Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T02:51:22.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Microdebris analysis in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamian households

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Lynn Rainville*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue — Room 4009, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1079, USA Lynne.Rainville@Dartmouth.edu

Extract

I am interested in the daily activities of the non-Blites to understand ancient Mesopotamian society.Analysing the activities performed within thehouses of the non-6lites is the first step in definingthe social and economic differentiation amonghouseholds and, in turn, a better understanding ofthe role of these households within ancient communities.1 analyse activity areas using a relativelynew method - micro-debris analysis - which analysessmall artefactual and ecofactual remains(Fladmark 1982; Rosen 1989; Matthews 1995).In my dissertation, 365 sediment samples (10litres each) were taken from over 20 structures.The rationale for sampling deposits and countingand weighing the small remains found withinthe earthen matrix is based on a model of depositionalforces. Site formation theorists suggestthat macro-debris left by daily activities are usuallydisturbed and often discarded far from theloci of the original activity. Whereas the large findsmay be scavenged, discarded, or curated in periodsof abandonment, smaller debris is often sweptinto corners or trampled into the surface of afloor. These small items are more likely thanlarge items to remain where they were droppeddue to the difficulty in removing small debriswith traditional cleaning methods (Schiffer 1983;Dunnell & Stein 1989). My research focused onthe analysis of artefacts under 1 cm in dimensionfound in occupational surfaces and featuresin order to define activity areas at severalEarly Bronze Age (c. 3100-1900 BC) sites insoutheastern Turkey

Type
News and notes
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

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

Algaze, G., Hartenberger, B. Matney, T. Pournelle, J. Rainville, L. Rosen, S. Rupley, E. & Vallet, R.. In press. Research at Titriş. Höyük in southeastern Turkey: a preliminary report of the 1999 season' Anatolica 26.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R.C. & Stein, J.K.. 1989. Theoretical issues in the interpretation of microartifacts, Geo-archaeology 4: 3142.Google Scholar
Fladmark, K.R. 1982. Microdebitage analysis: initial considerations, Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 20520.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 1995. Micromorphological characterisation and interpretation of occupation deposits and microstratigraphc sequences at Abu Salabikh, Iraq, in Barham, A.J. & Macphail, R.I. (ed.), Archaeological sediments and soils, analysis, interpretation and management: 4176. London: Institute of Archaeology. Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 10.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. 1989. Ancient town and city sites: a view from the microscope, American Antiquity 54: 56478.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. 1983. Toward the identification of formation processes, American Antiquity 48: 675706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar