AmS-Varia 37 Soil Micromorphology and its contribution to the interpretation of archaeological sites

Soil Micromorphology and its contribution

to the interpretation of archaeological sites

BARBARA MARIA SAGEIDET

Sageidet, B.M. 2000: Soil Micromorphology and its contribution to the interpretation of archaeological sites.
AmS-Varia 37, 21-25, Stavanger. ISSN 0332-6306, ISBN 82-7760-082-8, UDK 902:5
The soils and the sediments of archaeological sites provide a context for the artefacts. They are a resource for
essential information about stratigraphy, site formation processes and possible natural or artificial disturbances.
The microscopic study of thin sections from soils makes it possible to describe and measure components, features
and fabrics in undisturbed soils, which cannot be seen by the naked eye. The method provides an important insight
into many problems of, for example, soil development, diagenesis, weathering, and soil/plant interactions, and can
be used for palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. The use of micromorphology is increasing in a number of
disciplines, particularly in soil science, quaternary geology, and palaeoecology. It was not until the 1970s that the
micromorphological analysis of soil thin sections was developed for general application in archaeological
investigations. Today, soil micromorphology has become one of the established scientific techniques like analysis of
macrofossils, charcoal, pollen, and bulk chemical, biological, and physical analysis. Soil micromorphology is an
essential part of a recently started project at the Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger, in collaboration with the
Department of Soil and Water Sciences at the Agricultural University of Norway at Ås. The project will combine
different geoarchaeological methods to obtain new information about prehistoric agriculture, and prehistoric use
of the landscape at Jæren, southwestern Norway. The combination of the different geoarchaeological methods is
especially expected to throw new light on methodological problems related to pollen analysis in mineral soils.

Barbara Maria Sageidet, Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, PO Box 478, N-4002 STAVANGER, NORWAY.
Telephone: (+47) 51846041. Telefax: (+47) 51846199. E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction micromorphological analysis will be used in combination

Soils are important resources of information in scientific with other geoarchaeological methods, to throw light on
investigations of both natural and cultural history, and the processes that formed the cultural landscape of Jæren,
often they are the only ones. This is the reason why it has southwestern Norway, in prehistoric times.
become increasingly important for archaeologists to use W.L. Kubiena was the first to study soils in an
different soil analytical methods, such as, for example, undisturbed state as a new research area in pedology. In
analysis of pollen and macrofossils and chemical analysis. his book «Micropedology» from 1938, and in later
The use of thin sections made from undisturbed and publications, he presented a new method for establishing
impregnated soil blocks, allows contextual analysis of the genetic history of soils and how to classify them.
taphonomy (e.g. pollen destruction) and depositional Micromorphology is the branch of soil science that is
relationships between sediments, artefacts and bio- concerned with the description, interpretation and, to an
archaeological remains (Matthews et al. 1997:281). increasing extent, the measurement of components,
The study of soil micromorphology in archaeological features and fabrics in undisturbed soils at a microscopic
contexts is widely used in Europe. There is an Internatio- level. The method provides information that cannot be
nal Archaeological Soil Micromorphology Working obtained by chemical, physical or other methods.
Group, which is coordinated by Richard I. Macphail, Soil micromorphology is based on the same principles
University College London. as petrography. Samples for soil micromorphology have
In a collaboration project between the Museum of to be collected with care and normally with the help of
Archaeology, Stavanger, and the Agricultural University metal boxes («Kubiena-boxes»). This is important in or-
of Norway, Department of Soil and Water Sciences, soil der to ensure that the various components – sand, silt,

21
Barbara Maria Sageidet AmS-Varia 37

clay and organic material and the pores in between – stay The study of soils and sediments related to
undisturbed (Courty et al. 1989). archaeological investigations
Soil micromorphology includes the examination of
clods or aggregates of undisturbed soil material with optical Originally, soil micromorphology was used to study
microscopes and more high-powered equipment such as modern soils. Two important directions of research have
scanning electron microscopes, but is usually restricted evolved. The first one is the investigation of palaeosols in
to the study of thin sections using polarising or petro- order to study the development of regional landscapes
graphic microscopes (Kemp 1985). and climatic changes. The other direction is the study of
It is essential to establish an intimate connection Holocene palaeosols focusing on both local and regional
between the description in the field and the description interpretations of human influence on pedogenesis
of the thin section. The magnification of a pocket lens as (Macphail & Goldberg 1995).
a connecting link in the analysis is very useful and nearly Roman & Robertson (1983) were among the first to
indispensable. The final identification and interpretation identify historic tilled fields using soil micromorphology.
is based upon the entire data set. The samples taken in Later, the method was used to trace ancient agriculture
the field as monoliths, with the help of the Kubiena-boxes, by scientists like Macphail et al. (1990). Langohr (1990)
have to be air dried to rid the soil of water because of its was able to map the soil types that were dominant in
deleterious reaction with the resin. In the laboratory, the Belgium in the Neolithic. He could confirm that the
drying of the soil has to be completed with the help of Neolithic people preferred to use loessic soils.
acetone. The soil blocks have to be impregnated with resin Soil micromorphology can support other types of
under vacuum conditions and then left for at least two analysis in the reconstruction of prehistoric cultural acti-
months to allow full impregnation by capillarity (Murphy vities (deforestation, pasturing, clearance, tilling, abandon-
1986). ment and regeneration of natural vegetation). On
Finally, microscopic thin sections have to be cut from Neolithic sites in the Dutch coastal provinces, Exaltus &
the sample and mounted on glass plates. It is possible to Miedema (1994) were able to identify individual archaeo-
carry out the drying and impregnation processes in one’s logical layers and to reconstruct the processes of their
own laboratory, but more common to have the whole formation.
process done by a professional laboratory. Micromorphological analysis is today the most reliable
Chemical, physical and mineralogical analyses require method for identifying and understanding the processes
representative, homogenised soil samples and the results
will therefore be mean average data. This is not the case
in micromorphology, which allows the interpretation of
exceptional features, which frequently have a clear genetic
meaning (Stoops 1998). The normal size of a thin section
is 6 x 7.5 cm. The thickness of a thin section should not
be more than 20-30 mm to fit on a polarising microscope.
Different types of light are used for analysis: plane polarised
light (PPL), cross-polarised light (XPL) and oblique
incident light (OIL). A further possibility is the use of
ultra-violet light (UV). The systematic description of the
thin sections follows a universal standard, published as a
«Handbook for soil thin section description» by Bullock a
et al. 1985. The technique of description and interpretat-
ion is to a high degree based upon data from pedogenic b
studies and from agricultural experiments.

Fig. 1. Biopore presumably of an earthworm (1a: PPL, x 40; 1b:

XPL, x 40), part of a thin section from a buried soil (stagno podzol
with iron pan) under a Bronze Age clearance cairn at Chysauster,
Penzance, Cornwall, Great Britain (Richard I. Macphail 1996).
Photo: B.M. Sageidet.

22
 AmS-Varia 37 Soil Micromorphology and its contribution to the interpretation of archaeological sites

micromorphology is probably most suitable for such an

estimation (Macphail et al. 1990). Mixing by the soil
fauna, for example, is easy to record (see Fig. 1a and 1b).
Excrement in the soil (see Fig. 2a and 2b) may reveal
previous inhabitants (organisms) and their environments.
A mobilisation or mixing by tilling may be indicated
when fragments of the iron pan are found in a horizon
above the natural iron pan (Figs. 3a and 3b).
Micromorphological investigations from the Maiden
Castle hillfort, Dorset, England (Macphail, in Sharples
1991) provided details of the past environment and the
a agricultural economy of the original inhabitants. A non-
b calcareous brown earth in the mid-Holocene was altered
by Neolithic and later Bronze Age activities, specifically
woodland clearance and cultivation. The disturbances led
to soil disruption, breaking up and exposing of fragile
subsoils as well as down-profile soil movements. Chalk,
from a lower soil layer at this locality, is easy to recognise
in a thin section (Figs. 4a and 4b). A textural feature,
dusty clay material as capping along a pore, is shown by
Figure 5a and 5b.
A careful study of one or more thin sections, seen in
connection with all the other information available from
the site in question, is essential to any interpretation. It
Fig. 2. Black excrements in pore (2a: PPL, x 40; 2b: XPL, x 40),
may be difficult to distinguish between anthropogenic
part of a thin section from a buried soil (stagno podzol with iron and natural effects on the soil, especially if the
pan) under a Bronze Age clearance cairn at Chysauster, Penzance, anthropogenic effects are indirect, i.e. if they induce or
Cornwall Great Britain (Richard I. Macphail 1996). accelerate the natural ones.
Photo: B.M. Sageidet.

involved in soil formation. Both processes produced by

nature as well as those induced by human impact are
included.
Buried soils (palaeosols) can contribute to Quaternary
studies through their use as stratigraphic marker horizons
as well as by providing information on Quaternary
environments. As to the latter, it is necessary to assume
that the pedological features resulting from past pedogenic
processes are similar to those produced by the same
processes today. It is also necessary to assume that some
soil features and processes are uniquely associated with a
specific environments. On the basis of these assumptions,
certain buried horizons can give indications on climatic, b
vegetational, topographical and hydrological conditions
(Birkeland 1984).
Investigations of prehistoric/historic soils should always
include estimates of the degree of conservation. Soil

Fig. 3. Crust from the iron pan on a mineral in the Bh-horizon

(3a: PPL, x 40; 3b: XPL, x 40), part of a thin section from a
buried soil (stagno podzol with iron pan) under a Bronze Age
clearance cairn at Chysauster, Penzance, Cornwall, Great Britain
(Richard I. Macphail 1996). Photo: B.M. Sageidet.

23
 Barbara Maria Sageidet AmS-Varia 37

Fig. 4. Chalk, central in the lower part of the slice (4a: PPL, x 25;
4b: XPL, x 25), part of a thin section from a BC-horizon at Mai-
den Castle, Dorset, Great Britain (Macphail in Sharples 1991).
Photo: B.M. Sageidet.

Combination of geoarchaeological methods

The collaboration project between the Museum of
Archaeology, Stavanger, Norway and the Agricultural
University of Norway, Institute of Soil and Water Sciences
4a
will provide new knowledge about agriculture and
landscape use at Orstad, Jæren, southwestern Norway, in
4b prehistoric times. The project will combine soil micro-
morphology and other geoarchaeological methods,
including charcoal analysis, soil physical analysis and pol-
len analysis to achieve an ”indicator package” (c.f. Kenward
& Hall 1997). The investigations will reveal the processes
that formed the cultural landscape in prehistoric times,
and the traces of them in soil profiles.
By combining the various methods the project is
expected to throw new light on the methodological
problems associated with pollen analysis in mineral soils.
The classic method of pollen analysis was originally
defined for sediments from bogs, mires and lakes (Fægri
& Iversen 1989). The application of the method in mi-
neral soils includes several complex taphonomical
problems. In the same way as peat stratigraphy is essential
to classic pollen analysis, pedology and soil micro-
morphology are needed for pollen analysis in mineral soils.
The localisation of pollen grains in relation to structural
elements in soils by micromorphology can supply a con-
necting link between pollen and those processes in mine-
ral soils, which are responsible for possible movements in
a profile.

5a Application and development of the soil

micromorphological method
5b
Soil micromorphological data should always be part of
an interdisciplinary framework. In this way, data from
different methods such as charcoal analysis, macrofossil
analysis or pollen analysis, can control and complement
each other. Especially in modern regions with strong
urbanization and many different factors complicating any
interpretations, great caution is acquired (Gebhard
1995:26).
The development and application of soil micro-
morphological techniques in archaeological science has
formed a major research growth area in the last decade
(Barham & Macphail 1995). A recent development has
Fig.5. Textural feature: dusty clay material as capping along a pore
canal (5a: PPL, x 100; 5b: XPL, x 100), part of a thin section
concentrated on different techniques to quantify and
from a site at Maiden Castle, Dorset, Great Britain (Macphail in characterise details in soil thin sections. One of them is
Sharples 1991). Photo: B.M. Sageidet. ”image analysis”. Image analysis is not a standardised

24
AmS-Varia 37 Soil Micromorphology and its contribution to the interpretation of archaeological sites

method but a quantitative micromorphological exami- Kubiena, W.L. 1938. Micropedology. Ames, Iowa: Collegiate Press.
nation of attributes in a soil profile, e.g. pore structures, Langohr, R. 1990: The dominant soil types of the Belgian loess
belt in the Early Neolithic. In Cahen, D. & Otte, M. (eds.):
with the help of image analysis systems following Rubané et Cardial. Liege (E.R.A.U.L. 39), 117-124.
mathematical-morphological principles (Bryant & David- Macphail, R.I., Courty, M.A. & Gebhardt, A. 1990: Soil micro-
son 1996:816, Serra 1982, Horgan 1998). The method morphol. evidence of early agriculture in north-west Europe.
can speed up and improve the statistical reliability of soil World Archaeology 22,1 (Soils and Early Agriculture), Routledge.
thin section interpretations. Macphail, R.I. & Goldberg, P. 1995: Recent advances in mi-
cromorphological interpretations of soils and sediments from
archaeological sites. In Barham, A.J. & Macphail, R.I. (eds.):
Archaeological sediments and soils: Analysis, Interpretation and
Acknowledgements Management. University College, London.
I am very grateful to Richard I. Macphail from Univer- Macphail, R. I., 1996: Soil micromorphology and chemistry. In
sity College London, Institute of Archaeology, who Smith, G. (ed.): Archaeology and Environment of a Bronze Age
Cairn and Prehistoric and Romano-British field system at Chy-
introduced me to soil micromorphology and kindly gave sauster, Cornwall. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 198-
me permission to use the photographs taken of thin sec- 203.
tions from his own research, in this paper. Thanks also to Matthews, W., French, C.A.I., Lawrence, T., Cutler, D.F. & Jones,
the NorFa (Nordic Academy for Advanced Study), which M.K. 1997: Microstratigraphic traces of site formation proces-
gave me the opportunity to present the contents of this ses and human activities. World Archaeology 29, 2, 281-308.
Murphy, C.P. 1986: Thin Section Preparation of Soils and Sediments
paper at a workshop in St. Petersburg, 29th May to 2nd – Soil Survey of England and Wales, Rothamsted Experimental Stat-
June 1999. Thanks to Kerstin Griffin and Lotte Selsing ion, AB. Academic Publishers.
for reading the manuscript and to Ingegerd Holand and Romans, J.C.C. & Robertson, L. 1983: The general effects of ear-
John Hood for checking the language. Finally, I want to ly agriculture on the soil. In Maxwell, G.S. (ed.): The Impact of
thank the Norwegian Research Council for financial sup- Aerial Reconnaissance on Archaeology. London. CBA Research
Report 49, 136-41.
port for my research project. Serra, J. 1982. Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology. New
York, Academic Press.
Sharples, N.M. 1991: Maiden Castle – Excavations and field sur-
References vey 1985-6. English Heritage, Archaeological Report 19. Historic
Barham, A.J. & Macphail, R.I. (eds.) 1995: Archaeological Sedi- Buildings & Monuments Commission for England.
ments and Soils – Analysis, Interpretation and Management. Insti- Stoops, G. 1998: Key to the ISSS «Handbook for Soil Thin Secti-
tute of Archaeology, University College, London. on Description». Natuurwat. Tijdschr. 78, 193-203.
Birkeland, P.W. 1984: Soils and Geomorphology. Oxford University
Press.
Bryant, R.G. & Davidson, D.A. 1996: The Use of Image Analysis
in the Micromorphological Study of Old Cultivated Soils. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 23, 811-822.
Bullock, P., Fedoroff, N., Stoops, G. & Tursina, T. 1985: Hand-
book for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Wayne
Research.
Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P. & Macphail, R.I. 1989: Soils and Mi-
cromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.
Exaltus, R.P. & Miedema, R. 1994: A Micromorphological Study
of Four Neolithic Sites in the Dutch Coastal Provinces. Journal
of Archaeological Science 21, 289-301.
Fægri, K. & Iversen, J. 1989: Textbook of Pollen Analysis. Fourth
edition by Fægri, K., Kaland, P.-E. & Krzywinski, K. John Wiley
& Sons.
Gebhardt, A. 1995: Soil micromorphological data from traditio-
nal and experimental agriculture. In Barham, A.J. & Macphail,
R.I. (eds.), 1995: Archaeological Sediments and Soils – Analysis,
Interpretation and Management. Institute of Archaeology, Uni-
versity College, London.
Horgan, G.W. 1998: Mathematical morphology for analysing soil
structure from images. European Journal of Soil Science 49, 161-
173.
Kemp, R.A. 1985: Soil Micromorphology and the Quaternary.
Quaternary Research Association Technical Guide 2. Cambridge.
Kenward, H. & Hall, A. 1997: Enhancing Bioarchaeological In-
terpretation Using Indicator groups: Stable Manure as a Para-
digm. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 663-673.

25