Karkanas, P. and Goldberg, P. 2008. Micromorphology of sediments: deciphering archaeological context. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 63-71.

Isr. J. Earth Sci.; 56: 63–71

© 2008 Science From Israel/ LPPLtd. 0021-2164/07 $4.00

E-mail: [email protected]

Micromorphology of sediments: Deciphering archaeological context

Panagiotis Karkanasa and Paul Goldbergb

aEphoreia of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology of Southern Greece, Ardittou 34b, 11636 Athens, GreecebDepartment of Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA

(Received 25 February 2008; accepted in revised form 24 April 2008)

AbstrAct

Karkanas, P. and Goldberg, P. 2007. Micromorphology of sediments: Decipher-ing archaeological context. Isr. J. Earth sci. 56: 63–71.

The study of the sediments in an archaeological site is a fundamental issue for under-standing how the site was built. However, a sedimentary contextual analysis based on the microscopic study of undisturbed sediments, known as soil micromorphology, is needed for interpreting correctly the archaeological record. The analysis of mi-crostratigraphy and microstructure of the archaeological sequences and examination of the relationship among construction features, sediments, and their archaeological findings is essential for interpreting natural depositional processes and palaeoenviron-mental changes, human-induced soil formations and disturbances, land management, and the use of space and structure of sites.

Micromorphological studies of archaeological sediments in Israel have provided information on the relationship between environmental changes and the cultural history of the sites. In several cases, micromorphology, in combination with other instrumental techniques, has revealed details of the cultural nature of the sites and improved our knowledge of the behavior of their habitants. Questions related to oc-cupational intensity, domestic and stabling activities, post-depositional changes and cultural modification of the sediments, constructions, and stratigraphic correlation have been satisfactorily addressed along with the analysis of the microstructure of the sediments.

Future directions of micromorphology should concentrate on deciphering the full spectrum of formation processes in historical complex urban sites. This might be accomplished by using experiments and data from modern analogues, but also by expanding case studies both spatially and temporally.

sEDIMEntAry contExtuAl AnAlysIs

The study of the sediments in an archaeological site is a fundamental issue for understanding how it was put together, whether by human or natural processes. In spite of this rather obvious statement, a traditional strategy for documenting and analyzing the complete sedimentary context needed for interpreting correctly the archaeological record has been significantly un-derdeveloped. This oversight exists in spite of the fact

that it has long been recognized that to study artifacts without regard to their context is of limited value in archaeological interpretation (Schiffer, 1972, 1983). The typical approach in the past has been to describe all the characteristics of the finds and their spatial ar-rangement, and ultimately produce a history of human activities. Interestingly, the sediment that makes the matrix that contains the archaeological finds is rarely

64 Israel Journal of Earth Sciences Vol. 56, 2007

studied, in spite of the fact that it is commonly pro-duced by humans.

The point here is not the possible identification of the fine non-recovered finds, but that knowledge and understanding of their particular context and how it is produced is ignored. Worse, however, is that typically sediments that do not contain archaeological finds are thrown away during the excavation. These deposits also contain a wide range of material of equal importance. For example, it is commonly the case that the primary content of archaeological deposits is ash, although not readily identified by the naked eye as such if the ashes are not related to hearths or major burnt accumulations. Ash is primarily a cultural product and thus can carry substantial information about the nature of the combustible, the temperature and duration of the fire, and what the fire was used for. In summary, sediment is and can provide the context and insights into understanding past human activities and behaviors.

But how can sediments be studied to yield this information? Unfortunately, the usual methodology employed in sedimentary analysis is to analyze bulk samples from deposits to produce quantitative information, and a common strategy involves systematic geological sampling of the profiles. Bulk samples would be taken back to the laboratory where a variety of analytical methods are used. Such methods include grain-size analysis, clay and heavy mineral determination, phosphate content, organic matter and acidity, carbonates, iron content, and magnetic susceptibility, among others. Although some of these methods can provide valuable information for strictly naturally deposited layers, they are of limited value in studying cultural deposits. We cannot interpret excavated earth by treating it as bulk material, because there is no possibility of unraveling the compound effect of two successive events superimposed on the same material, and we cannot differentiate materials that produce the same analytical measurements (Courty et al., 1989). In several excavations specialists use flotation or other special separating techniques to extract charcoals, phytoliths, pollen, ostracods, microfauna, spores, seeds, or fruits. However, they do not know how these objects are organized within the sediment. Are the charcoals associated with other burnt material or with naturally deposited sediment, or have they been displaced vertically by biological reworking, for example? Similarly, are spores and seeds inside layers associated with stabling remains or with burnt remains, but themselves are not burnt.

Without knowing their context, the interpretation is not only not complete, but could be erroneous.

MIcroMorPholoGy

Geoarchaeological research during the last few de-cades has shown that the most suitable technique to unravel these types of complex problem is micromor-phology (Courty et al., 1989). Since micromorphology is the study of soils and sediments in thin section under the polarizing microscope, it is not much different from petrography as undertaken by geologists. The major methodological difference is in the preparation of the samples. The first step in micromorphology is to take an intact, undisturbed, and oriented sample from excavated or natural profiles, or even cores. Several techniques are employed, such as cutting blocks of appropriate dimensions using hammer and chisel in strongly consolidated sediments, or carving blocks us-ing a sharp knife in relatively firm sediment, or apply-ing plaster of Paris on the surface of the carved blocks in loose stony samples (Goldberg and Macphail, 2003). The dimension of the sampled blocks varies according to the type of sediment, the stratigraphy of the site, and the aim of the analysis. Although monoliths of 10 × 10 × 40 cm are often collected, 10 × 10 × 15 cm-size blocks are more typical. The samples are oven-dried at 60 °C for several days and then impregnated with polyester resin diluted with styrene or epoxy, under vacuum if a large enough chamber exists. Finally, pe-trographic thin sections of large format (7 × 5 cm, up to 8 × 15 cm) are prepared.

The finished thin sections are studied with stereomicroscopes and petrographic microscopes at magnifications ranging from 1 to 500×. The same thin sections or polished parts of them can be studied under SEM to magnifications of several thousands times, and at the same time selected spots can be analyzed chemically for their elemental content with electron microprobe techniques. Under the different types of microscopes the constituents of the archaeological deposits can be recognized, their size, shape, and form recorded, but, most important, their original geometric relationship, that is, their fabric, can be seen as preserved in the archaeological site. The fabrics of the sediment are indicative of the different mechanisms involved in their formation (Courty et al., 1989).

At this point it should be emphasized that micro-morphology is nothing more than studying stratigraphy and sedimentary structure at a finer scale than with field observations. Since the primary tools for characterizing

P. Karkanas and P. Goldberg. Micromorphology of sediments 65

natural depositional environments are sedimentary structures and compositional and textural features (Collinson and Thompson, 1982), it is obvious that a basic tool for studying deposits that do not readily provide such information with field observations is the microscope. For example, in the study of carbonate rocks, which normally have a monotonous field appearance, a microfacies analysis has been adopted. Archaeological deposits, in most cases, are difficult to study and interpret by field observations alone. They have a complex macrostructure, are mostly fine-grained, and commonly lack obvious macroscopic sedimentary structures. Thus, their microscopic study is the most logical tool that can provide the basis for characterizing the archaeological deposits. By using the microscopic approach, the depositional processes can be studied and provide the initial and basic framework for applying other techniques that can further elucidate details of the formation processes. In other words, it seems illogical to carry out an extensive analysis of carbonate by XRD, for example, if we do not know that there are several possible, even likely sources of carbonate from lithoclasts, calcareous ashes, or secondarily precipitated calcite from dripping water (in caves) or from pedogenesis.

Soil micromorphology has been successfully employed in different periods and archaeological-related problems. In non-constructed sites, natural formation processes contribute significantly in the accumulation of sediment and in preservation or destruction of archaeological patterns. Aeolian, colluvial, high-energy, or low-energy water flow

features are easily identified by micromorphology, even when they occur as mm-thick layers inside a predominantly anthropogenic deposit (Fig. 1). Fine-scale grading, crude sorting, and orientation of particles are revealed through the microscope. All these features can be attributed to a particular natural sedimentation process and thus the depositional regime can be identified (Courty et al., 1989; Goldberg and Macphail, 2006). Cultural deposits in these sites are mainly burnt and other organic remains. The study of the composition and structure of the burnt remains has revealed aspects of the use of space in these old sites (see below).

In sites characterized by human construction, such as tells, detailed micromorphological studies in the nature of living floors, their maintenance, and the associated occupational debris have provided clues for the use of space at a site (Fig. 2) (Matthews et al., 1994; Matthews, 1995; Shahack-Gross et al., 2005), the source of raw materials (e.g., Goldberg, 1979b), and insights into pyrotechnological activities (Berna et al., 2007). Furthermore, deciphering the techniques used for constructing the floors may have inferences on craft specialization and cultural interchange (Goren and Goldberg, 1991; Karkanas, 2007). Furthermore, micromorphology appears to be the best single analytical tool for studying homogeneous-looking urban cultural deposits like those of the Medieval “dark earth”. It was shown that dark earth is heterogeneous at a microscopic scale and a number of undetected events and cultural periods were identified (Macphail and Goldberg, 1995; Macphail et al., 2003).

Fig. 1. This is a photomicrograph from the laminated Upper Palaeolithic deposits exposed on the south face of Kebara Cave (Goldberg et al., 2007). Illustrated here are sub-rounded grains of charcoal within finely laminated silty clay, as well as rounded aggregates of terra rossa with inclusions of quartz silt. Plane-polarized light (PPL).


Fig. 2. This plate depicts a series of field and microscope photographs from a Bedouin tent just outside of Be’er Sheva, that had been occupied until the late 1980s (Goldberg and Whitbread, 1993). (a) Field photograph of the tent showing the loca-tion of the habitation where the tent had been. This is characterized by a lighter-colored silty alluvial substrate. The darker area at the left (sample 10) is rich in animal dung and charcoal, and close to where animals were penned. (b) Thin section scan of sample 15 from what was the kitchen area within the tent. The sediment here is massive and compact, with little pore space; it contains little charcoal. Tick marks on the bottom are in millimeters. (c) Thin section of part of sample 15 showing a compact accumulation of silt mixed with some charcoal. The large object at the left appears to be part of a seed. The absence of bedding here and the massive nature of the deposit are possibly related to the fact that this part of the site was habitually wetted (to keep the dust down) and trampled by the woman who lived here. The remains of organic matter and charcoal are apparently trampled into the silty alluvial sediment that underlies the tent. PPL. (d) Macroscan of sample 10 from the dung area. Three zones can be seen in this scan. The upper ~1–2 cm is composed of a spongy accumulation of shreds of vegetal matter. Below this is an ~1.5-cm-thick band of compact ashy silt with finely disseminated charcoal. The lower part of the slide is comprised of aggregates of ash, quartz, and calcareous silt. Vegetal matter and charcoal are rare in this part. Some slaking crusts are present but these are disrupted. The lower part is the result of continuous disruption and compaction of the alluvial substrate, which also incorporated some occupational debris. The upper part, on the other hand, is the trampled zone, where occupational debris is constantly being mobilized by surface traffic and wind. (e) Detailed view of middle part of the sample, typified by fine sand-size pieces of angular charcoal (black objects) mixed with quartz and calcareous silt, along with some phytoliths (not visible here). PPL.


In the investigation of ancient pastoral activities, micromorphology is able to differentiate between animal species and possibly food sources and grazing processes on the basis of differences in the nature of the components and the structure and arrangement of dung remains (Fig. 3) (Courty et al., 1991; Boschian and Montagnari-Kokelj, 2000; Macphail et al., 2004; Karkanas, 2006). Further progress in the understanding of stabling deposits was made by characterizing soil microfabrics formed in contemporary abandoned pastoral sites (Shahack-Gross et al., 2003, 2004). Ancient plough soils (Macphail et al., 1987) or other human-induced soil formations and disturbances have been identified with micromorphology (Davidson et al., 1992). Land management practices in the past, like disposal of urban waste in arable lands and the utilization of settlement waste materials in domestic settlement construction, have been successfully

recognized (Davidson et al., 2006; Simpson et al., 2006). Furthermore, buried soil studies have provided valuable paleoenvironmental information in relation to man’s role in shaping the landscape (Macphail, 1986).

Micromorphology is often combined with other instrumental techniques to further decipher the nature of non-recognizable microscopic features. For example, the nature and origin of amorphous phosphate features in archaeological deposits have been recognized through synchrotron X-ray scattering analysis of thin sections (Adderley et al., 2004). Furthermore, there are several examples where data derived from other disciplines have been integrated with those of micromorphology and provided a more holistic interpretation of site formation processes (e.g., phytolith analysis: Albert et al., 2008; isotopic analysis: Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein, 2008).

Fig. 3. This is an example of dung deposits from a suspected Roman horse stable in the site of Ein Gedi; note the bedding and fibrous nature of the vegetal fragments, typical of those from stabling deposits. (a) PPL. (b) Crossed-polarized light (XPL).


soME ExAMPlEs of APPlIcAtIons of MIcroMorPholoGy In IsrAElI sItEs

Micromorphology was first applied in Israel early on. It started with the study of site formation processes in Palaeolithic sites in an attempt to resolve the deposi-tional and palaeonvironmental history of sediments in Tabun and Hayonim caves (Goldberg, 1973, 1979a). In Kebara Cave, the microscopic study revealed a full range of natural processes in the form of phreatic water flow, in-washing of terra rossa soils, sporadic inputs of aeolian silt and sand, and reworking of the previous deposits by sheet wash (Fig. 1) (Goldberg, 2003; Goldberg et al., 2007). In the same cave, a clear picture of burning activities and use of space was revealed. Distinct types of fire-related features have been identified, including remains of in situ burning as well as sediments that have been dumped or moved aside in the process of cleaning and modifying living areas (Meignen et al., 1989; Goldberg, 2003; Meignen et al., 2007).

In the Lower Palaeolithic site of ‘Ubeidiya, micro-morphological analysis identified a series of lacustrine and fluvial microenvironments that represented the natural habitats of the hominins (Mallol, 2006). It was also able to show the scale of transportation and reworking of the archaeological material by natural processes and to clarify the nature of some pebbly layers that previously had incorrectly been thought to be of anthropogenic origin. In another lacustrine environment, in the complex submerged Epipalaeolithic campsite of Ohalo II on the SW bank

of the Sea of Galilee, micromorphology was used to differentiate between huts and hearths and between floors and fills (Tsatskin and Nadel, 2003).

In old sites, stratigraphic gaps are not readily identified by field observations due to post-depositional alterations. Identifying and separating the sequence of events that have affected the same sediment is of major importance in reconstructing the depositional history of a site. An example comes from Tabun Cave, where micromorphological analysis was able to confirm a major change in the natural depositional and diagenetic regime in the Lower Palaeolithic sequence that was linked to reshaping of the cave’s roof (Tsatskin et al., 1995; Tsatskin, 2000). In addition, post-depositional alterations tend to obliterate combustion features because wood ash consists of calcite, a mineral also formed by other very different processes. However, calcitic wood ash preserves plant cellular microstuctures and thus can be differentiated from other sources (Fig. 4). Using these types of observations, among other micromorphological criteria, Karkanas et al. (2007) were able to show that the strongly cemented 4.5-m-thick upper part of the Lower Palaeolithic sequence of Qesem Cave (Tel Aviv area) consists predominantly of recrystallized wood ash (Fig, 4). It was thus possible to conclude that Qesem represents one of the earliest examples of habitual use of fire by middle Pleistocene hominids.

In more recent archaeological periods micromor-phology has resolved issues related to the identification and nature of occupational surfaces. In the Iron Age Tel Dor lime plastered floors were recognized,

Fig. 4. Microphotograph of recrystallized ash. The dark gray micritic aggregates, the original ash, are replaced by light gray sparitic calcite. Some of the micritic aggregates have remnant rhombic shapes of the original ash crystals (an example with arrow). Upper sequence of Qesem Cave (Karkanas et al., 2007). PPL.


made of burnt kurkar (local calcareous sandstone). Furthermore, on the basis of microscopic fabric and content it was possible to differentiate between constructional fills (i.e., those representing a single depositional episode) and occupational-accumulated fills (i.e., slowly accumulating through continuous in situ habitation) (Shahack-Gross et al., 2005). This is a fundamental issue in complex urban sites because correct identification of the nature of the fills allows a chronological and functional association between the artifacts in the fills and the surrounding architecture. In the same site, evidence of stabling activities was clearly identified using a combination of micromorphological techniques and phytolith analyses (Shahack-Gross et al., 2005; Albert et al., 2008). In a similar approach, stabling remains were identified in Atar Haroa and Iron Age settlements of the Negev highlands (Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein, 2008). Based on the nature of the components and the microstructure and arrangement of dung remains corroborated by mineralogical and isotopic analyses, it was possible to identify the animal species and food sources and to support the hypothesis that the inhabitants at the oval compound at Atar Haroa were desert-adapted pastoralists, rather than garrisoned soldiers.

futurE DIrEctIons

It is clear that micromorphology is a powerful tool for studying site formation processes and for reconstruct-ing the paleoenvironmental setting of a site. Although recently several studies were undertaken on urban sites with complex constructional phases, we are far from understanding the full suite of anthropogenic processes responsible for the formation of these types of archaeological deposits, and specifically the human activities associated with them. The use of experi-ments and data from modern analogues can certainly provide valuable information with which to calibrate micromorphological observations. Such an approach has been used often, although in some cases only for solving particular site-related problems (Wattez, 1988; Courty et al., 1991; Goldberg and Whitbread, 1993; Gebhardt, 1995; Crowther et al., 1996; Shahack-Gross et al., 2003, 2004; Macphail et al., 2004; Mallol et al., 2007; Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein, 2008). How-ever, there are no well-established and unequivocal micromorphological criteria for interpreting the full history of formation processes of living floors, accu-mulated fills, leveling and constructional fills, dump fills, earthworks, etc., and problems of equifinality

are quite pertinent. It is possible, of course, that the nature of anthropogenic deposits does not allow for a routine standardized approach. In that sense, every case is ultimately unique and deserves its own special approach to isolate its “rules of the game.” For the mo-ment, in light of the number and diversity of sites (both spatially and temporally) that have been excavated, there are relatively few studies concentrated in certain periods and geographical entities, and thus we have no idea of the diversity or similarities of the depositional features related to anthropogenic processes.

In the realm of natural formation processes, their interpretation is more straightforward, as geological literature has a much greater temporal history. However, in small depositional basins like those of archaeological sites, natural sedimentary features are not so well expressed. So, although the general depositional process can be identified (aeolian activity, low-energy water flow, creep, etc.), the detailed flow parameters cannot be estimated. Thus, it is not possible to link this type of process with site spatial patterning. So it is not enough to say that a layer was formed by sheet wash processes, and we have to understand the nature of the modifications on the archaeological remains induced by such processes (see, for example, Lenoble et al., 2008).

It is also important to stress that all periods and areas are not equally represented in the micromorphological record. For example, in Israel most micromorphological studies have been conducted in prehistoric, non-constructed sites. There is certainly a lack of studies of historical urban sites, which have complex depositional histories and stratigraphic relationships. Interestingly, these are generally the types of sites that are of primary interest to the traditional archaeological community. It is these types of sites that will determine whether micromorphology is able to reveal the full spectrum of anthropogenic depositional processes.

rEfErEncEs

Adderley, W.P., Alberts, I.L., Simpson, I.A., Wess, T.J. 2004. Calcium-iron-phosphate features in archaeological sedi-ments: characterization through microfocus synchrotron X-ray scattering analyses. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 31: 1215–1224.

Albert, R.M., Shahack-Gross, R., Cabanes, D., Gilboa, A., Lev-Yadun, S., Portillo, M., Sharon, I., Boaretto, E., Weiner, S. 2008. Phytolith-rich layers from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Dor (Israel): mode of forma-tion and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 35: 57–75.


Berna, F., Behar, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Berg, J., Boaretto, E., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., Shalev, S., Shilstein, S., Yahalom-Mack, N., Zorn, J.R., Weiner, S. 2007. Sediments exposed to high temperatures: reconstructing pyrotechnological processes in Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 358–373.

Boschian, G., Montagnari-Kokelj, E. 2000. Prehistoric shepherds and caves in Trieste Karst (northeastern Italy). Geoarchaeology 15: 332–371.

Collinson, J.D., Thompson, D.B. 1982, Sedimentary struc-tures. George Allen and Unwin, London.

Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P., Macphail, R. 1989. Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Courty, M.A., Macphail, R.I., Wattez, J. 1991. Soil micro-morphological indicators of pastoralism, with special reference to Arene Candide, Finale Ligure, Italy. Rivista di Studi Liguri, A., LVII: 127–150.

Crowther, J., Macphail, R.I., Cruise, G.M. 1996. Short-term, post-burial change in a humic rendzina soil, Overton Down Experimental Earthwork, Wiltshire, England. Geoarchaeology 11: 95–117.

Davidson, D.A., Carter, S.P., Quine, T.A. 1992. An evalu-ation of micromorphology as an aid to archaeological interpretation. Geoarchaeology 7: 55–65.

Davidson, D.A., Dercon, G., Stewart, M., Watson, F. 2006. The legacy of past urban waste disposal on local soils. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 78–783.

Gebhardt, A. 1995. Soil micromorphological data from tra-ditional and experimental agriculture. In: Barham, A.J., Macphail, R.I., eds. Archaeological sediments and soils: analysis, interpretation and management. Institute of Ar-chaeology, University College, London, pp. 25–40.

Goldberg, P. 1973. Sedimentology, stratigraphy and pa-leoclimatology of et Tabun, Mt Carmel, Israel. Ph.D. dissertation. Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Goldberg, P. 1979a. Micromorphology of sediments from Hayonim cave, Israel. Catena 6: 167–181.

Goldberg, P. 1979b. Geology of Late Bronze Age mudbrick from Tel Lachish. Tel Aviv. Journal of the Tel Aviv Insti-tute of Archaeology 6: 60–71.

Goldberg, P. 2003. Some observations on Middle and Upper Palaeolithic ashy cave and rockshelter deposits in the Near East, In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., eds. More than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeo-lithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 19–32.

Goldberg, P., Macphail, R.I. 2003. Strategies and techniques in collecting micromorphology samples. Geoarchaeol-ogy 18: 571–578.

Goldberg, P., Macphail, R.I. 2006. Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Goldberg, P., Whitbread, I. 1993. Micromorphological study of a Bedouin tent floor. In: Goldberg, P., Nash, D.T., Petraglia, M.D., eds. Formation processes in archaeo-

logical context. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 165–187.

Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L. 2007. Stratigraphy and geoarchaeological history of Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Meignen, L., eds. Kebara Cave, Part 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Eth-nology Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 49–89.

Goren, Y., Goldberg, P. 1991. Petrographic thin sections and the development of Neolithic plaster production in Northern Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 131–138.

Karkanas, P. 2006. Late Neolithic household activities in marginal areas: the micromorphological evidence from the Kouveleiki caves, Peloponnese, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1628–1641.

Karkanas, P. 2007. Identification of lime plaster in prehis-tory using petrographic methods: A review and reconsid-eration of the data on the basis of experimental and case studies. Geoarchaeology 22: 775–795.

Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Gopher, A., Stiner, M. 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of the Lower Paleolithic: site formation processes at Qesem Cave, Is-rael. Journal of Human Evolution 53: 197–212.

Lenoble, A., Bertran, P., Lacrampe, F. 2008. Solifluction-in-duced modifications of archaeological levels: simulation based on experimental data from a modern periglacial slope and application to French Palaeolithic sites. Journal of Atmospheric Science 35: 99–110.

Macphail, R.I. 1986. Paleosols in archaeology: their role in understanding Flandrian pedogenesis. In: Wright, V.P., ed. Paleosols. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 263–290.

Macphail, R.I., Goldberg, P. 1995. Recent advances in mi-cromorphological interpretations of soils and sediments from archaeological sites. In: Barham, A.J., Macphail, R.I., eds. Archaeological sediments and soils: analysis, interpretation and management. Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, pp. 1–24.

Macphail, R., Romans, J.C.C., Robertson, L. 1987. The application of micromorphology to the understanding of Holocene soil development in the British Isles: with special reference to early cultivation. In: Fedoroff, N., Bresson, L.M., Courty, M.A., eds. Micromorphologie des sols—Soil micromorphology. Association Française pour l’Etude du Sol, Plaisir, pp. 647–656.

Macphail, R.I., Galinié, H., Verhaeghe, F. 2003. A future for dark earth? Antiquity 77: 349–358.

Macphail, R.I., Cruise, G.M., Allen, M.J., Linderholm, J., Reynolds, P. 2004. Archaeological soil and pollen analy-sis of experimental floor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient Farm, Hampshire, UK. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 31: 175–191.

Mallol, C. 2006. What’s in a beach? Soil micromorphology of sediments from the Lower Paleolithic site of ‘Ubei-diya, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 51: 185–206.


Mallol, C., Marlowe, F.W., Wood, B.M., Porter, C.C. 2007. Earth, wind, and fire: ethnoarchaeological signals of Hadza fires. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 2035–2052.

Mathews, W. 1995. Micromorphological characterization and interpretation of occupation deposits and microstrati-graphic sequences at Abu Salabikh, Southern Iraq. In: Barham, A.J., Macphail R.I., eds. Archaeological sediments and soils: analysis, interpretation and man-agement. Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, pp. 41–74.

Matthews, W., Postgate, J.N., with Payne, S., Charles, M.P., Dobney, K. 1994. The imprint of living in an early Mesopotamian city: questions and answers. In: Luff, R., Rowley-Conway, P., eds. Whither environmental archae-ology? Oxbow Monograph 38, Oxford, pp. 171–212.

Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg, P. 1989. Les structu-res de combustion moustériennes de la grotte de Kébara (Mont Carmel, Israël). In: Olive, M., Taborin, Y., eds. Nature et fonction des foyers préhistoriques. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ille de France 2: 141–146.

Meignen, L., Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O. 2007. The hearths at Kebara Cave and their role in site formation processes. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Meignen, L., eds. Kebara Cave, Part 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Har-vard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 91–122.

Shahack-Gross, R., Finkelstein, I. 2008. Subsistence prac-tices in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological inves-tigation in an Iron Age site, the Negev Highlands, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 965–982.

Shahack-Gross, R., Marshall, F., Weiner, S. 2003. Geo-ar-chaeology of pastoral sites: the identification of livestock enclosures in abandoned Maasai settlements. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 439–459.

Shahack-Gross, R., Marshall, F., Ryan, K., Weiner, S. 2004. Reconstruction of spatial organization in abandoned Maasai settlements: implications for site structure in the pastoral Neolithic of East Africa. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 31: 1395–1411.

Shahack-Gross, R., Albert, R.M., Gilboa, A., Nagar-Hilman, O., Sharon, I., Weiner, S. 2005. Geoarchaeology in an ur-ban context: the uses of space in a Phoenician monumen-tal building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1417–1431.

Schiffer, M.B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37: 156–165.

Schiffer, M.B. 1983. Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity 48: 675–706.

Simpson, I.A., Guttmann, E.B., Cluett, J., Shepherd, A. 2006. Characterizing anthropic sediments in north Eu-ropean Neolithic settlements: an assessment from Skara Brae, Orkney. Geoarchaeology 21: 221–235.

Tsatskin, A. 2000. Acheulo-Yabrudian sediments of Tabun: A view from the microscope. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M., eds. Toward modern humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400–50 kyears ago. BAR S850, pp. 133–143.

Tsatskin, A., Nadel, D. 2003. Formation processes at the Ohalo II submerged prehistoric campsite, Israel, inferred from soil micromorphology and magnetic susceptibility studies. Geoarchaeology 18: 409–432.

Tsatskin, A., Weinstein-Evron, M., Ronen, A. 1995. Weath-ering and pedogenesis of wind-blown sediments in the Mount Carmel caves, Israel. Quaternary Proceedings 4: 83–93.

Wattez, J. 1988. Contribution a la connaissance des foyers préhistoriques par l’étude des centres. Bulletin de la So-ciété Préhistorique Française 85: 352–366.

Karkanas, P. and Goldberg, P. 2008. Micromorphology of sediments: deciphering archaeological context. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 63-71.

Documents