MMI partial extraction geochemistry for the resolution of anthropogenic activities across the archaeological Roman town of Calleva Atrebatum

Abstract

Sixty three soils samples, fourteen samples of previously excavated archaeological material, and five background soil samples taken at the Silchester Roman Town of Calleva Atrebatum in the County of Hampshire, United Kingdom were analysed by the Mobile Metal Ion (MMI) method for a total of fifty three elements. Samples from within the town walls showed considerably higher concentrations than samples outside for many elements; Au, Ag, Cu and Sn were in extremely anomalous concentrations, Bi, Cd, Hg, Mo, P and Pb were anomalous and Sb and Zn in elevated concentrations. The overall pattern of element distribution is one of an annulus of higher elemental concentrations surrounding a centre of generally lower values centred on the previously excavated Forum basilica. The elements Zr,

Geoarchaeological investigations in Artanish Peninsula, Armenia: Testing a new geochemical prospecting method for archaeology

“…In this regard, the successful experience of adapting geochemical prosepcting methods of buried ('blind') ore bodies and deposits (better known as Mobile Metal Ion geochemistry [MMI]) for archaeological sites may become a reliable tool for selecting the direction of archaeological priority activities and the sites will be subjected to excavation (cf. Sylvester et al, 2017).…”

“…Geochemical-archaeological research started as early as the first decades of the 20th century (e.g., Arrhenius, 1931;1934;Rimmington, 2000). Recently, more targeted and methodical works have been carried out in this direction in some countries (Bethell & Smith, 1989;Booth et al, 2017;Cook et al, 2005;Pringle et al, 2022;Stijn Oonk et al, 2012;Sylvester et al, 2017), and in this context, the research conducted on the Artanish Peninsula seems to open new perspectives (Figure 1). This is especially true in the sense that so far the parameters of geochemical anomalies formed around and above (in the soil of) archaeological sites have only been used to determine the general geochemical description of archaeological sites.…”

“…Geochemical‐archaeological research started as early as the first decades of the 20th century (e.g., Arrhenius, 1931; 1934; Rimmington, 2000). Recently, more targeted and methodical works have been carried out in this direction in some countries (Bethell & Smith, 1989; Booth et al, 2017; Cook et al, 2005; Pringle et al, 2022; Stijn Oonk et al, 2012; Sylvester et al, 2017), and in this context, the research conducted on the Artanish Peninsula seems to open new perspectives (Figure 1).…”

An improved method for assessing the degree of geochemical similarity (DOGS2) between samples from multi-element geochemical datasets

“…mapping, digital soil mapping, resource evaluation, geochemical exploration, and forensic geochemistry (e.g. McBratney et al 2003;Welte & von Eynatten 2004;Keegan et al 2008;Feng et al 2011;Bowen & Caven 2013;Frei & Frei 2013;Reid et al 2013;Zhang et al 2014b;Mann et al 2015Mann et al , 2016Blake et al 2016;Sylvester et al 2017). Mann et al (2016) used the multi-element Mobile Metal Ion® (MMI - Mann et al 1998;Mann 2010) dataset from the National Geochemical Survey of Australia (Caritat & Cooper 2011a) to develop the concept of degree of geochemical similarity (DOGS).…”