| Detecting cultural formation processes through arthropod assemblages |
Figure 3. The overall proposed subdivisions of an arthropod assemblage.
were at the time of deposition, and explain why they were discarded. It can also provide information on the circumstances under which this happened, what the state of the feature was, for example open, closed, waterlogged or dry. Specific faunas can help to place a feature in a wider environmental context and understand its taphonomy. Overlaps in systemic contexts and ecological ranges of the arthropods will form limitations to some extent, and need to be dealt with cautiously through the correct use of modern habitat data. Ecological niche modelling can be a useful tool, if we can statistically deal with the differences in representation of taxa from different origins. It would be a step closer to a better understanding of our archaeological features, and a step towards a more fine-tuned cooperation between fieldwork and lab work.
Conclusion This article has shown on the basis of a conceptual model that it is possible to trace deposit movement from systemic to archaeological context through arthropod remains, and how these movements indicate formation processes. It has also shown that synanthropicity is a way to differentiate the natural from the cultural transforms, as well as utilising arthropod ecologies to distinguish allochthonous from autochthonous faunas.
Pinpointing cultural formation processes through arthropods does not only refute Schiffer’ s theory that ecofacts are only indicators of natural formation processes, but it also has a practical applicability. Tracing C-transforms provides information on the anthropogenic( successive) uses and impact on an archaeological feature. This implies more precise interpretations of archaeological features and better( future) research by studying insects, arachnids and other arthropods.
2016 | INTER-SECTION | VOL II | p. 27