Michael W. Morris. Soil Science and Archaeology: Three Test Cases from Minoan Crete (Prehistory Monographs 4).

Michael W. Morris. Soil Science and Archaeology: Three Test Cases from Minoan Crete (Prehistory Monographs 4). MICHAEL W. MORRIS. Soil science and archaeology: Three test casesfrom Minoan Crete (Prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to Monographs 4). xviii+155 pages, 39figures, 23 plates, 19 tables. 2002. Philadelphia (PA): Institute forAegean Prehistory Academic Press; 1-931534-03-9 hardback 45 [poundssterling]. The title--Soil science and archaeology--implies an all-embracingtextbook on the applications of soil science to archaeology. Taken assuch, it would disappoint; but the subtitle--Three test cases fromMinoan Crete--is where the monograph draws its strength. The brief text of this monograph, probably derived fromMorris's research degree thesis, is clear and business-like. It isa pity that the photographs were hidden at the end and not integratedinto the text, and there could usefully be more section drawings (theonly one is minimalist, with ceramic artefacts floating in space). Datatables, useful for soil scientists but probably of little assistance toarchaeologists, support the text. There is a full index, and areasonable, if slightly out of date, reference list (though published in2002, it is unclear when this work was done; the early 1990s?). This monograph will appeal to two groups: archaeologists in Creteand environs, and students of soil science, and, especially,geoarchaeology. The opening chapter introduces basic soil scienceconcepts with some reference to archaeology. The importance of thismonograph lies, however, in studies from three archaeological sites; ofnote are the detailed description of soil analyses and presentation anddiscussion of results, and the coverage of a range of problems and soilsunder consideration. An unashamedly un��a��shamed?adj.Feeling or showing no remorse, shame, or embarrassment:una��sham case-based enquiry, the studies arenot extended to broader issues or to the question of integration ofgeoscience ge��o��sci��ence?n.Any one of the sciences, such as geology or geochemistry, that deals with the earth.ge with archaeology that geoarchaeology should be strivingtowards. Having said that, however, I would recommend this to anystudent embarking on a geoarchaeological study of archaeological soils. The first study, considering four soils around the site of Karphi,is a valuable example of the definition of a prehistoric landscape.Following the detailed soil descriptions, I particularly liked thecomments on the soil properties relevant to the prehistoric people--onesoil would not have been a good clay source, another was too gravelly grav��el��ly?adj.1. Of, full of, or covered with rock fragments or pebbles: a gravelly beach.2. Having a harsh rasping sound: a gravelly voice. tobe very productive, etc. The focus, however, was not on thisfundamentally archaeological point; it is a pity that discussion did notcontinue to consider further functional aspects of the soils describedin such detail ... work for the future? Indeed, I was struck by therelative lack of integration of the science with the archaeology. Onlyin the conclusions does the importance of the study emerge, as the soilsare essential in defining the landscape chronology and relationship withhuman settlement. The second study presents a very different situation--a vertisol--asoil in which natural turbation results in a homogenous homogenous - homogeneous sequence. This,naturally, makes archaeological stratigraphy stratigraphy,branch of geology specifically concerned with the arrangement of layered rocks (see stratification). Stratigraphy is based on the law of superposition, which states that in a normal sequence of rock layers the youngest is on top and the oldest on the difficult to interpret. Inthis case, the soil contains two artefact See artifact. lines. Morris notes, quiterightly, that it is often assumed that artefact or stone lines representformer buried land surfaces, an interpretation often critical inarchaeological landscape analysis. Morris's example, supported bymuch more detailed soil analysis than is usual, clearly demonstrates thelack of any edaphic e��daph��ic?adj.1. Of or relating to soil, especially as it affects living organisms.2. Influenced by the soil rather than by the climate. evidence for buried surfaces. Other explanations arerequired, and Morris, with a solid understanding of soil processes, doesthis with ease. This study is a most instructive tale of warning. The final study is a classic sequence study. Its value, in additionto contextualising the local archaeology, lies in its ability toquestion prior models of landscape development critically; soil sciencehas a great capacity to do exactly this. In this case, a model oflandscape evolution as a sequence of erosion and deposition events isnot supported by the soil history of the study area. Morris brieflysuggests an alternative environmental and climate history for the areaunder study, but unfortunately does not develop the consequences of hisimportant finding. The three test cases provide valuable lessons on both method andapplication. They are frustratingly brief, and leave much to follow up.They are based on detailed technical analyses of the soils in ways thatfew archaeologists would tackle, and thus demonstrate the value ofengaging a soil scientist in any archaeological team. Theirinterpretation relies a little too much, however, on the literaturerather than working through the conclusions more fully, or engaging withthe detail of the respective archaeologies. Given Morris'sdemonstration that one model can be questioned by the soil science, itwould be interesting to see further critique of the region'spalaeoenvironmental literature from this distinctly edaphic perspective.This is, nevertheless, a valuable specialist contribution. BILL BOYD School of Environmental Science, Southern Cross University, NSW NSWNew South WalesNoun 1. NSW - the agency that provides units to conduct unconventional and counter-guerilla warfareNaval Special Warfare , Australia