Microrefuse Studies at Tabaqat Al-Buma
Identification and interpretation of activity areas are vitally important aspects of household archaeology, and while there are many methods that identify and quantify spatial patterning of artifacts in archaeological sites (c.f. Hodder and Orton 1976; Kintigh 1990), the major problem with identifying and interpreting this patterning is that due to natural and cultural site formation processes the objects of that patterning may be secondarily deposited in places they were not originally used or discarded (Brooks and Yellen 1987). Early work on site formation processes quickly identified that smaller artifacts may be less subject to disturbance by many site formation processes (LaMotta and Schiffer 1997); therefore microarchaeology (the study of very small cultural material) never before thought of as important, began to be seen as way to get around the problems associated with larger artifacts in activity area analysis (Metcalfe and Heath 1990). Microarchaeology has not, however, been used to its fullest potential, due mostly to widespread misunderstandings among the archaeological community as to what, exactly, microarchaeology is, what it entails, and how difficult it is to do. This paper attempts to address these issues and show that microarchaeology is a powerful archaeological tool that, when used correctly, greatly strengthens archaeological interpretations without prohibitively increasing cost, effort, or time in archaeological fieldwork and labwork, or reducing the quality of the data and the knowledge gained from their analysis. This paper pays special attention to the utility and methods of using microarchaeological data for spatial analysis in household contexts, evaluates and recommends specific sampling strategies, lab methods, and methodologies for spatial analysis of living surfaces, and puts these strategies to a test case in which we use microarchaeological data to analyze a house floor in the Late Neolithic village of Tabaqat Al’ Buma in Northern Jordan.
Scroll down for some images related to the microrefuse profect, or download the current version of this paper. You can also download a review of Microarchaeology I wrote a couple of years ago.
Update 01/19/07:The above paper has been drastically re-written. Currently a new method using GRASS GIS and Multispec (multispectral image analysis software) to compare spatial distribution of micro artifacts and macro artifacts been implemented. This method entails the use of classification two routines developed to work with remotely sensed data to conduct Principle Components Analysis and Unsupervised Classification (Multidimensional clustering analysis), and another method based on map algebra (via Z-score transformation) to eliminate noise due to site formation processes. This latest draft will be submitted for publication, and therefore will not be posted on this site until it is in press. A few graphics from this version are below.
Room G34 Plan
Plan view of room G34 showing the grid laid out for microrefuse sampling.
Example density maps
Density probability surface map of all types of microrefuse combined, and shows the distribution of all micro-debris on the floor of room G34.
Example map of Z-score transformation with 1 standard deviation clipped, showing only areas of significantly high or low artifact concentration. This map is also for all microrefuse types combined, and shows the areas of microartifact concentration which are most probably due to human activity (ie. de facto refuse) and not due to formation processes (ie. background noise).
Photo of G34
- Photo of room G34 shortly before microrefuse samples were collected.
