Advertisement

In search of use patterns of archaeological features on multi-cultural sites. A microarchaeological case study of ditch infill formation at an Eneolithic enclosure in Mikulin (Eastern Poland)

  • Mateusz Krupski
  • Tomasz J. Chmielewski
  • Mirosław Furmanek
  • Anna Zakościelna
Original Paper

Abstract

By studying the microscopic record of infills of archaeological features, it is possible to reveal their formation history and consequently obtain a better understanding of natural and cultural factors which have operated at the sites, following the assumption that specific past land use practices leave specific microarchaeological imprints. At multi-phase sites with a diverse history of occupation, this may help to detect possible changes in the use of the features and link them with known occupation episodes. From the viewpoint of studies on the role of enclosures in the prehistoric cultural landscape, it is important to have an understanding of how their distinctive structures—the ditches—were used. In order to gain insight into this matter, the infill of one of the ditches of an Eneolithic enclosure discovered at the site of Mikulin 8 (Eastern Poland) was studied from a geoarchaeological perspective involving soil micromorphology and physico-chemical analyses. As a result, it was possible to identify three major processes responsible for the formation of the infill and estimate their rates, what significantly broadened the knowledge of the context in which artefacts were discovered and brought some information on natural landscape changes. These findings, combined with data delivered by artefacts analysis, geophysical prospection, and radiocarbon dating, suggest the existence of two distinct settlement episodes at the site, marked by different use of the ditch structure, first by communities of the Lublin-Volhynian culture and then by peoples of the Funnel Beaker culture.

Keywords

Eneolithic Enclosure ditch Geoarchaeology Formation processes Use of features 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Cezary Kabała for reviewing an earlier version of the paper, conducting the physico-chemical analyses and soil descriptions. Many thanks to Lenka Lisá and Richard Macphail for discussions on the micromorphology of European Neolithic enclosure ditches, to Julie Boreham for preparing the thin sections, to Daniel Makowiecki for analysis of the faunal remains, to Tomasz Goslar for 14C measurements and to Jan Reder for geomorphological consultations. We would also like to thank the Editor and two anonymous Reviewers for comments which helped to steer the paper in the proper direction. The micromorphological analysis was conducted by MK using equipment belonging to the Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Wrocław, by kind permission of Piotr Gunia. The physico-chemical analyses of bulk samples were financed from research grant 1358/M/IAR/15 awarded by the Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences, University of Wrocław, whereas the manufacturing of micromorphological slides was funded by the Archaeologia Silesiae Science Foundation. The excavations conducted in 2012–2013 by TJCh and AZ were supported with statutory funds of the Institute of Archeology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin.

References

  1. Bell M, Fowler PJ, Hillson S (1996) The Experimental Earthwork Project, 1960–1992. Council for British Archaeology, YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertran P, Texier J-P (1999) Facies and microfacies of slope deposits. Catena 35:99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockheim JG, Hartemnik AE (2013) Classification and distribution of soils with lamellae in the USA. Geoderma 206:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronk Ramsey C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullock P, Fedoroff N, Jongerius A et al (1985) Handbook for soil thin section description. Waine Research Publications, WolverhamptonGoogle Scholar
  6. Canti MG (2003) Earthworm activity and archaeological stratigraphy: a review of products and processes. J Archaeol Sci 30:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canti MG, Huisman DJ (2015) Scientific advances in geoarchaeology during the last twenty years. J Archaeol Sci 56:96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chmielewski TJ, Furmanek M, Mackiewicz M et al (2015) Landscape with enclosures. Geomagnetic prospection and surface survey of the Dobużek Scarp microregion, Eastern Poland. Archaeol Pol 54:197–201Google Scholar
  9. Courty MA, Goldberg P, Macphail RI (1989) Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowther J (1997) Soil phosphate surveys: critical approaches to sampling, analysis and interpretation. Archaeol Prospect 4:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David N, Kramer C (2001) Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deák J, Gebhardt A, Lewis H et al (2017) Soils disturbed by vegetation clearance and tillage. In: Nicosia C, Stoops G (eds) Archaeological soil and sediment micromorphology. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 233–264Google Scholar
  13. Durand N, Monger C, Canti MG (2010) Calcium carbonate features. In: Stoops G, Marcelino V, Mees F (eds) Interpretation of micromorphological features of soils and regoliths. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 149–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furmanek M, Krupski M, Ehlert M et al (2013) Dobkowice revisited. Interdisciplinary research on an enclosure of the Jordanów culture. Anthropologie. International Journal of the Science of Man 51:375–396Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg P, Berna F (2010) Micromorphology and context. Quat Int 214:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg P, Macphail RI (2006) Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Oxford, CaldenGoogle Scholar
  17. Harasimiuk M, Nowak J, Superson J (2008) Budowa geologiczna i rzeźba terenu. In: Uziak S, Turski R (eds) Środowisko przyrodnicze Lubelszczyzny. Lubelskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Lublin, pp 9–73Google Scholar
  18. Holliday VT, Gartner WG (2007) Methods of soil P analysis in archaeology. J Archaeol Sci 34:301–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huisman DJ, Deeben J (2009) Soil features. In: Huisman DJ (ed) Degradation of archaeological remains. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag, pp 147–176Google Scholar
  20. Huisman DJ, Braadbaart F, van Wijk IM, van Os BJH (2012) Ashes to ashes, charcoal to dust: micromorphological evidence for ash-induced disintegration of charcoal in Early Neolithic (LBK) soil features in Elsloo (the Netherlands). J Archaeol Sci 39:994–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huisman DJ, Brounen F, Lohof E et al (2014) Micromorphological study of Early Neolithic (LBK) soil features in the Netherlands. J Archaeol Low Ctries 5:107–133Google Scholar
  22. IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soil and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  23. Karkanas P, Goldberg P (2008) Micromorphology of sediments: deciphering archaeological context. Isr J Earth Sci 56:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaszewski B (2008) Warunki klimatyczne Lubelszczyzny/climatic conditions of the Lublin Region/. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, LublinGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeley LH, Fontana M, Quick R (2007) Baffles and bastions: the universal features of fortifications. J Archaeol Res 15:55–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kondracki J (2000) Geografia regionalna Polski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  27. Kovárník J, Hejcman M, Lisá L, Tirpák J (in press) Neolithic Rondels in Central Europe were areas with missing settlement activities—application of geophysical, archaeological, micromorphological and geochemical approach on the ditch infillGoogle Scholar
  28. Kowalewska-Marszałek H (2012) Neolithic fortified sites and settlement patterns on the Sandomierz Loess Upland. In: Bertemes F, Meller H (eds) Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung vom 7. bis 9. Mai 2004 in Goeseck, Halle (Saale), pp 327–338Google Scholar
  29. Kruk J, Milisauskas S (1981) Wyżynne osiedle neolityczne w Bronocicach woj. kieleckie. Archeol Pol 26:65–113Google Scholar
  30. Kruk J, Milisauskas S (1985) Bronocice. Osiedle obronne ludności kultury lubelsko-wołyńskiej/2800–2700 lat p.n.e/. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, ŁódźGoogle Scholar
  31. Kühn P, Aguilar J, Miedema R (2010) Textural Pedofeatures and related horizons. In: Stoops G, Marcelino V, Mees F (eds) Interpretation of micromorphological features of soils and regoliths. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 217–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuper, Lüning J, Stehli P, Zimmermann A (1977) Der Bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 9, Gemeinde Aldenhoven. Kreis Dueren, BonnGoogle Scholar
  33. Lauer F, Pätzold S, Gerlach R, Protze J, Willbold S, Amelung W (2013) Phosphorus status in archaeological arable topsoil relicts–is it possible to reconstruct conditions for prehistoric agriculture in Germany? Geoderma 207-208:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Le Bayon R-C, Binet F (2006) Earthworms change the distribution and availability of phosphorous in organic substrates. Soil Biol Biochem 38:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leopold M, Hürkamp K, Völkel J, Schmotz K (2011) Black soils, sediments and brown calcic luvisols: a pedological description of a newly discovered neolithic ring ditch system at Stephansposching, Eastern Bavaria, Germany. Quat Int 243:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Licznar S, Maruszczak H (1998) Charakterystyka gleb kopalnych i współczesnych z rejonu kurhanów neolitycznych na Grzędzie Sokalskiej (Polska SE) przy zastosowaniu metod submikromorfologicznych. Rocz Glebozn – Soil Sci Ann 49(3/4):105–118Google Scholar
  37. Lisá L, Bajer A, Válek D et al (2013) Micromorphological evidence of Neolithic rondel-like ditch infillings; case studies from Těšetice-Kyjovice and Kolín, Czech Republic. Interdiscip Archaeol 4:135–146Google Scholar
  38. Lisá L, Komoróczy V et al (2015) How were the ditches filled? Sedimentological and micromorphological classification of formation processes within graben-like archaeological objects. Quat Int 370:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loishandl-Weisz H, Peticzka R (2010) Verfüllungmechanismen des Spitygrabens der mittleneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage Steinabrunn. Niederösterreich Archaeol Austriaca 91(2007):141–162Google Scholar
  40. Maciejczuk J (1986) Sprawozdanie z badań na osadzie KPL w Mikulinie stan. 6 gmina Tyszowce. In: Sprawozdania z badań terenowych w województwie zamojskim w 1986 roku. Zamość, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  41. Macphail RI (2007) Soils and deposits: micromorphology. In: the Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, pp 17–53Google Scholar
  42. Macphail RI (2010) Bavarian LBK (sites of Niederhummel and Wang), Germany: soil micromorphology and microchemistry. Unpublished Report for School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff UniversityGoogle Scholar
  43. Macphail RI, Courty MA, Gebhardt A (1990) Soil micromorphological evidence of early agriculture in North-West Europe. World Archaeol 22:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macphail RI, Haită C, Bailey DW et al (2008) The soil micromorphology of enigmatic Early Neolithic pit-features at Măgura, southern Romania. Stud Preistorie 5:61–77Google Scholar
  45. Maruszczak H (1972) Wyżyny Lubelsko-Wołyńskie. In: Geomorfologia Polski. Klimaszewski M, Warszawa, pp 340–384Google Scholar
  46. Mierzejewski MP (ed) (1992) Badania elementów tektoniki na potrzeby kartografii wiertniczej i powierzchniowej. Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  47. Mücher, Steijn, Kwaad (2010) Colluvial and mass wasting deposits. In: Stoops G, Marcelino V, Mees F (eds) Interpretation of micromorphological features of soils and regoliths. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oonk S, Slomp C, Huisman DJ (2009) Geochemistry as an aid in archaeological prospection and site interpretation: current issues and research directions. Archaeol Prospect 16:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pagliai M, Stoops G (2010) Physical and biological surface crusts and seals. In: Stoops G, Marcelino V, Mees F (eds) Interpretation of micromorphological features of soils and regoliths. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 419–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pavlů I (1990) Die charakteristischen Einfüllungen von Grabenanlagen. Jahresschr für Mitteldtsch Vorgesch 73:171–178Google Scholar
  51. Prusinkiewicz Z, Bednarek R, Kośko A, Szmyt M (1998) Paleopedological studies of the age and properties of illuvial bands at an archaeological site. Quat Int 51/52:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rapp GR, Hill CL (2006) Geoarchaeology: the earth-science approach to archaeological interpretation. Yale University Press, New Haven, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, et al (2013) IntCal13 and Marine 13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BPGoogle Scholar
  54. Schiffer MB (1983) Toward the identification of formation processes. Am Antiq 48:675–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schiffer MB (1987) Formation processes of the archaeological record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  56. Slager S, van de Wetering J (1977) Soil formation in archaeological pits and adjacent loess soils in southern Germany. J Archaeol Sci 4:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stein JK (1983) Earthworm activity: a source of potential disturbance of archaeological sediments. Am Antiq 48:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoops G (2003) Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections. Soil Science Society of America, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  59. van Reeuwijk LP (2002) Procedures for soil analysis, 6th edn. World Soil Information, WagenigenGoogle Scholar
  60. Weiner S (2010) Microarchaeology: beyond the visible archaeological record. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wells CE, Terry RE (2007) Introduction to the special issue: advances in geoarchaeological approaches to Anthrosol chemistry, part I: agriculture. Geoarchaeology 22:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mateusz Krupski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomasz J. Chmielewski
    • 3
  • Mirosław Furmanek
    • 1
  • Anna Zakościelna
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of ArchaeologyUniversity of WrocławWrocławPoland
  2. 2.Archeolodzy.org FoundationWrocławPoland
  3. 3.Institute of Archaeology and EthnologyUniversity of GdańskGdańskPoland
  4. 4.Institute of ArchaeologyMaria Curie-Skłodowska UniversityLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations