Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-7c2ld Total loading time: 0.302 Render date: 2021-12-03T20:40:36.116Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Using experimental archaeology and micromorphology to reconstruct timber-framed buildings from Roman Silchester: a new approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2015

Rowena Y. Banerjea
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK (Email: r.y.banerjea@reading.ac.uk)
Michael Fulford
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK (Email: r.y.banerjea@reading.ac.uk)
Martin Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK (Email: r.y.banerjea@reading.ac.uk)
Amanda Clarke
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK (Email: r.y.banerjea@reading.ac.uk)
Wendy Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK (Email: r.y.banerjea@reading.ac.uk)

Abstract

Determining the internal layout of archaeological structures and their uses has always been challenging, particularly in timber-framed or earthen-walled buildings where doorways and divisions are difficult to trace. In temperate conditions, soil-formation processes may hold the key to understanding how buildings were used. The abandoned Roman town of Silchester, UK, provides a case study for testing a new approach that combines experimental archaeology and micromorphology. The results show that this technique can provide clarity to previously uncertain features of urban architecture.

Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 89 , Issue 347 , October 2015 , pp. 1174 - 1188
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banerjea, R.Y. 2011. Microscopic perspectives on the use of period 3 MRTB1/ERTB1, in Fulford, M. & Clarke, A. (ed.) Silchester: city in transition. The mid-Roman occupation of Insula IX c. A.D. 125–250/300. A report on excavations since 1997 (Britannia Monograph Series 25): 6395. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.Google Scholar
Banerjea, R.Y., Bell, M., Matthews, W. & Brown, A.. 2015. Applications of micromorphology to understanding activity areas and site formation processes in experimental hut floors. Journal of Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7: 89112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-013-0160-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. 2009. Experimental archaeology: changing science agendas and perceptual perspectives, in Allen, M.J., Sharples, N. & O’Connor, T. (ed.) Land and people: papers in memory of John G. Evans: 3145. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Boon, G.C. 1974. Silchester: the Roman town of Calleva. Newton Abbot: David Charles.Google Scholar
Bullock, P., Fedoroff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G. & Tursina, T.. 1985. Handbook for thin-section description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research.Google Scholar
Burnham, B., Collis, J., Dobinson, C., Haselgrove, C. & Jones, M.. 2001. Themes for urban research: 100 BC–AD 200, in James, S. & Millett, M. (ed.) Britons and Romans: advancing the archaeological agenda (Research Report 125): 6776. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Canti, M.G. 2003. Earthworm activity and archaeological stratigraphy: a review of products and processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 135–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canti, M.G. 2007. Deposition and taphonomy of earthworm granules in relation to their interpretive potential in quaternary stratigraphy. Journal of Quaternary Science 22: 111–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canti, M.G., Carter, S., Davidson, D. & Limbrey, S.. 2006. Problems of unscientific method and approach in archaeological soil and pollen analysis of experimental floor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient Farm. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 295–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, M.J. 1987. The nature of urban deposits, in Schofield, J. & Leech, R. (ed.) Urban archaeology in Britain (CBA research report 61): 926. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cook, S.R. 2011. The geochemistry of ‘house 1’ in periods 3 and 4, in Fulford, M. & Clarke, A. (ed.) Silchester: city in transition. The mid-Roman occupation of Insula IX c. A.D. 125–250/300. A report on excavations since 1997 (Britannia Monograph Series 25): 5362. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.Google Scholar
Cook, S.R., Clarke, A., Fulford, M. & Voss, J.. 2014. Characterising the use of urban space: a geochemical case study from Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester, Hampshire, UK) Insula IX during the late first/early second century AD. Journal of Archaeological Science 50: 108–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P. & Macphail, R.. 1989 Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crowther, J., Macphail, R.I. & Cruise, G.. 1996. Short-term, post-burial change in a humic rendzina soil, Overton Down experimental earthwork, Wiltshire, England. Geoarchaeology 11: 95117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520–6548(199603)11:2<95::AID-GEA1>3.0.CO;2-43.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1978. Iron Age communities in Britain: an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, P. 2000. The Roman bath and macellum at Wroxeter: excavations by Graham Webster 1955–1985. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report.Google Scholar
French, C. 2003. Geoarchaeology in action. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frere, S. 1972. Verulamium excavations: volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Society of Antiquaries.Google Scholar
Fulford, M. 2012. Urban essentials: perspectives on change in a residential insula at Silchester (early 2nd to 5th c. A.D.), in Fulford, M. (ed.) Silchester and the study of Romano-British urbanism. Journal of Roman Archaeology (Supplementary Series 99): 257–72.Google Scholar
Fulford, M. & Clarke, A.. 2002. Victorian excavation methodology: the Society of Antiquaries at Silchester in 1893. Antiquaries Journal 82: 285306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500073819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulford, M. & Clarke, A.. 2009. Silchester Insula IX: the ‘Town Life’ Project 2006–2009. Reading: Department of Archaeology, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Fulford, M. & Clarke, A.. 2011. Silchester: city in transition. The mid-Roman occupation of Insula IX c. A.D. 125–250/300. A report on excavations since 1997 (Britannia Monograph Series 25). London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.Google Scholar
Fulford, M.G., Clarke, A. & Eckardt, H.. 2006. Life and labour in Late Roman Silchester: excavations in Insula IX since 1997 (Britannia Monograph Series 22). London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.Google Scholar
, T., Courty, M.A., Matthews, W. & Wattez, J.. 1993. Sedimentary formation processes of occupation deposits, in Goldberg, P., Nash, D.T. & Petraglia, M.D. (ed.) Formation processes in archaeological context 17. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, P. & Macphail, R.I.. 2006. Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Malden (MA), Oxford & Victoria: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, J. & Rowsome, P.. 2011. Roman London and the Walbrook stream crossing: excavations at 1 Poultry and vicinity, City of London (MOLA Monograph 37). London: Museum of London Archaeology.Google Scholar
Jones, R., Challands, A., French, C., Card, N., Downes, J. & Richards, C.. 2010. Exploring the location and function of a Late Neolithic house at Crossiecrown, Orkney by geophysical, geochemical and soil micromorphological methods. Archaeological Prospection 17: 2947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/arp.370 Google Scholar
Karkanas, P. & Efstratiou, N.. 2009. Floor sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: micromorphology reveals cycles of renovation. Antiquity 83: 955–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00099270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Motta, V.M. & Schiffer, M.B.. 1999. Formation processes of house floor assemblages, in Allison, P.M. (ed.) The archaeology of household activities: 1929. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Macphail, R.I. 1994. The reworking of urban stratigraphy by human and natural processes, in Hall, A.R. & Kenward, H.K. (ed.) Urban-rural connexions: perspectives from environmental archaeology (Monograph 47): 1343. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Macphail, R.I. & Crowther, J.. 2011. Experimental pig husbandry: soil studies from West Stow Anglo-Saxon village, Suffolk, UK. Antiquity Project Gallery 85 (330).Google Scholar
Macphail, R.I. & Linderholm, J.. 2011. Soil micromorphology results, in Hill, J. & Rowsome, P. (ed.) Roman London and the Walbrook stream crossing: excavations at 1 Poultry and vicinity, City of London (MOLA Monograph 37): 458–62. London: Museum of London Archaeology.Google Scholar
Macphail, R.I., Galinie, H. & Verhaeghe, F.. 2003a. A future for dark earth. Antiquity 77: 349–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00092334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I., Crowther, J., Acott, T.G., Bell, M.G. & Cruise, G.M.. 2003b. The experimental earthwork at Wareham, Dorset after 33 years: changes to the buried LFH and Ah horizon. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 7793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2002.0823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I., Cruise, G., Allen, M.J., Linderholm, J. & Reynolds, P.. 2004. Archaeological soil and pollen analysis of experimental floor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient Farm, Hants, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 175–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2003.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I., Cruise, G., Allen, M.J. & Linderholm, J.. 2006. A rebuttal of views expressed in ‘Problems of unscientific method and approach in ‘Archaeological soil and pollen analysis of experimental floor deposits; with special reference to Butser Ancient Farm, Hants, UK’’. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 299305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W. 1995. Micromorphological characteristics of occupation deposits and microstratigraphic sequences at Abu Salabikh, southern Iraq, in Barnham, A.J. & Macphail, R.I. (ed.) Archaeological sediments and soils: analysis, interpretation and management: 4176. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. & French, C.. 2005. Domestic space at Saar: the microstratigraphic evidence, in Killick, R. & Moon, J. (ed.) The Early Dilmun settlement at Saar (London-Bahrain Archaeological Expedition, Institute of Archaeology, University College London): 325–37. Ludlow: Archaeology International.Google Scholar
Matthews, W., French, C., Lawrence, T., Cutler, D.F. & Jones, M.K.. 1997. Microstratigraphic traces of site formation processes and human activities. World Archaeology 29: 281308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1997.9980378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W., Hastorf, C.A. & Begums, E.. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology: studies in local villages aimed at understanding aspects of the Neolithic site, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example of Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research & British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.Google Scholar
Milek, K.B. 2012. Floor formation processes and the interpretation of site activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of turf buildings at Thverá, northeast Iceland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 119–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2011.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milek, K.B. & French, C.. 2007: Soils and sediments in the settlement and harbour at Kaupang, in Skre, D. (ed.) Kaupang in Skiringssal: 321–61. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Millett, M. 1990: The Romanization of Britain: an essay in archaeological interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millett, M. 2001. Approaches to urban societies, in James, S. & Millett, M. (ed.) Britons and Romans: advancing the archaeological agenda (Research Report 125): 6066. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Murphy, C.P. 1986. Thin section preparation of soils and sediments. Berkhamsted: A.B. Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Perring, D. 1987. Domestic buildings in Romano-British towns, in Schofield, J. & Leech, R. (ed.) Urban archaeology in Britain (CBA research report 61): 147–55. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Millett, M. 2002. The Roman house in Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P.J. 1979. Iron-Age farm: the Butser experiment. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Shahack-Gross, R., Albert, R.M., Gilboa, A., Nagar-Hillman, O., Sharon, I. & Weiner, S.. 2005. Geoarchaeology in an urban context: the uses of space in a Phoenician monumental building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1417–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillito, L.-M. & Matthews, W.. 2013. Geoarchaeological investigations of midden-formation processes in the Early to Late Ceramic Neolithic levels at Çatalhöyük, Turkey c. 8550–8370 cal BP. Geoarchaeology 28: 2549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillito, L.-M. & Ryan, P.. 2013. Surfaces and streets: phytoliths, micromorphology and changing use of space at Neolithic Çatalhöyük (Turkey). Antiquity 87: 684700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00049395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, I.A. & Barrett, J.H.. 1996. Interpretation of midden formation processes at Robert's Haven, Caithness, Scotland using thin section micromorphology. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 543–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for analysis and description of soil thin sections. Madison (WI): Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Villagran, X.S., Balbo, A., Madella, L., Vila, M. & Estevez, J.. 2011. Experimental micromorphology in Tierra del Fuego (Argentina): building a reference collection for the study of shell middens in cold climates. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 588604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, S. 2010. Microarchaeology: beyond the visible archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Using experimental archaeology and micromorphology to reconstruct timber-framed buildings from Roman Silchester: a new approach
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Using experimental archaeology and micromorphology to reconstruct timber-framed buildings from Roman Silchester: a new approach
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Using experimental archaeology and micromorphology to reconstruct timber-framed buildings from Roman Silchester: a new approach
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *