2016; Salisbury, 2016; Dreibrodt
et al.
, 2017; Smejda
et al.
, 2017; 2018; Horák
et al.
, 2018;
Janovský and Horák, 2018; Pankowská
et al.
, 2018; Pető
et al.
, 2019; Dreslerová
et al.
, 2020.
Future directions
Lipid biomarkers
Bull
et al.
, 2000; Bull
et al.
, 2002; Schwark
et al.
, 2002; Killops and Killops, 2005; Zech
et al.
,
2010; Schatz
et al.
, 2011; Sistiaga
et al.
, 2014; Prost
et al.
, 2017; Zocatelli
et al.
, 2017; Harrault
et al.
, 2019; Schirrmacher
et al.
, 2019; Patalano
et al.
, 2020; Portillo
et al.
, 2020.
Isotopes
Bogaard
et al.
, 2007; D’Anjou
et al.
, 2012; Abell
et al.
, 2019; Bataille
et al.
, 2020; Snoeck
et al.
,
2020.
Sediment aDNA
Hebsgaard
et al.
, 2009; Giguet-Covex
et al.
, 2014; Madeja, 2015; Thomsen and Willerslev, 2015;
Parducci
et al.
, 2017; Slon
et al.
, 2017; Brunson and Reich, 2019; Epp
et al.
, 2019; Nejman
et al.
,
2020.
Proteomics
Oonk
et al.
, 2012.
geoarchaeology, bioarchaeology, and environmental studies.
This trajectory needs geoarchaeologists to contribute to
diachronic and synchronic examinations of archaeological
landscapes and human-ecodynamics.
2. Archaeological soil phosphates in Central Europe
The history of archaeological soil chemistry extends over
a century (Arrhenius, 1931) and across the globe, from
Alaska (Knudson
et al.
, 2004) to the Levant (Šmejda
et al.
, 2018) and to Australia (Fanning
et al.
, 2018). The
link between ancient human occupation and increased soil
phosphate content were frst noted in late 19
th
or early 20
th
century agricultural soil surveys (Russell, 1915). Publication
of methods and results began when Swedish agronomist
Olaf Arrhenius recognized and recorded the relationship
between surface fnds, human occupation, and soil phosphate
levels while conducting agricultural soil testing, and posited
a causal correlation between enhanced soil phosphates and
human settlements (Arrhenius, 1929; 1931). The method was
applied to Swedish habitation sites by Schnell (1932), who
sampled along transects radiating outward from an assumed
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
201
central point in a given site and constructed isopleth maps of
the phosphate values to delimit site boundaries. Following
this, archaeologists in Central Europe and elsewhere have
conducted soil phosphate analyses for archaeological survey
and site interpretations for nearly a century, with continuing
methodological developments.
Early archaeological soil chemistry focused primarily on
phosphates for four reasons: First, it was the frst element
explicitly connected to prehistoric human habitation,
and subsequent studies exploited this discovery. Second,
it is essential to life and therefore can be found in and
deposited by anything organic, as primary, secondary,
or
in situ
refuse. Inputs include food preparation wastes
such as bone, meat, fsh, and plants, wood ash, human or
animal burials, and urine and faeces of humans and animals.
Therefore, human habitation areas will have higher levels
of soil P than surrounding areas with no habitation. Conway
(1983) demonstrated that human occupation could result in
annual increases in concentrations of P from 1–10%. Third,
phosphates tend to accumulate quickly, have low solubility
and a strong ability to fx within the soil profle. In favourable
soil conditions, P remains stable and is likely to be retained,
even in disturbed soils, for millennia without appreciable
leaching. Fourth, in its most basic form, phosphate testing
is fast and inexpensive compared with almost every other
analytical technique, and can be conducted in the feld during
survey or excavation.
2.1 The frst 60 years of archaeological soil phosphate
analysis
Arrhenius’s methods were quickly applied to prehistoric and
medieval sites in Central Europe by German geographer
Walter Lorch (1940; 1941; 1951). Lorch sampled along
regular transects across and around ancient settlements,
used a laboratory colorimetric method to measure phosphate
content, and graphed the results. By comparing graphs
of density and distribution, and interpreting the diferent
profles, Lorch persuasively argued that variability in
phosphate was due to diferent subsistence economies in
the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, and metal ages. Other research
projects soon followed. Bandi (1945) used Lorch’s method
to locate a medieval site in Switzerland. Dietz (1957) used
a method of sulphuric acid in test tubes visually compared
to standards to examine a small plot of land with surface
material indicating prehistoric activity, looking for evidence
of organic waste deposits.
The next major advance in archaeological soil phosphate
studies came with the development of a spot-test, or ring-
chromatography test, by Friedrich “Fritz” Feigl in Vienna.
In his comprehensive two-volume compendium on chemical
spot-tests, Feigl (1960) recommended the highly toxic
and corrosive nitric acid (HNO
3
) to prepare an ammonium
molybdate solution, and the toxic and fammable benzidine
as a reducing agent to measure inorganic phosphate from
geological samples. Gundlach (1961) modifed Feigl’s
method to increase the speed and safety when testing soil from
boreholes at prehistoric sites. Gundlach retained the nitric
acid for digestion, but switched to the organic and relatively
harmless ascorbic acid (C
6
H
8
O
6
) for reduction, making it
more stable and eliminating the need for fame and ammonia
in feld conditions. In any acid-molybdate method, PO
4
reacts
with molybdate to form phosphomolybdic acid (yellowish
in colour); in Gundlach’s method, phosphomolybdic acid is
reduced by ascorbic acid to form a blue complex. Gundlach
conducted his tests in the feld, with the flter paper and drop
bottles attached to a pole stuck in the ground next to his
borehole (depicted in Gundlach, 1961 p.736, Figure 1), and
noted that the entire process takes approximately 90 seconds.
Gundlach ranked the results on a scale of 1–5, from none to
very high levels of P.
Schwarz (1967) used the Gundlach method and established
a feld methodology for sample collection, collecting samples
in plastic bags, collecting enough soil to run multiple tests
and to determine colour and grain size, and collecting
samples by layer. Schwarz conducted large-scale surveys
near the San Bernardino Pass in southern Switzerland, taking
samples at 30– 50 m intervals. Two suggestions regarding
research methodology are of note from the Schwarz’s paper.
First, he observed that some information about land-use,
previous archaeological investigations, and geomorphology
are essential to planning a chemical survey campaign.
Second, he suggested that phosphate surveys would be
more useful when complemented by geophysical surveys
or test trenching, and warned that carrion pits, where local
villagers dispose of diseased animals, should not be mistaken
for prehistoric habitations (Schwarz, 1967, pp.58–61).
Schwarz’s sampling approach has been criticized (Sjöberg,
1976, p.449) because of his suggestion that samples be taken
along natural lines, such as feld boundaries, rather than on
a regular grid or transect system.
Kiefmann (1979) conducted large-scale phosphate mapping
in East Holstein and arrived at two signifcant conclusions.
First, soil phosphate content is infuenced by both changing
land-use and pedogenesis. That is, archaeological soil
chemistry requires some understanding of both cultural and
non-cultural formation processes, including soil formation.
Second, Kiefmann found that diferent extraction methods
yielded diferent P concentrations and distributions.
Zölitz (1980) pioneered the use of variogram modelling
as a statistical method for analysing soil phosphate results.
Majer (1984) developed a 3-point relative scale for measuring
results, and noted that archaeologists were most interested
in the anthropogenic enhancement of soil phosphate, rather
than the total quantity of P. Phosphate surveys successfully
identifed residential areas in both prehistoric and medieval
sites (Grimm, 1971; Zölitz, 1982; 1983; 1986).
Eidt refned Gundlach’s method further, frst by replacing
nitric acid with hydrochloric acid (HCl) (Eidt, 1973) and
then by developing a bath to stop the chemical reaction,
so that results could be archived (Eidt, 1977). Eidt found
that HCl is superior to both nitric acid and sulphuric acid
when extracting P in laboratory tests, and observed that the
use of HCl for both feld and lab analyses would improve
comparability of results. He also noted that the question of
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
202
which acid was superior in most cases had been raised by
both Feigl (1960) and Murphy and Riley (1962), and the
answer was probably that both nitric and sulphuric acids are
oxidizers, whilst producing a blue colour from phosphate
and molybdenum requires a reducing process (Eidt, 1973,
p.207).
By the 1990s, spot-test methods were standardized, a few
specifc extraction formulas for colorimetry had been widely
adopted, and several critiques and reviews were being
published (Bethell and Máté, 1989; Bjelajac
et al.
, 1996;
Klamm
et al.
, 1998; Kondratiuk and Banaszuk, 1993; Zölitz
and Heinrich, 1990). In Germany and in the Czech Republic,
soil phosphate analyses were frequently used (Majer, 2004;
Stäuble and Lüning, 1999; Zimmermann, 1995), but were
rarely used elsewhere in Central Europe.
2.2 Recent developments of soil phosphate analysis in
Central Europe
Despite acknowledgement of the contribution of
soil phosphate mapping for settlement archaeology
(Zimmermann, 2001), the increasing sophistication of
aerial remote sensing and geophysical prospection led to
wide-scale adoption of alternative survey methods at both
the site and regional scale, and a concomitant decrease
in soil chemistry survey. In part, this can be explained by
recognizing that phosphate spot testing, the method fastest
and requiring the least training and fnancing, is also the
least informative method; Zimmerman (2001) called it
inappropriate. As a survey method, inappropriate is perhaps
unfair for a tool that identifes areas of possible human
settlement activity while enabling students to participate
in sample collection and analysis during feld projects.
Archaeological soil phosphate has been the largest and most
common application of geochemistry in archaeology, with
examples at the regional and micro-regional scales (Nuñez
and Vinberg, 1990; Salisbury, 2012; Thurston, 2001; Zölitz,
1982). Challenges remain, however, including fertilization
(Weihrauch
et al.
, 2017) and heterogeneous environments
(Weihrauch and Söder, 2020).
Although an essential component of site prospection and
settlement archaeology, soil phosphate analysis is largely
restricted to identifying activity or habitation areas where
large quantities of organic matter were deposited, such as
detecting boundaries of settlements, household clusters,
and activity zones (Salisbury, 2016; Sarris
et al.
, 2004;
Zimmermann, 2008). Pav (available P) was used to delineate
site boundaries at a series of Late Neolithic and Early Copper
Age settlements in the Körös Region of eastern Hungary
(Figure 2; Salisbury, 2012; 2016).
P analysis was applied at the excavation of an early
medieval house at Schalkstetten in South Germany. Samples
from a 1 m interval grid revealed three areas of elevated P. One
Figure 1.
Distribution of Pav (available P) at the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár settlement of Mezőberény-68 on an elevated loess ridge on the south side
of a palaeochannel in the Körös Region of eastern Hungary.
0 80 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
203
of these areas was associated with a hearth and interpreted
as indicating food preparation. The other two areas could
not be interpreted with certainty, although knowledge of
typical organization of medieval houses into domestic areas
and stables led to a plausible conclusion that a large area
of P enrichment on one end of the structure marked the
stable (Schreg and Behrendt, 2011). In another example,
soil P was successful in delimiting vertical stratigraphy and
layers with anthropogenic inputs, even when those layers
could not be distinguished visually (Ernée, 2005). Ongoing
developments in soil P analysis in Central Europe indicate
that the method not only remains useful, but has the potential
to overcome some restrictions – for example, through the use
of oxalate
‐
extractable P (P
‐
ox) as an alternative to phosphate
fractionation (Weihrauch
et al.
, 2020).
In the Czech Republic phosphate analysis has a long
history of use for analysing cemeteries and possible burials.
Early research focused on using soil P to aid in identifying
graves with poor or no bone preservation (Pelikán, 1954),
including the identifcation of elevated P in cremation burials
(Págo 1963, cited in Petřík
et al.
, 2012). More recently,
phosphate analysis was combined with the Brongers method
of identifying wood remains at a Bell Beaker site in Moravia
(Hlavica
et al.
, 2011). At the Bronze Age Únětice site of
Prague 9 – Miškovice site, phosphate anomalies in the form
of burials aided in identifying grave-pits as a third burial form
(along with inhumations and cenotaphs); cenotaphs lacked
any P enrichment (Ernée and Majer, 2009). Similar results
were obtained from Bell Beaker burials at several sites in the
Znojmo district in Moravia (Petřík
et al.
, 2012). In that study,
researchers also identifed potential complications arising
from various formation processes, including the infuence of
burial in or on wood, which apparently produced a lower
signature than bodies placed directly on soil, and elevated
P values associated with a secondary intrusion of organic
sediments.
Phosphate testing is most efective when used as one
component of an integrated multi-proxy approach to regional
prospection and site investigations. In Hungary, soil P is used
along with magnetic survey, magnetic susceptibility, and
surface collection to identify vertical and horizontal limits
of Neolithic and Copper Age settlements, and the extent of
settlement and activity areas within micro-regions (Gyucha
et al.
, 2015; Parkinson
et al.
, 2010; Salisbury
et al.
, 2013;
Sarris
et al.
, 2004). Phosphorus was used as one proxy
in a multi-proxy reconstruction of functional spaces at
a Late Bronze Age farmstead in Poland (Markiewicz and
Rembisz-Lubiejewska, 2016).
3. Multi-element soil chemistry
Lutz (1951) recognized in the 1950s that elements other
than P could be useful in archaeological contexts. Multi-
element geochemistry provides more detailed information
about what people did and where they did things, because
human activities alter all the chemical and physical
properties of soils. Within archaeology, multi-element
analyses have increasingly been applied for identifying
diferent activity areas in connection with settlements,
craft production, and marketplaces (Coronel
et al.
, 2015;
Holliday
et al.
, 2010; Salisbury, 2017). The elements most
often found to be associated with human settlements are P,
K, Ca, Mn, Cu, Zn, Sr, Ba and Pb, but elements such as Mg,
Rb, Cs and Th have also proven useful in some instances
(Entwistle
et al.
, 2000; Oonk
et al.
, 2009a; Wilson
et al.
,
2008; 2009). Archaeological applications of multi-element
soil chemistry have typically used ICP-MS; portable X-ray
fuorescence is now being adopted and adapted (Coronel
et al.
, 2014; Gauss
et al.
, 2013; Šmejda
et al.
, 2017).
Much of what we know about the relationship between
these elements and human activities comes from
ethnographic studies, where human behaviour is observed
and analyses conducted to see how this behaviour afects
the soil chemistry. Ethnoarchaeological studies working
with indigenous people in their households in small, rural
villages have been done in Central America, including
Oaxaca (Middleton and Price, 1996), several other areas
in Mexico (Barba and Ortiz, 1992; Barba
et al.
, 1996),
Guatemala (Fernández
et al.
, 2002; Terry
et al.
, 2004), and
Honduras (Wells and Urban, 2002). These studies found
connections between specifc domestic activities, such
as cooking, storage and crafting, and specifc chemical
elements, compounds, and soil properties. There are also
a few examples from arctic and subarctic regions (Butler
et al.
, 2018; Knudson and Frink, 2010), but few from
temperate Europe. This means that these studies occur on
soil types that do not include loess, and focus on a specifc
set of input materials, some of which, like maize, did not
exist in prehistoric and early historic Europe. Carbon (C)
and Nitrogen (N) are also important elements to consider,
especially in terms of depletion due to agriculture, or
enrichment through fertilization, but these elements are
too light to be analysed using either ICP-MS or XRF, so
their investigation requires other instrumentation to be
employed. A key point here is the gap in our knowledge
base, which can only be closed by experimental and
ethnoarchaeological research in Central Europe.
Multi-element work is almost exclusively restricted to
excavation contexts, where we already have a potential
archaeological interpretation and want confrmation,
or when we try to interpret “empty” places (Terry
et al.
,
2015). Analysis of a paleosol from beneath a Bell Beaker
(c. 2500–2200 BC) burial mound in Moravia indicated
that the burial location had not been used for habitation
or production activities (Hejcman
et al.
, 2013b). In part,
identifcation of the paleosol was based on levels of lead and
cadmium lower than surrounding soils. In rare occasions,
multi-element chemistry has been used to interpret
unexcavated areas. For example, Principal Components of
multi-element data from Late Neolithic and Early Copper
Age farmsteads in eastern Hungary were interpreted to
delineate potential activity zones, and compared to identify
similarities in the use of space (Salisbury, 2013; 2016).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
204
Multi-element soil chemistry has also been used to
determine archaeological context as a primary factor for the
appearance of cropmarks. In a series of papers, Hejcman and
colleagues demonstrated that the chemical composition of
ancient pit flls, subsoils, surface soils and vegetation was
directly enhanced by the presence of ancient human activities
(Gojda and Hejcman, 2012; Hejcman
et al.
, 2011; Hejcman
and Smrž, 2010; Hejcman
et al.
, 2013a). In particular, the
analysis of ashed vegetation from assumed archaeological
features (positive cropmarks) and “background” vegetation
enabled a straightforward correlation between anthropogenic
chemical enrichment and the efectiveness of aerial
archaeology (Gojda and Hejcman, 2012).
3.1 Extraction processes
By comparing the relative concentrations and combinations
of elements, as well as other soil components (
e.g.
pH, soil
organic content, and magnetic susceptibility), activity patterns
can be identifed and examined (Pető
et al.
, 2015; Pető
et al.
, 2019; Salisbury, 2013). We use relative concentrations
because many variables afect elemental levels in soils, and we
are specifcally looking for anthropogenic inputs (Wells
et al.
,
2000; Wells
et al.
, 2007). This focus on anthropogenic inputs
has also resulted in broad disparities in analytical methods.
These disparities lead to a second knowledge gap, one
that has been noted several times (Oonk
et al.
, 2009b;
Pastor
et al.
, 2016; Wilson
et al.
, 2006). Despite advances
in sample preparation and analytical methods, we still
lack standardized protocols, or a fundamental agreement
on how sediment characteristics and laboratory condition
infuence our extraction methods and subsequent results.
In addition, meta-studies investigating the efcacy of
methods and comparability of results are largely lacking
(but see Lubos
et al.
, 2016). The type of extraction used
will highly infuence the results. Americanist archaeologists
frequently rely on a weak-acid extraction that is intended to
extract only the anthropogenic signature (Middleton, 2004;
Salisbury, 2016; Wells, 2004). In the experience of this
author, geologists are horrifed by this approach, arguing
that total extraction using strong acids at high temperature is
the only acceptable method. Both can be made to sound like
reasonable arguments, but each might be inappropriate for
archaeology. Geoarchaeologists have developed alternatives
that give quasi-total extraction. One example using HNO
3
is set out in Wilson (2008). Mehlich 3 extractant is widely
used in the Czech Republic, and has been recommended as
an international standard for archaeological soil chemistry
(Hejcman
et al.
, 2013b).
Attempts at standardization are unlikely to be a perfect
solution, because the extractions should be based partly on
methodological consistency and comparability, but also on
regional soils, environmental conditions, and the nature of
the elements themselves (Pastor
et al.
, 2016; Wilson
et al.
,
2006). Therefore, reliability and comparability will be better
served by consistent standardization in sample handling and
preparation, documentation of methods and protocols, and
presentation of results.
3.2 Portable XRF – a new state-of-the-art
Portable, handheld, energy dispersive X-ray Fluorescence
spectroscopy (pXRF) is comparatively inexpensive, non
‐
destructive, and enables rapid acquisition of large datasets,
and therefore is rapidly being adopted for a range of
archaeological applications (Holcomb and Karkanas, 2019;
Michałowski
et al.
, 2020; Riebe, 2019; Vianello and Tykot,
2017). Technological innovations are solving many of the
problems confronted by early adopters, such as the inability
to measure P and other light elements, and the interference
of silicon with P (Coronel
et al.
, 2014). Handheld XRFs are
now being widely used for soil analyses, in Central Europe
and elsewhere (Dreslerová
et al.
, 2020; Horák
et al.
, 2018;
Lubos
et al.
, 2016; Šmejda
et al.
, 2017). In addition, pXRF
returns total elemental composition, making it comparable to
total and quasi-total chemical extractions.
At the fortifed Early Bronze Age settlement of Fidvár in
southwest Slovakia, pXRF analysis of samples from an Early
Bronze Age house, the site centre, a potential metal workshop,
and the fortifcation ditch indicated P enrichment in the ditch
and low levels in the house. Calcium and strontium varied
within house samples, and were again higher in the ditch.
No geochemical evidence for metalworking activities were
found (Gauss
et al.
, 2013). Using a similar methodology,
74 samples were analysed from a Neolithic Linear Pottery
Culture house and associated ditch near Vráble in Slovakia.
Results indicated the need to consider post-depositional
processes, in this case in bio-cycling in particular, for
accurate interpretations (Dreibrodt
et al.
, 2017).
Medieval settlements have also received attention. At
the abandoned medieval village of Lovětín near Třešť in
western Moravia, general household waste was likely spread
on agricultural plots, based on elevated levels of Mn, Sr,
and K. Corresponding low levels of P were interpreted as
P depletion due to inefective fertilization; widespread use
of manuring was not evident. Nevertheless, the authors
cautioned that the detection limits of their instrument
constrained measurements of P and Ca (Horák
et al.
, 2018).
Portable XRF has also been applied to cemetery research.
In a Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age example, pXRF
was used to determine that urn cenotaphs – burial urns with
no macroscopic bone remains inside – never contained bones
(Pankowská
et al.
, 2018). Fill of urns without bones had
lower levels of P, Ca, Mn, Zn, Pb and V when compared to
samples from urns containing visible bone fragments.
Efective application of portable X-ray fuorescence
analysis in the feld, to establish multi-element chemical
analyses as a standard approach in archaeological feldwork,
requires a workfow optimized for feld conditions. The
optimal
ex situ
methodology, wherein sediment samples
are oven dried, milled to c. 20 microns, homogenized, and
pressed into pellets or disks, clearly remove many factors
that infuence measurements, such as sunlight, soil moisture
content, and measuring a single large particle in un-sieved,
un-homogenized sediments. However, transportation,
storage, and laboratory processing remove the advantages
of a portable, afordable instrument that provides results in
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
205
one day. Conversely,
in situ
methods that take full advantage
of portability and speed by directly measuring sediments
at the surface (Šmejda
et al.
, 2017; Šmejda
et al.
, 2018)
do not always produce reliable and replicable data on the
elemental composition of a sampled context (Gof
et al.
,
2020). Nevertheless, in feld analyses will be conducted,
because of the obvious advantages. Therefore, establishing
a protocol for in feld testing, particularly for consistent
sample preparation, is essential (Frahm
et al.
, 2016; Gof
et al.
, 2020). The best alternative for in feld analysis is
sampling, air-drying, sieving through 2 mm mesh, crushing
and homogenizing by hand using ceramic mortars and
pestles, and packing into plastic sample cups covered with
thin polypropylene or mylar flm (
cf.
Dreibrodt
et al.
, 2017;
Gof
et al.
, 2020).
Unlike the situation of various extraction methods for ICP-
OES/MS, serious attention has been given to the question of
how pXRF results compare to ICP-based analyses (Frahm
et al.
, 2016; Gauss
et al.
, 2013; Lubos
et al.
, 2016). For
the most part, results are comparable when total or quasi-
total extraction methods are used. The primary purpose
of archaeological soil chemistry is to establish patterns of
activities rather than absolute elemental values. Therefore,
the most important comparison is of the spatial patterning of
element enrichment and depletion, which is less frequently
reported. The study by Lubos and colleagues (2016) is an
important exception to many critiques; comparison of several
strong acid and weak acid extractions with pXRF indicates
high correlation of results using weak HCL, strong HNO
3
,
Aqua Regia (all ICP-OES), and pXRF.
Moreover, the accuracy and reproducibility of measurements
depend on instrument calibration, availability of appropriate
material standards, and regular measurement of blanks (
e.g.
SiO
2
blanks). Three sets of calibrations for soil analysis are
available from major pXRF models. Although each company
uses diferent names for these, they can be grouped as
an empirical mode (requiring known samples), fundamental
parameters (FP), and Compton normalization. The latter two
come preinstalled; recent models often include a combined
fundamental-Compton mode. International soil and sediment
geological standards (GBW 7411, NIST 2780, NCS 73308,
TILL-4, and USGS SdAR-M2) might be problematic,
particularly in areas of redeposited loess, such as the Great
Hungarian Plain. For example, TILL-4 is a sample of till
taken in New Brunswick, Canada; NIST 2780 is hard rock
mine waste. Correction of reported pXRF data with local
calibration samples can resolve these issues (Gof
et al.
,
2020), but local calibration samples must be developed for
each region and geology.
4. Future directions
Following the third-science revolution (Kintigh
et al.
,
2014; Kristiansen, 2014), issues of mobility and migration,
increasing complexity in social and settlement organization,
human-environmental interactions, economic sustainability,
and cultural and environmental resilience are becoming
increasingly relevant for archaeology. In spite of the
unremarkable fact that most human activities generate
measurable traces in sediments, plasters and other surfaces,
these papers do not specifcally mention the role of
geoarchaeology. In addition to the continued development
of multi-element sediment geochemistry, biogeochemistry
is providing new insights into questions about mobility,
domestication, land use, anthropogenic impacts, and socio-
political interactions. This section will briefy examine some
recent developments in these arenas, with contributions from
geoarchaeology and soil science.
Biogeochemistry is a highly inter-disciplinary concentration
on cycles of chemical elements and their isotopic ratios, and
natural or anthropogenic organic compounds such as proteins,
lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. Organic molecules
from biological sources can be preserved in soils and
sediments, and serve as markers of anthropogenic activity,
although the preservation of these biomarkers is highly
dependent on the pedological conditions (Bull
et al.
, 2000;
Bull
et al.
, 2002; Killops and Killops, 2005). Soil biomarkers
have been used, albeit sporadically, to aid reconstructions of
palaeoenvironmental conditions, cultivation and manuring,
and other human activities at multiple analytical scales
(Bethell
et al.
, 1994; Hjulström and Isaksson, 2009; Prost
et al.
, 2017; Simpson
et al.
, 1999).
Faecal biomarkers, in particular 5β-stanol lipids, provide
data on pastoral practices and land-use in France (Zocatelli
et al.
, 2017), animal husbandry and uses for dung in Anatolia
(Portillo
et al.
, 2020), and plants as a signifcant component
of Neanderthal diet in Spain (Sistiaga
et al.
, 2014). Faecal
biomarkers can now be used to distinguish between diferent
animal species (Harrault
et al.
, 2019; Prost
et al.
, 2017),
signifcantly increasing their usefulness for research on early
domestication and animal husbandry.
Lipid biomarkers from plants, in the form of plant sterols
and
n
-alkanes from leaf waxes, are chemically inert, persist in
sediments for thousands of years or more, and provide direct
evidence of vegetation types (Patalano
et al.
, 2020). Sterols
produce chemical signatures specifc to diferent plant types,
and are used to infer palaeovegetation changes, such as shifts
from grasses to trees and shrubs, or lacustrine to terrestrial
species (Schatz
et al.
, 2011; Schwark
et al.
, 2002; Zech
et al.
,
2010). Analyses of carbon and hydrogen isotopes in these
compounds are also used to infer palaeoclimate variability
(Patalano
et al.
, 2020; Schirrmacher
et al.
, 2019).
4.1 Isotope biogeochemistry
One widely recognized biogeochemical application in
archaeology is the analysis of isotopic ratios of strontium,
carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and other elements
in bones and teeth from humans and animals, and the
relationship between these and depositional environments.
These methods are now routinely used for reconstructing
diet, climate, mobility, and environmental changes indicative
of anthropogenic modifcations to subsistence and habitation
strategies (Balasse
et al.
, 2017; Chazin
et al.
, 2019; Demény
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
206
et al.
, 2019; Giblin and Yerkes, 2016; Makarewicz and Sealy,
2015). For example, stable strontium, oxygen, and carbon
isotopes provided evidence for diferent subgroups of the
massacred Neolithic community at Talheim (Bentley
et al.
,
2008). Strontium ratios from Late Neolithic and Copper
Age human dental enamel indicate greater variability during
the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain, suggesting
a wider geographical range of food acquisition (Giblin
et al.
,
2013).
Biochemistry of ancient bone, as in the examples
above, typically includes a geological component from the
depositional environment. An isotopic study from Czech La
Tène cemeteries illustrates the problem of diferentiating
land-use practices and local geological variability from
human mobility when interpreting strontium variability
(Scheeres
et al.
, 2014). This highlights the need to map
regional baseline isoscapes, or isotopic landscapes, from
proxies appropriate for ancient conditions (Bataille
et al.
,
2020; Snoeck
et al.
, 2020).
Sediment biogeochemistry has unrealized potential
for reconstructing past human activities and ecosystems
(D’Anjou
et al.
, 2012; Vranová
et al.
, 2015; Vranová
et al.
,
2012). A study of δ
15
N ratios of samples taken from two
long-standing agricultural experiments on the impact of
manuring on agricultural yields demonstrates that manuring
signifcantly raises nitrogen values in both grains and chaf
(Bogaard
et al.
, 2007). Sodium, chlorine, nitrate, and nitrate-
nitrogen isotope values from waste layers at Aşıklı Höyük,
a Neolithic tell in central Turkey, were used to calculate
increasing numbers of caprines (Abell
et al.
, 2019).
4.2 Sedimentary ancient DNA
Ancient human and environmental DNA preserved in
palaeosoils can provide evidence for human presence,
species identifcation, and changes in ecological diversity.
Sedimentary aDNA (or
sed
aDNA) can contribute to multi-
proxy interpretations, but are especially useful when physical
remains are not preserved (Brunson and Reich, 2019; Epp
et al.
, 2019; Thomsen and Willerslev, 2015). For example,
a study of lake sediments from Poland contrasted human-
specifc bacterial DNA, a marker of human faecal material,
and pollen counts; results revealed direct correlation of
human presence and vegetation changes (Madeja, 2015).
Although most recent research has been conducted on lake
sediment samples from cores (Giguet-Covex
et al.
, 2014;
Madeja, 2015; Parducci
et al.
, 2017), sediment samples
can be taken directly from secure archaeological contexts
(Hebsgaard
et al.
, 2009; Nejman
et al.
, 2020; Slon
et al.
,
2017).
4.3 Proteomics from sediments
A relatively new area of research in archaeology is proteomics.
Proteomics involves the extraction, sequencing, and analysis
of proteins that form proteomes, and the identifcation of
species based on the weight of specifc proteins; ancient
proteomics, or palaeoproteomics, involves the extraction
and analysis of proteins from archaeological remains. The
application of proteomic methods in archaeology is most
developed in the analysis of human and animal bones
(Brown
et al.
, 2016; Lanigan
et al.
, 2020), dental calculus
(Charlton
et al.
, 2019), and ceramics (Shevchenko
et al.
,
2018). Archaeological and environmental proteomes can also
be extracted from soil; preliminary results were promising,
but this method is in the early stages of development (Oonk
et al.
, 2012).
5. Summary: Bringing it all together with multi-proxy
approaches
As we move towards the middle of the 21
st
century, archaeology
departments need to become more interdisciplinary and more
attuned to the information stored in the sediment archive:
ancient human DNA, other ancient DNA, ancient fats,
carbohydrates, and stomach acids, the microbial environment,
and changing soil conditions. Bio-geoarchaeology can
address new questions, or bring new methods to acquire
data that was previously unavailable. Accessing these data
requires an acceptance that anthropogenic sediments are
archaeological remains.
A couple of points concerning the future development
of archaeological soil chemistry must be considered. One
is that the latest analytical methods cross disciplinary
boundaries and push the current limits of archaeological
soil chemistry. Geoarchaeologists will need to integrate
knowledge of these methods into their toolkit, without losing
their existing expertise. Furthermore, existing methods
and protocols may require modifcation for archaeological
contexts, to accommodate the efects of formation processes
and the vagaries of human activities. Potential rewards make
these eforts worthwhile. Converging lines of evidence from
multi-element soil chemistry, magnetic susceptibility, and
soil biomarkers will provide greater interpretive power for
settlement and activity areas research, whilst also producing
complementary evidence for zooarchaeology and other
environmental analyses (
e.g.
Dreslerová
et al.
, 2020; Lauer
et al.
, 2014).
This leads to a second point, which is that our older
methods of sampling for inorganic soil chemistry are
inadequate for current analytical capabilities. One immediate
methodological aim in archaeological soil chemistry should
be to establish new and standardized sampling and storage
methods for biomarkers, in particular those collected directly
from archaeological contexts.
The need for site prospection employing primarily
soil phosphate analysis is likely to remain, particularly
in woodlands or other conditions that limit geophysics
and surface collection. Unfortunately, this approach is
rarely used today, despite its obvious application to flling
gaps in our survey areas. Portable XRF provides a tool
for in feld geochemical analysis of geological samples,
including soils, that can be done as a prospection method
or as biogeochemistry samples are collected. Further, pXRF
fts within the budget of most research programmes. In
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
207
these respects, pXRF is both the new state-of-the-art and
a method for the future. However, comparisons between
institutes or feld projects should be undertaken to assess
results using standard calibrations, and determine whether
correction factors can be developed for general use or need
to be established for each individual device. This represents
a second essential aim for geoarchaeology. In addition,
we need an efective universal protocol for collecting and
processing sediment samples in the feld, so as not to lose the
advantages of speed and portability.
Geoarchaeologists need to be able to collect appropriate
samples, and aid in data interpretation, allowing laboratory
scientists to develop analytical protocols for sediment
bimolecular studies. The combination of biomarkers with
geoarchaeological methods such as soil phosphates, magnetic
susceptibility, micro-remains, and thin-section analysis will
open new frontiers in our understanding of the human past.
Acknowledgements
I thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
suggestions, and the Executive Editor for his patience. All
omissions are the responsibility of the author.
References
ABELL, J.T., QUADE, J., DURU, G., MENTZER, S.M., STINER, M.C.,
UZDURUM, M. and ÖZBAŞARAN, M., 2019. Urine salts elucidate
Early Neolithic animal management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey.
Science
Advances
, 5, eaaw0038.
ARRHENIUS, O., 1929. Die Phosphatmethode.
Zeitschrift für
Pfanzenernährung, Düngung und Bodenkunde
,
Teil A
, 14, 121–140,
185–194.
ARRHENIUS, O., 1931. Die Bodenanalyse im Dienst der Archäologie.
Zeitschrift für Pfanzenernährung, Düngung und Bodenkunde, Teil B
, 10,
427–439.
ASTON, M., MARTIN, M.H. and JACKSON, A.W., 1998. The use of
heavy metal soil analysis for archaeological surveying.
Chemosphere
,
37, 465–477.
BALASSE, M., BĂLĂŞESCU, A., TORNERO, C., FREMONDEAU, D.,
HOVSEPYAN, R., GILLIS, R. and POPOVICI, D., 2017. Investigating
the scale of herding in Chalcolithic pastoral communities settled along
the Danube River in the 5
th
millennium BC: A case study at Borduşani-
Popină and Hârşova-tell (Romania).
Quaternary International
, 436, Part
B, 29–40.
BANDI, H., 1945. Archäologische Erforschung des zukünftigen
Stauseegebietes Rossens-Broc.
Jahrbuch der Schweizen Gesellschaft für
Urgeschichte
, 36, l00–106.
BARBA, L. and ORTIZ, A., 1992. Análisis químico de pisos de ocupación:
Un caso etnográfco en Tlaxcala, Mexico.
Latin American Antiquity
, 3,
63–82.
BARBA, L., ORTIZ, A., LINK, K., LOPEZ-LUJAN, L. and LAZOS, L.,
1996. The chemical analysis of residues in foors and the reconstruction
of ritual activities at the Templo Mayor, Mexico. In: M.V. Orna, ed.
Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical
Analysis.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 139–156.
BATAILLE, C.P., CROWLEY, B.E., WOOLLER, M.J. and BOWEN,
G.J., 2020. Advances in global bioavailable strontium isoscapes.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
, 555, 109849.
BENTLEY, R.A., WAHL, J., PRICE, T.D. and ATKINSON, TIM C.,
2008. Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic
community in Germany.
Antiquity
, 82, 290–304.
BETHELL, P. and MÁTÉ, I., 1989. The Use of Soil Phosphate Analysis
in Archaeology: A Critique. In: J. Henderson, ed.
Scientifc analysis
in archaeology and its interpretation.
Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of
Archaeology, pp. 1–29.
BETHELL, P.H., GOAD, L.J. and EVERSHED, R.P., 1994. The Study of
Molecular Markers of Human Activity: The Use of Coprostanol in the
Sol as Indicator of Human Faecal Material.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 21, 619–632.
BJELAJAC, V., LUBY, E. and RAY, R., 1996. A Validation Test of a Field-
Based Phosphate Analysis Technique.
Journal of Archaeological Science
,
23, 243–248.
BOGAARD, A., HEATON, T.H.E., POULTON, P. and MERBACH, I.,
2007. The impact of manuring on nitrogen isotope ratios in cereals:
archaeological implications for reconstruction of diet and crop
management practices.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 34, 335–343.
BOWEN, H.J.M., 1979.
Environmental Chemistry of the Elements
, London/
New York: Academic Press.
BROWN, S., HIGHAM, T., SLON, V., PÄÄBO, S., MEYER, M., DOUKA,
K., BROCK, F., COMESKEY, D., PROCOPIO, N., SHUNKOV, M.,
DEREVIANKO, A. and BUCKLEY, M., 2016. Identifcation of a new
hominin bone from Denisova Cave, Siberia using collagen fngerprinting
and mitochondrial DNA analysis.
Nature:
Scientifc Reports
, 6, 23559.
BRUNSON, K. and REICH, D., 2019. The Promise of Paleogenomics
Beyond Our Own Species.
Trends in Genetics
, 35, 319–329.
BULL, I.D., BERGEN, P.F.V., NOTT, C.J., POULTON, P.R. and
EVERSHED, R.P., 2000. Organic geochemical studies of soils from the
Rothamsted classical experiments–V. The fate of lipids in diferent long-
term experiments.
Organic Geochemistry
, 31, 389–408.
BULL, I.D., LOCKHEART, M.J., ELHMMALI, M.M., ROBERTS, D.J.
and EVERSHED, R.P., 2002. The origin of faeces by means of biomarker
detection.
Environment International,
27, 647–654.
BUTLER, D.H., LOPEZ–FORMENT, A. and DAWSON, P.C., 2018. Multi-
element and biomolecular analyses of soils as a means of sustainable
site structure research on hunter–gatherer sites: A case study from the
Canadian Arctic.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
, 17,
973–991.
CHARLTON, S., RAMSØE, A., COLLINS, M., CRAIG, O.E., FISCHER,
R., ALEXANDER, M. and SPELLER, C.F., 2019. New insights into
Neolithic milk consumption through proteomic analysis of dental
calculus.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
, 11, 6183–6196.
CHAZIN, H., GORDON, G.W. and KNUDSON, K.J., 2019. Isotopic
perspectives on pastoralist mobility in the Late Bronze Age South
Caucasus.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
, 54, 48–67.
CHRISTENSEN, W., 1935.
Jordens Forforsyreindold som Indikator for
Tidligere Kultur og Bebyggelse; en Studie af Ermitageslettens Historie
,
Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels Forlag.
CONWAY, J.S., 1983. An Investigation of Soil Phosphorus Distribution
within Occupation Deposits from a Romano-British Hut Group.
Journal
of Archaeological Science
, 10, 117–128.
CORONEL, E.G., BAIR, D.A., BROWN, C.T. and TERRY, R.E., 2014.
Utility and Limitations of Portable X-Ray Fluorescence and Field
Laboratory Conditions on the Geochemical Analysis of Soils and Floors
at Areas of Known Human Activities.
Soil Science
, 179, 258–271.
CORONEL, E.G., HUTSON, S., MAGNONI, A., BALZOTTI, C., ULMER,
A. and TERRY, R.E., 2015. Geochemical analysis of Late Classic and
Post Classic Maya marketplace activities at the Plazas of Cobá, Mexico.
Journal of Field Archaeology
, 40, 89–109.
D’ANJOU, R.M., BRADLEY, R.S., BALASCIO, N.L. and FINKELSTEIN,
D.B., 2012. Climate impacts on human settlement and agricultural
activities in northern Norway revealed through sediment biogeochemistry.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
, 109, 20332–20337.
DAUNCEY, K.D.M., 1952. Phosphate Content of Soils on Archaeological
Sites.
Advancement of Science
, 9, 33–37.
DEMÉNY, A., KERN, Z., CZUPPON, G., NÉMETH, A., SCHÖLL-
BARNA, G., SIKLÓSY, Z., LEÉL-ŐSSY, S., COOK, G., SERLEGI, G.,
BAJNÓCZI, B., SÜMEGI, P., KIRÁLY, Á., KISS, V., KULCSÁR, G.
and BONDÁR, M., 2019. Middle Bronze Age humidity and temperature
variations, and societal changes in East-Central Europe.
Quaternary
International
, 504, 80–95.
DIETZ, E.F., 1957. Phosphorus Accumulation in Soil of an Indian
Habitation Site.
American Antiquity
, 22, 405–409.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
208
DREIBRODT, S., FURHOLT, M., HOFMANN, R., HINZ, M. and
CHEBEN, I., 2017. P-ed-XRF-geochemical signatures of a 7300-year-old
Linear Band Pottery house ditch fll at Vráble-Ve’lké Lehemby, Slovakia
– House inhabitation and post-depositional processes.
Quaternary
International
, 438, Part B, 131–143.
DRESLEROVÁ, D., KOZÁKOVÁ, R., METLIČKA, M., BRYCHOVÁ,
V., BOBEK, P., ČIŠECKÝ, Č., DEMJÁN, P., LISÁ, L., POKORNÁ, A.,
MICHÁLEK, J., STROUHALOVÁ, B. and TRUBAČ, J., 2020. Seeking
the meaning of a unique mountain site through a multidisciplinary
approach. The Late La Tène site at Sklářské Valley, Šumava Mountains,
Czech Republic.
Quaternary International
, 542, 88–108.
DUKE, G.S., VÁSQUEZ-SANCHEZ, V.F. and ROSALES-THAM, T.E.,
2018. Starch grain evidence of potato consumption at the Late Moche
(AD 600–850) site of Wasi Huachuma, Peru.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 100, 74–79.
DUNNE, J., REBAY-SALISBURY, K., SALISBURY, R.B., FRISCH, A.,
WALTON-DOYLE, C. and EVERSHED, R.P., 2019. Milk of ruminants
in ceramic baby bottles from prehistoric child graves.
Nature
, 574,
246–248.
EIDT, R.C., 1973. A Rapid Chemical Field Test for Archaeological Site
Surveying.
American Antiquity
, 38, 206–210.
EIDT, R.C., 1977. Soil phosphate as a diagnostic feature in abandoned
settlement analysis. In: R.C. Eidt, K.N. Singh and R.P.B. Singh, eds.
Man, Culture, and Settlement.
New Delhi: Kalyani, pp. 216–227.
ENTWISTLE, J.A., DODGSHON, R.A. and ABRAHAMS, P.W., 2000.
An investigation of former land-use activity through the physical and
chemical analysis of soils from the Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides.
Archaeological Prospection
, 7, 171–188.
EPP, L.S., ZIMMERMANN, H.H. and STOOF-LEICHSENRING, K.R.,
2019. Sampling and Extraction of Ancient DNA from Sediments. In:
B. Shapiro, A. Barlow, P.D. Heintzman, M. Hofreiter, J.L.A. Paijmans
and A.E.R. Soares, eds.
Ancient DNA: Methods and Protocols.
New
York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 31–44.
ERNÉE, M., 2005. Využití fosfátové půdní analýzy při interpretaci
kulturního souvrství a zahloubených objektů z mladší a pozdní doby
bronzové v Praze 10 – Záběhlicích. The use of soil phosphate analysis
in the interpretation of Late and Final Bronze Age cultural stratigraphy
and sunken features at Prague 10 – Záběhlice.
Archeologické rozhledy
,
57, 303–330.
ERNÉE, M. and MAJER, A., 2009. Uniformita, či rozmanitost pohřebního
ritu? Interpretace výsledků fosfátové půdní analýzy na pohřebišti únětické
kultury v Praze 9 – Miškovicích.
Archeologické rozhledy
, 61, 493–508.
FANNING, P.C., HOLDAWAY, S.J. and ALLELY, K., 2018. Geoarchaeology
in action: A sedimentological analysis of anthropogenic shell mounds
from the Cape York region of Australia.
Quaternary International
, 463,
44–56.
FEIGL, F., 1960.
Tüpfelanalyse
,
Frankfurt am Main: Akademische
Verlagsgesselschaft.
FERNÁNDEZ, F.G., TERRY, R.E., INOMATA, T. and EBERL, M., 2002.
An ethnoarchaeological study of chemical residues in the foors and soils
of Q “eqchi” Maya Houses at Las Pozas, Guatemala.
Geoarchaeology
,
17, 487–519.
FRAHM, E., MONNIER, G.F., JELINSKI, N.A., FLEMING, E.P.,
BARBER, B.L. and LAMBON, J.B., 2016. Chemical soil surveys at the
Bremer Site (Dakota county, Minnesota, USA): Measuring phosphorous
content of sediment by portable XRF and ICP-OES.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 75, 115–138.
FÜLEKY, G., 1983. Fontosabb hazai talajtípusok foszforállapota.
Agrokémia és Talajtan
, 32, 7–30.
GAUSS, R.K., BÁTORA, J., NOWACZINSKI, E., RASSMANN, K. and
SCHUKRAFT, G., 2013. The Early Bronze Age settlement of Fidvár,
Vráble (Slovakia): reconstructing prehistoric settlement patterns using
portable XRF.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 40, 2942–2960.
GEBHARDT, H., 1982. Phosphatkartierung und bodenkundliche
Geländeuntersuchungen zur Eingrenzung historischer Siedlungs- und
Wirtschaftsfächen des Geestinsel Flögeln, Kreis Cuxhaven.
Probleme
der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet
, 14, 1–9.
GIBLIN, J.I., KNUDSON, K.J., BERECZKI, Z., PÁLFI, G. and PAP,
I., 2013. Strontium isotope analysis and human mobility during the
Neolithic and Copper Age: a case study from the Great Hungarian Plain.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 40, 227–239.
GIBLIN, J.I. and YERKES, R.W., 2016. Diet, dispersal and social
diferentiation during the Copper Age in eastern Hungary.
Antiquity
, 90,
81–94.
GIGUET-COVEX, C., PANSU, J., ARNAUD, F., REY, P.-J., GRIGGO,
C., GIELLY, L., DOMAIZON, I., COISSAC, E., DAVID, F., CHOLER,
P., POULENARD, J. and TABERLET, P., 2014. Long livestock farming
history and human landscape shaping revealed by lake sediment DNA.
Nature Communications
, 5, 3211.
GOFF, K., SCHAETZL, R.J., CHAKRABORTY, S., WEINDORF, D.C.,
KASMERCHAK, C. and BETTIS III, E.A., 2020. Impact of sample
preparation methods for characterizing the geochemistry of soils and
sediments by portable X-ray fuorescence.
Soil Science Society of
America Journal
, 84, 131–143.
GOJDA, M. and HEJCMAN, M., 2012. Cropmarks in main feld crops
enable the identifcation of a wide spectrum of buried features on
archaeological sites in Central Europe.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 39, 1655–1664.
GRIMM, P., 1971. Phosphatuntersuchungen in der Wüstung Hohenrode bei
Grillenhberg, Kr. Saugerhausen.
Ausgrabungen und Funde
, 16, 43–49.
GUNDLACH, H., 1961. Tüpfelmethode auf Phosphat, angewandt in
prähistorischer Forschung (als Feldmethode).
Microchimica Acta
, 5,
734–737.
GYUCHA, A., YERKES, R.W., PARKINSON, W.A., PAPADOPOULOS,
N., SARRIS, A., DUFFY, P.R. and SALISBURY, R.B., 2015. Settlement
Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Report of the Körös Regional
Archaeological Project’s Investigations at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and
Vésztő-Mágor. In: S. Hansen, P. Raczky, A. Anders and A. Reingruber,
eds.
Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean
Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6
th
to the 4
th
Millennium
BCE. International Workshop Budapest 2012.
Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt,
pp. 129–142.
HARRAULT, L., MILEK, K., JARDÉ, E., JEANNEAU, L., DERRIEN, M.
and ANDERSON, D.G., 2019. Faecal biomarkers can distinguish specifc
mammalian species in modern and past environments.
PLoS ONE
, 14,
e0211119.
HASLAM, R. and TIBBETT, M., 2004. Sampling and analyzing metals
in soils for archaeological prospection: A critique.
Geoarchaeology
, 19,
731–751.
HEBSGAARD, M.B., GILBERT, M.T.P., ARNEBORG, J., HEYN, P.,
ALLENTOFT, M.E., BUNCE, M., MUNCH, K., SCHWEGER, CH.
and WILLERSLEV, E., 2009. “The Farm Beneath the Sand” – an
archaeological case study on ancient “dirt” DNA.
Antiquity
, 83, 430–444.
HEJCMAN, M., ONDRÁČEK, J. and SMRŽ, Z., 2011. Ancient waste pits
with wood ash irreversibly increase crop production in Central Europe.
Plant and Soil
, 339, 341–350.
HEJCMAN, M. and SMRŽ, Z., 2010. Cropmarks in stands of cereals,
legumes and winter rape indicate sub-soil archaeological features in the
agricultural landscape of Central Europe.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment
, 138, 348–354.
HEJCMAN, M., SOUČKOVÁ, K. and GOJDA, M., 2013a. Prehistoric
settlement activities changed soil pH, nutrient availability, and growth
of contemporary crops in Central Europe.
Plant and Soil
, 369, 131–140.
HEJCMAN, M., SOUČKOVÁ, K., KRIŠTUF, P. and PEŠKA, J., 2013b.
What questions can be answered by chemical analysis of recent and
paleosols from the Bell Beaker barrow (2500–2200 BC), Central
Moravia, Czech Republic?
Quaternary International
, 316, 179–189.
HJULSTRÖM, B. and ISAKSSON, S., 2009. Identifcation of activity
area signatures in a reconstructed Iron Age house by combining element
and lipid analyses of sediments.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 36,
174–183.
HLAVICA, M., PETŘÍK, J., PROKEŠ, L. and ŠABATOVÁ, K., 2011.
Evaluation of Phosphate Analysis and the Brongers Method of Detecting
Decomposed Wood, Human Tissue and Organic Goods in a Bell
Beaker Grave at Těšetice-Kyjovice, Czech Republic.
Interdisciplinaria
Archaeologica,
Natural Sciences in Archaeology
, 2(2), 85–94.
HOLCOMB, J.A. and KARKANAS, P., 2019. Elemental mapping of
micromorphological block samples using portable X-ray fuorescence
spectrometry (pXRF): Integrating a geochemical line of evidence.
Geoarchaeology,
34, 613–624.
HOLLIDAY, V.T., 2004.
Soils in Archaeological Research
, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
209
HOLLIDAY, V., LAWRENCE-ZUNIGA, D. and BUCHLI, V., 2010.
Prologue to Uses of Chemical Residues to Make Statements About
Human Activities.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
, 17,
175–182.
HOLLIDAY, V.T. and GARTNER, W.G., 2007. Methods of soil P analysis
in archaeology.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 34, 301–333.
HORÁK, J., JANOVSKÝ, M., HEJCMAN, M., ŠMEJDA, L. and KLÍR, T.,
2018. Soil geochemistry of medieval arable felds in Lovětín near Třešť,
Czech Republic.
CATENA
, 162, 14–22.
JANOVSKÝ, M. and HORÁK, J. 2018. Large Scale Geochemical Signatures
Enable to Determine Landscape Use in the Deserted Medieval Villages.
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica,
Natural Sciences in Archaeology
, 9(1),
71–80.
KABATA-PENDIAS, A. and PENDIAS, H., 1984.
Trace Elements in Soils
and Plants
, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
KEELEY, H.C.M., 1981. Recent Work using Soil Phosphorus Analysis in
Archaeological Prospection.
Revue d’Archéométrie
, 5, 89–95.
KIEFMANN, H.-M., 1979. Die Phosphatmethode – Ergebnisse neuerer
Untersuchungen.
Geografska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography
, 61,
1–7.
KILLOPS, S. and KILLOPS, V., 2005.
Introduction to Organic
Geochemistry
,
London/New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
KINTIGH, K., ALTSCHUL, J., BEAUDRY, M., DRENNAN, R., KINZIG,
A., KOHLER, T., LIMP, W.F., MASCHNER, H., MICHENER, W.,
PAUKETAT, T., PEREGRINE, P., SABLOFF, J., WILKINSON, T.,
WRIGHT, H. and ZEDER, M., 2014. Grand Challenges for Archaeology.
American Antiquity
, 79, 5–24.
KLAMM, M., WEBER, T. and WUNDERLICH, C.-H., 1998.
Zur
Phosphatmethode in der Archäologie. Refektometrische Bestimmung
von Phosphat auf archäologischen Grabungen
,
Mainz: Römisch-
Germanisches Zentralmuseum.
KNUDSON, K.J. and FRINK, L., 2010. Ethnoarchaeological analysis of
Arctic fsh processing: chemical characterization of soils on Nelson
Island, Alaska.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 37, 769–783.
KNUDSON, K.J., FRINK, L., HOFFMAN, B.W. and PRICE, T.D.,
2004. Chemical characterization of Arctic soils: activity area analysis
in contemporary Yup’ik fsh camps using ICP-AES.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 31, 443–456.
KONDRATIUK, P. and BANASZUK, P., 1993. Interpretation of phosphorus
concentration in archaeology in the light of soil science research.
Archaeologia Polona
, 31, 141–147.
KOVALEVA, N.O. and KOVALEV, I.V., 2015. Lignin phenols in soils as
biomarkers of paleovegetation.
Eurasian Soil Science
, 48, 946–958.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2014. Towards a New Paradigm: The Third Science
Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology (including
comments).
Current Swedish Archaeology
, 22, 11–71.
LANIGAN, L.T., MACKIE, M., FEINE, S., HUBLIN, J.-J., SCHMITZ,
R.W., WILCKE, A., COLLINS, M.J., CAPPELLINI, E., OLSEN, J.V.,
TAUROZZI, A.J. and WELKER, F., 2020. Multi-protease analysis of
Pleistocene bone proteomes.
Journal of Proteomics
, 103889.
LAUER, F., PÄTZOLD, S., GERLACH, R., PROTZE, J., WILLBOLD, S.
and AMELUNG, W., 2013. Phosphorus status in archaeological arable
topsoil relicts – Is it possible to reconstruct conditions for prehistoric
agriculture in Germany?
Geoderma
, 207–208, 111–120.
LAUER, F., PROST, K., GERLACH, R., PÄTZOLD, S., WOLF,
M., URMERSBACH, S., LEHNDORFF, E., ECKMEIER, E. and
AMELUNG, W., 2014. Organic Fertilization and Sufcient Nutrient
Status in Prehistoric Agriculture? – Indications from Multi-Proxy
Analyses of Archaeological Topsoil Relicts.
PLoS ONE
, 9, e106244.
LEONARDI, G., MIGLAVACCA, M. and NARDI, S., 1999. Soil
Phosphorus Analysis as an Integrative Tool for Recognizing Buried
Ancient Ploughsoils.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 26, 343–352.
LORCH, W., 1930. Neue Methoden der Siedlungsgeschichte.
Geographische
Zeitschrift
, 45, 294–305.
LORCH, W., 1940. Die siedlungsgeographische Phosphatmethode.
Die
Naturwissenschaften
, 28, 633–640.
LORCH, W., 1941. Chemische Spuren im Boden als Zeichen früherer
menschlicher Besiedlung.
Die Umschau in Wissenschaft und Technik
, 45,
116–120.
LORCH, W., 1951. Die Entnahme von Bodenproben und ihre Einsendung
zur Untersuchung mittels der siedlungsgeschichtlichen Phosphatmethode.
Die Kunde
,
N.F.
, 2, 21–23.
LUBOS, C., DREIBRODT, S. and BAHR, A., 2016. Analysing spatio-
temporal patterns of archaeological soils and sediments by comparing
pXRF and diferent ICP-OES extraction methods.
Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports
, 9, 44–53.
LUTZ, H.J., 1951. The concentration of certain chemical elements in the
soils of Alaskan archaeological sites.
American Journal of Science
, 249,
925–928.
MADEJA, J., 2015. A new tool to trace past human presence from lake
sediments: the human-specifc molecular marker Bacteroides strain HF
183.
Journal of Quaternary Science
, 30, 349–354.
MAJER, A., 1984. Relativní metoda fosfátové půdní analýzy.
Archeologické
rozhledy
, 36, 297–313.
MAJER, A., 2004. Geochemie v archeologii. In: M. Kuna, ed.
Nedestruktivní
archeologie. Teorie, metody a cíle – Non-destructive archaeology. Theory,
methods and goals.
Praha: Academia, pp. 195–235.
MAKAREWICZ, C.A. and SEALY, J., 2015. Dietary reconstruction,
mobility, and the analysis of ancient skeletal tissues: Expanding
the prospects of stable isotope research in archaeology.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 56, 146–158.
MARKIEWICZ, M. and REMBISZ-LUBIEJEWSKA, A., 2016. Evidence
of a homestead from the Late Bronze Age at the Ruda site (Northern
Poland) based on archaeopedological studies.
Bulletin of Geography.
Physical Geography Series
, 11, 71–81.
MARTÍNEZ CORTIZAS, A., LÓPEZ-MERINO, L., BINDLER, R.,
MIGHALL, T. and KYLANDER, M.E., 2016. Early atmospheric metal
pollution provides evidence for Chalcolithic/Bronze Age mining and
metallurgy in Southwestern Europe.
Science of The Total Environment
,
545–546, 398–406.
MICHAŁOWSKI, A., NIEDZIELSKI, P., KOZAK, L., TESKA, M.,
JAKUBOWSKI, K. and ŻÓŁKIEWSKI, M., 2020. Archaeometrical
studies of prehistoric pottery using portable ED-XRF.
Measurement
, 159,
107758.
MIDDLETON, W.D., 2004. Identifying Chemical Activity Residues on
Prehistoric House Floors: A Methodology and Rationale for Multi-
Elemental Characterization of a Mild Acid Extract of Anthropogenic
Sediments.
Archaeometry
, 46, 47–65.
MIDDLETON, W.D. and PRICE, T.D., 1996. Identifcation of Activity
Areas by Multi- element Characterization of Sediments from Modern and
Archaeological House Floors Using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 23, 673–687.
MURPHY, J. and RILEY, J.P., 1962. A modifed single solution method
for the determination of phosphate in natural waters.
Analytica Chemica
Acta
, 27, 31–36.
NEJMAN, L., HUGHES, P., SULLIVAN, M., WRIGHT, D., WAY, A.,
SKOPAL, W., MLEJNEK, O., ŠKRDLA, P., LISÁ, L., KMOŠEK,
M., NÝVLTOVÁ FIŠÁKOVÁ, M., KRALIK, M., NERUDA, P.,
NERUDOVÁ, Z. and PŘICHYSTAL, A. 2020. Preliminary Report of the
2019 Excavation at Švédův Stůl Cave in the Moravian Karst.
Přehled
výzkumů
, 61, 11–19.
NEJMAN, L., LISÁ, L., DOLÁKOVÁ, N., HORÁČEK, I., BAJER, A.,
NOVÁK, J., WRIGHT, D., SULLIVAN, M., WOOD, R., GARGETT,
R. H., PACHER, M., SÁZELOVÁ, S., NÝVLTOVÁ FIŠÁKOVÁ, M.,
ROHOVEC, J. and KRÁLÍK, M. 2018. Cave Deposits as a Sedimentary
Trap for the Marine Isotope Stage 3 Environmental Record: The
Case Study of Pod Hradem, Czech Republic.
Palaeogeography
,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
, 497, 201–217.
NICOLL, K. and MURPHY, L.R., 2014. Soil and sediment archives of
ancient landscapes, paleoenvironments, and archaeological site formation
processes.
Quaternary International
, 342, 1–4.
NORD, A., TRONNER, K., MATTSSON, E., BORG, G. and ULLÉN, I.,
2005. Environmental Threats to Buried Archaeological Remains.
Ambio
,
34, 256–62.
NUÑEZ, M. and VINBERG, A., 1990. Determinations of anthropic soil
phosphate on Åland.
Norwegian Archaeological Review
, 23, 93–104.
OONK, S., CAPPELLINI, E. and COLLINS, M.J., 2012. Soil proteomics:
An assessment of its potential for archaeological site interpretation.
Organic Geochemistry
, 50, 57–67.
OONK, S., SLOMP, C.P. and HUISMAN, D.J., 2009a. Geochemistry as an
Aid in Archaeological Prospection and Site Interpretation: Current Issues
and Research Directions.
Archaeological Prospection
, 16, 35–51.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
210
OONK, S., SLOMP, C.P., HUISMAN, D.J. and VRIEND, S.P., 2009b.
Efects of site lithology on geochemical signatures of human occupation in
archaeological house plans in the Netherlands.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 36, 1215–1228.
PANKOWSKÁ, A., MONÍK, M. and NECHVÁTAL, M., 2018. Reading the
Silhouettes of Burnt Dead: Using Elemental Analysis (pXRF) to Identify
Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Urn Cenotaphs at Ostrov u Stříbra Site
(Czech Republic).
Anthropologie (Brno)
, 56, 39–52.
PARDUCCI, L., BENNETT, K.D., FICETOLA, G.F., ALSOS, I.G.,
SUYAMA, Y., WOOD, J.R. and PEDERSEN, M.W., 2017. Ancient plant
DNA in lake sediments.
New Phytologist
, 214, 924–942.
PARKINSON, W.A., GYUCHA, A., YERKES, R.W., MORRIS, M.R.,
SARRIS, A. and SALISBURY, R.B., 2010. Early Copper Age Settlements
in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain.
Journal of Field
Archaeology
, 35, 164–183.
PASTOR, A., GALLELLO, G., CERVERA, M.L. and DE LA GUARDIA,
M., 2016. Mineral soil composition interfacing archaeology and
chemistry.
TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry
, 78, 48–59.
PATALANO, R., ZECH, J. and ROBERTS, P., 2020. Leaf Wax Lipid
Extraction for Archaeological Applications.
Current Protocols in Plant
Biology
, 5, e20114.
PELIKÁN, J.B., 1954. Chemický posudek k výzkumu v Brodcích n. J.
v roce 1953.
Památky archeologické
, 45, 324–328.
PETŐ, Á., KENÉZ, Á., PRUNNER, A.C. and LISZTES-SZABÓ, Z., 2015.
Activity area analysis of a Roman period semi-subterranean building
by means of integrated archaeobotanical and geoarchaeological data.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
, 24, 101–120.
PETŐ, Á., NIEBIESZCZAŃSKI, J., SERLEGI, G., JAEGER, M. and
KULCSÁR, G., 2019. The site mapping of Kakucs-Turján by the means
of horizontal and vertical proxies: Combining feld and basic laboratory
methods of geoarchaeology and archaeological prospection.
Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports
, 27, 101999.
PETŘÍK, J., PROKEŠ, L., HUMPOLA, D., FAJKOŠOVÁ, Z., KUČA,
M., ŠABATOVÁ, K. and KAZDOVÁ, E., 2012. Pedogeochemical
Investigation of Bell Beaker Culture Graves from Hodonice and Těšetice-
Kyjovice, Moravia, Czech Republic. In: J. Kolár and F. Trampota, eds.
Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Central European
Neolithic Archaeology Proceedings of the “Theory and Method in
Archaeology of the Neolithic (7
th
–3
rd
millennium BC)” conference
held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 26
th
–28
th
of October 2010.
Oxford:
Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports, pp. 45–64.
PORTILLO, M., GARCÍA-SUÁREZ, A. and MATTHEWS, W., 2020.
Livestock faecal indicators for animal management, penning, foddering
and dung use in early agricultural built environments in the Konya Plain,
Central Anatolia.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
, 12, 40.
PROST, K., BIRK, J.J., LEHNDORFF, E., GERLACH, R. and AMELUNG,
W., 2017. Steroid Biomarkers Revisited – Improved Source Identifcation
of Faecal Remains in Archaeological Soil Material.
PLoS ONE
, 12,
e0164882-e0164882.
RIEBE, D.J., 2019. Sourcing Obsidian from Late Neolithic Sites on the
Great Hungarian Plain: Preliminary p-XRF Compositional Results
and the Socio-Cultural Implications.
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica,
Natural Sciences in Archaeology
, 10(2), 113–120.
RIEBE, D.J. and NIZIOLEK, L.C., 2015. Investigating Compositional
Variation of Ceramic Materials during the Late Neolithic on the Great
Hungarian Plain – Preliminary LA-ICP-MS Results.
Open Geosciences
,
7, 426–445.
ROTS, V., HARDY, B.L., SERANGELI, J. and CONARD, N.J., 2015.
Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artefacts from Schöningen.
Journal of Human Evolution
, 89, 298–308.
RUSSELL, E.J., 1915.
The Fertility of the Soil
,
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
SALISBURY, R.B., 2012. Soilscapes and settlements: remote mapping of
activity areas in unexcavated small farmsteads.
Antiquity
, 86, 178–190.
SALISBURY, R.B., 2013. Interpolating geochemical patterning of activity
zones at Late Neolithic and Early Copper Age settlements in eastern
Hungary.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 40, 926–934.
SALISBURY, R.B., 2016.
Soilscapes in Archaeology: Settlement and Social
Organization in the Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain
,
Budapest:
Archaeolingua.
SALISBURY, R.B., 2017. Links in the chain: evidence for crafting and
activity areas in late prehistoric cultural soilscapes. In: A. Gorgues,
K. Rebay-Salisbury and R.B. Salisbury, eds.
Material chains in late
prehistoric Europe and the Mediterranean: time, space, and technologies
of production.
Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions, pp. 47–65.
SALISBURY, R.B., BERTÓK, G. and BÁCSMEGI, G., 2013. Integrated
Prospection Methods to Defne Small-site Settlement Structure: A Case
Study from Neolithic Hungary.
Archaeological Prospection
, 20, 1–10.
SARRIS, A., GALATY, M.L., YERKES, R.W., PARKINSON, W.A.,
GYUCHA, A., BILLINGSLEY, D.M. and TATE, R., 2004. Geophysical
prospection and soil chemistry at the Early Copper Age settlement
of Vésztõ-Bikeri, Southeastern Hungary.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 31, 927–939.
SCHATZ, A.-K., ZECH, M., BUGGLE, B., GULYÁS, S., HAMBACH,
U., MARKOVIC, S.B., SÜMEGI, P. and SCHOLTEN, T., 2011.
The late Quaternary loess record of Tokaj, Hungary: Reconstructing
palaeoenvironment, vegetation and climate using stable C and N isotopes
and biomarkers.
Quaternary International
, 240, 52–61.
SCHEERES, M., KNIPPER, C., HAUSCHILD, M., SCHÖNFELDER,
M., SIEBEL, W., PARE, C. and ALT, K.W., 2014. “Celtic migrations”:
Fact or fction? Strontium and oxygen isotope analysis of the Czech
cemeteries of Radovesice and Kutná Hora in Bohemia.
American Journal
of Physical Anthropology
, 155, 496–512.
SCHIRRMACHER, J., WEINELT, M., BLANZ, T., ANDERSEN,
N., SALGUEIRO, E. and SCHNEIDER, R.R., 2019. Multi-decadal
atmospheric and marine climate variability in southern Iberia during the
mid- to late-Holocene.
Climate of the Past
, 15, 617–634.
SCHNELL, I., 1932. Strandlingebestamingar och Markanalys.
Fornvännen
,
27, 40–47.
SCHREG, R. and BEHRENDT, S., 2011. Phosphatanalysen in einem
frühmittelalterlichen Haus in Schalkstetten (Gemeinde Amstetten, Alb-
Donau-Kreis).
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
, 41, 263–272.
SCHUMACHER, M., SCHIER, W. and SCHÜTT, B., 2016. Mid-Holocene
vegetation development and herding-related interferences in the
Carpathian region.
Quaternary International
, 415, 253–267.
SCHWARK, L., ZINK, K. and LECHTERBECK, J., 2002. Reconstruction
of postglacial to early Holocene vegetation history in terrestrial Central
Europe via cuticular lipid biomarkers and pollen records from lake
sediments.
Geology
, 30, 463–466.
SCHWARTZ, G.T., 1967. A simplifed chemical test for archaeological feld
work.
Archaeometry
, 10, 57–63.
SHEVCHENKO, A., SCHUHMANN, A., THOMAS, H. and WETZEL, G.,
2018. Fine Endmesolithic fsh caviar meal discovered by proteomics in
foodcrusts from archaeological site Friesack 4 (Brandenburg, Germany).
PLoS ONE
, 13, e0206483.
SIMPSON, I.A., VAN BERGEN, P.F., PERRET, V., ELHMMALI, M.M.,
ROBERTS, D.J. and EVERSHED, R.P., 1999. Lipid biomarkers of
manuring practice in relict anthropogenic soils.
The Holocene
, 9,
223–229.
SISTIAGA, A., MALLOL, C., GALVÁN, B. and SUMMONS, R.E., 2014.
The Neanderthal Meal: A New Perspective Using Faecal Biomarkers.
PLoS ONE
, 9, e101045.
SJÖBERG, A., 1976. Phosphate Analysis of Anthropic Soils.
Journal of
Field Archaeology
, 3, 447–454.
SLON, V., HOPFE, C., WEISS, C.L., MAFESSONI, F., DE LA RASILLA,
M., LALUEZA-FOX, C., ROSAS, A., SORESSI, M., KNUL, M.V.,
MILLER, R., STEWART, J.R., DEREVIANKO, A.P., JACOBS, Z., LI, B.,
ROBERTS, R.G., SHUNKOV, M.V., DE LUMLEY, H., PERRENOUD,
C., GUŠIĆ, I., KUĆAN, Ž., RUDAN, P., AXIMU-PETRI, A., ESSEL,
E., NAGEL, S., NICKEL, B., SCHMIDT, A., PRÜFER, K., KELSO, J.,
BURBANO, H.A., PÄÄBO, S. and MEYER, M., 2017. Neandertal and
Denisovan DNA from Pleistocene sediments.
Science
, 356, 605–608.
ŠMEJDA, L., HEJCMAN, M., HORÁK, J. and SHAI, I., 2017. Ancient
settlement activities as important sources of nutrients (P, K, S, Zn and Cu)
in Eastern Mediterranean ecosystems – The case of biblical Tel Burna,
Israel.
CATENA
, 156, 62–73.
ŠMEJDA, L., HEJCMAN, M., HORÁK, J. and SHAI, I., 2018. Multi-
element mapping of anthropogenically modifed soils and sediments
at the Bronze to Iron Ages site of Tel Burna in the southern Levant.
Quaternary International
, 483, 111–123.
SNOECK, C., RYAN, S., POUNCETT, J., PELLEGRINI, M., CLAEYS,
P., WAINWRIGHT, A.N., MATTIELLI, N., LEE-THORP, J.A. and
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 199–211
Roderick B. Salisbury: Advances in Archaeological Soil Chemistry in Central Europe
211
SCHULTING, R.J., 2020. Towards a biologically available strontium
isotope baseline for Ireland.
Science of The Total Environment
, 712,
136248.
SPARKS, D.L. (ed.), 1996.
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical
Methods
, Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.
SPARKS, D.L., 2003.
Environmental Soil Chemistry
, Amsterdam:
Academic Press.
SPOSITO, G., 1998.
Bodenchemie
, Stuttgart: Enke.
SPRAFKE, T., 2016.
Löss in Niederösterreich – Archiv quartärer Klima-
und Landschaftsveränderungen. Loess in Lower Austria – archive of
Quaternary climate and landscape changes.
Würzburg: Würzburg
University Press.
STÄUBLE, H. and LÜNING, J., 1999. Phosphatanalysen in
bandkeramischen Häusern.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
,
29,
165–187.
STOYE, K., 1950. Die Anwendung der Phosphatmethode auf einem
mittelalterlichen Friedhof.
Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte
,
34, 180–184.
TERRY, R.E., BAIR, D.A. and CORONEL, E.G., 2015. Soil Chemistry
in the Search for Ancient Maya Marketplaces. In: E.M. King, ed.
The
Ancient Maya Marketplace.
Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, pp.
138–167.
TERRY, R.E., FERNÁNDEZ, F.G., PARNELL, J.J. and INOMATA, T.,
2004. The story in the foors: chemical signatures of ancient and modern
Maya activities at Aguateca, Guatemala.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 31, 1237–1250.
THOMSEN, P.F. and WILLERSLEV, E., 2015. Environmental DNA
– An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present
biodiversity.
Biological Conservation
, 183, 4–18.
THURSTON, T.L., 2001.
Landscapes of Power, Landscapes of Confict:
State Formation in the Danish Iron Age
,
New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishing.
VERON, A., NOVAK, M., BRIZOVA, E. and STEPANOVA, M., 2014.
Environmental Imprints of Climate Changes and Anthropogenic
Activities in the Ore Mountains of Bohemia (Central Europe) since 13
Cal. Kyr Bp.
The Holocene
, 24, 919–931.
VIANELLO, A. and TYKOT, R.H., 2017. Investigating Technological
Changes in Copper-Based Metals Using Portable XRF Analysis. A Case
Study in Sicily.
Open Archaeology
, 3, 392.
VRANOVÁ, V., MARFO, T.D. and REJŠEK, K., 2015. Soil Scientifc
Research Methods Used in Archaeology – Promising Soil Biochemistry:
A Mini-review.
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae
Mendelianae Brunensis
, 63, 1417–1426.
VRANOVÁ, V., ZAHRADNICKOVA, H., JANOUS, D., SKENE, K.R.,
MATHARU, A.S., REJŠEK, K. and FORMANEK, P., 2012. The
signifcance of D-amino acids in soil, fate and utilization by microbes
and plants: review and identifcation of knowledge gaps.
Plant and Soil
,
354, 21–39.
WALKER, R., 1992. Phosphate survey: Method and meaning. In: P. Spoerry,
ed.
Geoprospection in the Archaeological Landscape
. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, pp. 61–73.
WEIHRAUCH, C., BRANDT, I. and OPP, C., 2017. Die archäologische
Aussagekraft von Phosphatprospektionen auf gedüngten
landwirtschaftlichen Nutzfächen – eine Fallstudie im Gebiet Sievern
(Ldkr. Cuxhaven).
Archäologische Informationen
, 40, 279–290.
WEIHRAUCH, C. and SÖDER, U., 2020. On the Challenges of Soil
Phosphorus Prospections in Heterogeneous Environments—a Case
Study on the Iron Age Altenburg Hillfort (Niedenstein, Hesse, Germany).
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-
020-09461-y
WEIHRAUCH, C., SOEDER, U., OPP, C. and SCHUPP, A., 2020.
Could oxalate
‐
extractable phosphorus replace phosphorus fractionation
schemes in soil phosphorus prospections? A case study in the prehistoric
Milseburg hillfort (Germany).
Geoarchaeology
, 35, 98–111.
WELLS, E.C., 2004a. A Brief History of Archaeological Soil Chemistry.
Newsletter of the Commission on the History, Philosophy, and Sociology
of Soil Science of the IUSS
, 11, 2–4.
WELLS, E.C., 2004b. Investigating Activity Patterns in Prehispanic Plazas:
Weak Acid-Extraction ICP-AES Analysis of Anthrosols at Classic Period
El Coyote, North-western Honduras.
Archaeometry
, 46, 67–84.
WELLS, E.C., 2006. Cultural soilscapes. In: E. Frossard, W.E.H. Blum
and B.P. Warkentin, eds.
Function of soils for human societies and the
environment. Geological Society, London, Special Publications.
London:
Geological Society, pp. 125−132.
WELLS, E.C. and URBAN, P.A., 2002. An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective
on the Material and Chemical Residues of Communal Feasting at
El Coyote, Northwest Honduras. In: P. Vandiver, M. Goodway and
J. Mass, eds.
Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology VI.
Warrendale,
PA: Materials Research Society, pp. 193–198.
WILLERSLEV, E., HANSEN, A.J., BINLADEN, J., BRAND,
T.B., GILBERT, M.T.P., SHAPIRO, B., BUNCE, M., WIUF, C.,
GILICHINSKY, D.A. and COOPER, A., 2003. Diverse Plant and Animal
Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments.
Science
,
300, 791–795.
WILSON, C.A., CRESSER, M.S. and DAVIDSON, D.A., 2006. Sequential
element extraction of soils from abandoned farms: an investigation of the
partition of anthropogenic element inputs from historic land use.
Journal
of Environmental Monitoring
, 8, 439–444.
WILSON, C.A., DAVIDSON, D.A. and CRESSER, M.S., 2008. Multi-
element soil analysis: An assessment of its potential as an aid to
archaeological interpretation.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 35,
412–424.
WILSON, C.A., DAVIDSON, D.A. and CRESSER, M.S., 2009. An
evaluation of the site specifcity of soil elemental signatures for identifying
and interpreting former functional areas.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 36, 2327–2334.
ZECH, M., BUGGLE, B., LEIBER, K., MARKOVIĆ, S., GLASER, B.,
HAMBACH, U., HUWE, B., STEVENS, T., SÜMEGI, P., WIESENBERG,
G. and ZÖLLER, L., 2010. Reconstructing Quaternary vegetation history in
the Carpathian Basin, SE-Europe, using n-alkane biomarkers as molecular
fossils: Problems and possible solutions, potential and limitations.
E&G
Quaternary Science Journal
, 58, 148–155.
ZIMMERMANN, W.H., 1995. Haus, Hof und Siedlungsstruktur auf der
Geest vom Neolithikum bis in das Mittelalter. In: H.-E. Dannenberg and
H.-J. Schulze, eds.
Geschichte des Landes zwischen Elbe und Weser.
Stade: Landschaftsverband der Ehemaligen Herzogtümer Bremen und
Verden, pp. 251–288.
ZIMMERMANN, W.H., 2001. Phosphatkartierung mit großem und kleinem
Probenraster in der Siedlungsarchäologie. Ein Erfahrungsbericht.
Phosphate mapping with large and small sample intervals used for
settlement archaeology. A report on the observations. In:
„...Trans
Albim Fluvium“. Forschungen zur vorrömischen, kaiserzeitlichen und
mittelalterlichen Archäologie. Festschrift für Achim Leube.
Internationale
Archäologie, Studia honoria, 10. Rahden/Westfalen, pp. 69–79.
ZIMMERMANN, W.H., 2008. Phosphate mapping of a Funnel Beaker
Culture house from Flögeln-Eekhöltjen, district of Cuxhaven, Lower
Saxony.
Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia
, 40, 123–129.
ZOCATELLI, R., LAVRIEUX, M., GUILLEMOT, T., CHASSIOT, L.,
LE MILBEAU, C. and JACOB, J., 2017. Faecal biomarker imprints as
indicators of past human land uses: Source distinction and preservation
potential in archaeological and natural archives.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
, 81, 79–89.
ZÖLITZ, R., 1980.
Bodenphosphat als Siedlungsindikator. Möglichkeiten
und Grenzen der siedlungsgeogaphischen und archäologischen
Phosphatmethode
,
Ofa: Neumünster.
ZÖLITZ, R., 1982. Geographische Siedlungsprospektion in Schleswig –
Holstein.
Archäologiches Korrespondenzblatt
, 12, 517–533.
ZÖLITZ, R., 1983. Bodenchemische Untersuchungen im Bereich vor- und
frühgeschichtlicher Siedlungen.
Schriften des Naturwissenschaftlichen
Vereins für Schleswig – Holstein
, 53, 33–57.
ZÖLITZ, R., 1986. Phosphatuntersuchungen zur Siedlungsprospektion
in der Gemarkung Kosel (Kreis Rendsburg – Eckförde).
Bericht der
Römisch-Germanisch Kommission
, 67, 454–464.
ZÖLITZ, R. and HEINRICH, U., 1990. Methodische Anmerkungen zur
siedlungsarchäologischen Phosphatanalyse.
Archäophysika
, 12, 383–408.
image/svg+xml