image/svg+xml85XII/1/2021InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIcanatural scIences In archaeologyhomepage: http://www.iansa.euBook reviewsVolume XII ● Issue 1/2021 ● Pages 85–87Reconstructing Archaeological Sites: Understanding the Geoarchaeological MatrixPanagiotis Karkanas, Paul GoldbergWiley-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+xmlIANSA 2021 ● XII/1 ● 85–87Book Reviews86enigma 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+xmlIANSA 2021 ● XII/1 ● 85–87Book Reviews87AcknowledgmentsThe work was supported by the internal project of the Institute of Geology ASCR, number no. RVO 67985831.ReferencesBERGGREN, 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.0089273GOLÁŇOVÁ, 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.g002HOLLIDAY, 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.2018.02.020NICOSIA, 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.2nded. 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