4.7 Review

Soil science applications in archaeological contexts A review of key challenges

期刊

EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 103, 期 3-4, 页码 122-134

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.09.002

关键词

pedoarchaeology; soil processes; pedology; equifinality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent emergence and application of Earth Science techniques such as elemental analysis to detect isotopes biomarkers trace and ultra trace metals in combination with long established techniques like magnetic susceptibility and micromorphology can allow fascinating insights into the analysis of soils at archaeological sites Soil studies can reveal how humans in prehistory used the landscape and defined space through their activities However these new approaches do not wholly address persistent problems associated with making inferences about past human activity from soils These challenges include equifinality distinguishing property-process relationships identifying anthropogenic soil processes the interdependency of the soil forming factors and difficulties with soil dating This paper reviews more than a decade of pedoarchaeological studies structured around new approaches to addressing these challenges The paper outlines a staged framework which helps to create a systematic interpretation of soil processes and properties and considers the impact of anthropic soil processes and properties in this context This approach can be used as a guide to ensure that a rigorous and reproducible approach is taken to the study of soils at archaeological sites In making this framework explicit the paper finds that establishing property-process relationships in the soil is an essential precursor to reliable pedoarchaeological interpretation It is argued that in the future new applications developed in the Earth Sciences that aid our understanding of archaeological soil processes in three dimensions will be able to contribute the most to addressing persistent challenges in pedoarchaeological interpretation (c) 2010 Elsevier B V All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据