image/svg+xml
85
XII/1/2021
InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIca
natural scIences In archaeology
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Book reviews
Volume XII ● Issue 1/2021 ● Pages 85–87
Reconstructing Archaeological Sites:
Understanding the Geoarchaeological
Matrix
Panagiotis Karkanas, Paul Goldberg
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (2019), 296 pp.,
ISBN 9781119016403.
They also make an attempt to throw light
on the various phases of soil formation
and post-depositional processes found
at archaeological sites, and particularly
concerning the methodology of its study.
The attempt to include and understand
postdepositional processes in their fnal
interpretation is quite rare in textbooks
presently available: readers usually have
to combine geoarchaeology with soil
science. On the other hand, Karkanas and
Goldberg (2019) is not the frst book
pointing out the importance of the
connection between primary formation
processes and soil-forming processes
macroscopically (Holliday, 1992), or
by a micromorphological approach (Stoops
et al.
, 2010), or by both (Macphail and
Goldberg, 2017).
In contrast to the above-mentioned books
on geoarchaeology where the description
of basic natural formation processes is the
key part of the introduction, Karkanas and
Goldberg focus on the most widespread
type of formation process – mass
movement. They frst published this
concept when introducing a diferent
type of colluvial deposits by way of
micromorphology (Karkanas and Goldberg,
2008). This has also been successfully
applied in studies from the Czech Republic
concerning the type of slope deposits inside
a rondel structure (Lisá
et al.
, 2015), or
the formation processes of cave inflls
(Nejman
et al.
, 2018; Lisá
et al.
, 2013).
The reader might fnd it a little confusing
that some of the basic formation process
descriptions are relatively short (
e.g.
fuvial
or aeolian processes) or even missing
(glacial processes), but on the other hand,
when we take into consideration the fact that
most archaeological situations are covered
by various types of colluvial deposits, than
such a distinction makes sense.
The basic colluvial deposit descriptions
mentioned in this book are followed
by their recognition in the feld, by
micromorphological observations, and also
their efect on the archaeological material
under discussion. They are divided into:
(1) slides and slumps; (2) rock debris
falls and avalanches and grain fows;
(3) solifuction; (4) debris fows and
mudfows; (5) hyperconcentrated fows;
(6) high-energy fows; and, they more
or less connect the fuvial process with
the colluvial one in the sense of (7) water
fows in sites, and (8) shallow water fows.
The set of presented processes is completed
by aeolian processes and by a set of
biological processes. The description
of post-sedimentary processes, including
bioturbation, erosion, diagenesis, or
soil-forming processes, is presented in the
same way,
i.e.
frstly a description of their
appearance, followed by their recognition
in the feld, micromorphology, and their
efect on the archaeological material. Thus,
this book is theoretically grounded and
methodologically clear – and yet remains
innovative. Such a guide book provides
a perfect framework for the interpretation
of both natural and anthropogenic
sediments, and the reconstruction of the
history of a site’s deposits along with
the formation of a site. It also tries to be
a practical guide: through its various
“boxes” of information, diagrams, and
photos that provide guidelines for both
feld and laboratory methodology. In our
view, an understanding of all the described
processes is necessary for a clarifcation of
the development of anthropogenic sites and
site stratigraphy (
cf.
Butzer, 1982; Renfrew,
1976; Shackley, 1976).
In this short review, we would like
to refrain from commenting on specifc
chapters, which difer in their quality and
depth. Chapter 1 presents guidelines for
site formation processes. It introduces the
many types of diverse processes that can
afect an archaeological site before, during,
and after its occupation. These may be, for
example, soil formation, developmental
processes, and post-depositional events.
This frst chapter gives us a context for
understanding the history of a site and
helps us answer the question of a site’s
formation by way of its three-dimensional
stratigraphy (
cf.
Weiner, 2010). By defning
the stratigraphy, we can then envision some
aspects of the dynamic three-dimensional
The book “Reconstructing Archaeological
Sites” by P. Karkanas and Paul Goldberg
is an attempt to show to the reader
another way of how to understand
and interpret archaeological deposits.
Most of the geoarchaeology books
introduce geoarchaeology as an attempt to
understand the various formation processes
of natural sediments, which are in some way
linked to the archaeological context (French,
2012; Rapp and Hill, 2006; Goldberg
and Macphail, 2006; Macphail and
Goldberg, 2017). In stark contrast to this,
Karkanas and Goldberg introduce all
sediments linked to the archaeological
context as archaeological sediments. These
sediments are generally divided into:
(a) those deposited by natural processes, but
without materials produced, modifed, or re-
organized by humans; (b) those deposited
by natural processes, but also containing
anthropogenic materials; and (c) materials
(natural or anthropogenic) deposited only
by anthropogenic activities and processes.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/1 ● 85–87
Book Reviews
86
enigma of a site, and its complex and
diverse interlocking pieces that must be
put together in an appropriate order. An
important aspect of this chapter which we
found important on the one hand, but also
sometimes a little bit confusing on the
other, is the defnition of archaeological
deposits and anthropogenic sediments.
The diferences between these two groups
of sediments are often not well understood
by archaeologists as well as by geologists/
pedologists, and, in fact, for us it is difcult
to agree with the authors in some parts.
The defnition of archaeological deposits
is mentioned at the beginning of this
review: But how to understand the term
anthropogenic sediments? It is not always
clear.
According to Karkanas and Goldberg,
anthropogenic sediments are those which
are the product of human activity. Taking
into account the landscape around us,
there is then the question of what exactly
fts or does not ft into this defnition.
Here, Karkanas and Goldberg are more
specifc and they say that: (I) anthropogenic
sediments can be integrated with naturally-
deposited sediments; for example, the
discard of artifacts in the street that are
afected by natural sedimentary processes
after the abandonment and destruction of
a site. In our opinion, this would only make
sense in the case of all the circumstances
of the formations would be 100 % natural.
This, on the other hand, is hardly possible
in a landscape afected by humans. For
example, the energy of slope processes
would be probably lower if humans would
not have already infuenced the vegetation
cover. So, it is a question of whether these
“natural” processes are fully natural.
The anthropogenic deposits according
to Karkanas and Goldberg can also be (II)
the result of the transient reorganization
of natural sediments by humans and are
inseparable from the excavated deposits
(mud foors, earthen mounds, backflling of
tombs,
etc.
). One has to think: At precisely
what moment did the anthropogenic
deposit (for example, an earthen wall)
become a naturally-deposited sediment?
Are we able to recognize what is the trigger
for the colluviation? If it is human, can we
call these deposits naturally deposited? It is
difcult to understand why Karkanas and
Goldberg do not include the archaeological
construction itself as an archaeological
deposit. Even more striking is to read that
earthen mounds or earthen foors can be
termed as anthropogenic sediment, but
mud walls or pavements cannot, despite
the fact that these are also the product of
anthropogenic activity. They explain this
discrepancy by the fact that they can be
treated as continuous non-movable elements
of anthropogenic construction, and as
such, they have their internal stratigraphy
that is based on architectural attributes
and typology and not on depositional
stratigraphic principles. The next two
divided types of anthropogenic sediments
by Karkanas and Goldberg are much
clearer in origin. One of these (III) includes
those sediments which are transformed
into permanent artifcial materials, such as
pottery, brick, mortar, glass, and metals,
and the other (IV), those that can involve
permanent chemical transformations, such
as ashes. In our opinion, many natural
scientists will agree with this division, but
for some archaeologists it may be difcult
to agree that artifacts are anthropogenic
sediments.
Chapter 2 introduces the study of
the natural sedimentary processes that
take place at sites: their structure, mass
movement, bioturbation,
etc.
Specifc
aspects of this chapter have already
been described above; however, this
chapter’s main aim is to provide readers
with the initial characteristics of soils
and naturally-deposited sediments – and
to draw up a scheme of how they form
and how we can recognize them in the
feld and under the microscope (
cf.
Rapp
and Hill, 2006). Chapter 3 focuses on
various types of anthropogenic sediments
(burnt and organic remains, construction
material,
etc.
), which the authors use to
demonstrate the richness of archaeological
deposits as signifcant records of human
history and activity (
cf.
Goldberg and
McPhail, 2006). This part of the book
is very important and its usefulness in
practice methodologically inseparable
from the micromorphological approach.
A particularly good additional
reference for this approach is
the micromorphological atlas published
by Nicosia
et al.
(2017). It is in this
vein that we fnd the thematic and visual
organization of the chapters, consisting
of both substantial text and object-based
narration, so appealing and productive.
In Chapter 4, the authors concentrate on
the principles and methods for defning
stratigraphic units and their context
(
cf.
Berggren, 2009).
The next two chapters readily show how
the authors make the respective topic under
scrutiny resonate with their given concrete
examples, which are used to show how to
study the diferent types of archaeological
sites. In Chapter 5, Karkanas and Goldberg
focus on open-air sites – and caves that
have been occupied by hunter-gatherers.
In this chapter, the reader fnds out how to
recognize the distinctive traits that reveal
the framework of natural geological agents
at work – such agents that can bury, erode, or
materially transform the markers of human
presence, either physically or chemically
(
cf.
Goldberg and McPhail, 2006).
In Chapter 6, the authors give a poignant
narrative on the geoarchaeology of
roofs, streets, and house pits to help
with the recognition of human activities
in complex stratigraphies and a site’s
depositional history. Finally, Chapter 7
considers relatively new approaches for
identifying human-afected sites (
cf.
Butzer,
1982). This chapter provides more practical
information about micromorphological and
archaeological sampling techniques.
Micromorphology in human-afected sites
has become commonly applied during
recent years, mainly due to the existence of
the Geoarchaeology lab of the Institute of
Geology CAS (Lisa
et al.
, 2020a). Czech
researchers have applied this method to
a number of prehistoric sites (Lisá
et al.
,
2013; Novák
et al.
, 2012, Lisá
et al.
,
2020c), as well as some medieval sites
(Dejmal
et al.
, 2014; Goláňová
et al.
,
2020; Lisá
et al.
, 2020b).
Overall, the book provides a valuable
and absorbing look into the science that
guides us through the theory and practical
use of stratigraphy and helps us organize
the deposits at an archaeological site. The
book explores this science that can provide
a theoretical and practical archaeological
approach below the surface of the ground:
enabling archaeologists to discover the
nature and date of occupation of sites. In the
reviewer’s opinion, this book should prove
invaluable and helpful to archaeologists
in their attempts to discover existing
contexts and understand their formation.
The book gives complete information
on archaeological deposits and provides
a range of sophisticated methods that ofer
a holistic approach to the study of a site:
from its outer fundamentals to its innermost
details (
cf.
Prentiss
et al.
, 2007).
Karkanas and Goldberg’s book maintains
a non-judgmental view in describing their
experiences in archaeology. It is based on
their vision that stratigraphy could be the
jugular vein of archaeological practice.
Other contributions in the book are also
well worth a mention. This book should
be an essential scientifc textbook for the
training of archaeologists and scientists.
Sahar Mohammadi, Lenka Lisá
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/1 ● 85–87
Book Reviews
87
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the internal
project of the Institute of Geology ASCR,
number no. RVO 67985831.
References
BERGGREN, A., 2009. The relevance of
stratigraphy.
Archaeological Dialogues
, 16,
22–25.
BUTZER, K. W., 1982.
Archaeology as Human
Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual
Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
GOLDBERG, P., and MACPHAIL, R.I.,
2006. Chapter 3. Geomorphology of the
ancient landscape. In: B.F. Byrd, ed.
Hunter-
Gatherers of the Southern California
Coast. New Approaches to Anthropological
Archaeology.
Oxford: Equinox Publishers.
DEJMAL, M., LISÁ, L., FIŠÁKOVÁ
NÝVLTOVÁ, M., BAJER, A., PETR, L.,
KOČÁR, P., KOČÁROVÁ, R., NEJMAN,
L., RYBÍČEK, M., SŮVOVÁ, Z., CULP, R.,
VAVRČÍK, H., 2014. Medieval Horse Stable.
The Results of Multi Proxy Interdisciplinary
Research.
Plos One
, 9(3). DOI: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0089273
GOLÁŇOVÁ, P., HAJNALOVÁ, P., LISÁ,
L., MILO, P., PETR, L., FRÁNKOVÁ, M.,
KYSELA, J., FLAMMER, P., KOČÁROVÁ,
R., BARTA, P., 2020. Investigating the complex
story of one ditch – A multidisciplinary study
of ditch infll provides insight into the spatial
organisation within the oppidum of Bibracte,
Burgundy, France.
Plos One
, 15(4). DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0231790.g002
HOLLIDAY, T.V., 1992.
Soils in Archaeology.
Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation.
Portland, Oregon: Smithsonian.
KARKANAS, P., GOLDBERG, P., 2008.
Micromorphology of sediments: Deciphering
archaeological context.
Israel Journal of
Earth Sciences
, 56, 63–71.
LISÁ, L., 2020. Laboratory of Geoarchaeology
of Institute of Geology of the Czech Academy
of Sciences
. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica,
Natural Sciences in Archaeology
, 11(1),
123–130.
LISÁ, L., KOMORÓCZY, B., VLACH, M.,
VÁLEK, D., BAJER, A., KOVÁRNÍK, J.,
RAJTÁR, J., HŰSSEN, C.M., ŠUMBEROVÁ,
R., 2015. How were the ditches flled?
Sedimentological and micromorphological
classifcation of formation processes
within graben-like archaeological objects.
Quaternary International
, 370, 66–76.
LISÁ, L., NERUDA, P., NERUDOVÁ, Z.,
BAJER, A., 2013. Geoarcheologický záznam
středního a mladého paleolitu v jeskyni
Kůlně, Moravský kras.
Acta Musei Moraviae,
Scietiae sociales
, 98(2), 197–214.
LISÁ, L., STANĚK, P., ZŮBEK, A., NEJMAN,
L., 2020b. Floor maintenance of Medieval
buildings as a possible cultural behavioural
status? Preliminary interpetations of
foor formation processes from Medieval
Brno, Czech Republic,
Interdisciplinaria
Archaeologica, Natural Sciences in
Archaeology
, 11(1), 63–72.
LISÁ, L., TRAMPOTA, F., 2020c.
Mikromorfologie v archeologickém kontextu
jako nástroj pro interpretace vzniku výplní
pravěkých objektů. Případová studie
z Tvrdonic, okr. Břeclav.
Přehled výzkumů
,
61(1), 87–95.
MACPHAIL, R.I. and GOLDBERG, P.,
2017.
Applied soils and Micromorphology
in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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., KRÁLÍK, M., 2018. Cave
deposits as a sedimentary trap for the Marine
Isotope Stage Z environmental record: The
case study of Pod Hradem, Czech Republic.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeo-
ecology
, 497, 201–217. DOI: 10.1016/j.
palaeo.2018.02.020
NICOSIA, C., STOOPS, G., 2017.
Archaeological
Soil and Sediment Micromorphology.
Oxford:
Wiley and Blackwell.
NOVÁK, J., LISÁ, L., POKORNÝ, P.,
KUNA, M., 2012. Charcoal analyses as
an environmental tool for the study of Early
Medieval sunken houses inflls in Roztoky
near Prague, Czech Republic.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 39(4), 808–817.
PRENTISS, A. M., LYONS, N., HARRIS, L.E.,
BURNS, M. R. P., GODIN, T.M., 2007. The
Emergence of Status Inequality in Intermediate
Scale Societies: A Demographic and Socio-
Economic History of the Keatley Creek Site,
British Columbia.
Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology
, 26, 299–327.
RAPP, G., and HILL C. L., 2006.
Geoarchaeology:
The Earth-Science Approach
to Archaeological Interpretation.
2
nd
ed. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
RENFREW, A.C., 1976. Earth Science and the
Past, Introduction. In: D.A. Davidson., and
M.L. Shackley, eds.
Geoarchaeology.
London:
Duckworth.
SHACKLEY, M.L., 1976. The Danebury project:
an experiment in site sediment recording.
In: D.A. Davidson., and M.L. Shackley, eds.
Geoarchaeology.
London: Duckworth.
WEINER, B., 2010. The development
of an attribution-based theory of
motivation: a history of ideas.
Educational
Psychologist
, 45(1), 28–36.
image/svg+xml