The Hidden Midden: Geoarchaeological investigation of sedimentation processes, waste disposal practices, and resource management at the La Tène settlement of Basel‐Gasfabrik (Switzerland)

Abstract

To interpret artifact assemblages, it is necessary to understand the processes that have formed and influenced them: layer formation processes, cultural practices, and the way resources were used. In this study, we present our results of micromorphologically analyzed pits, ditches, house floors, and occupation layers found within the younger Iron Age settlement of Basel‐Gasfabrik. We defined 11 microfacies types and put them into a spatial and stratigraphic context. In addition, we quantify waste categories according to the archaeological features and microfacies types. Our results suggest that some ditches played a role in the spatial organization of the settlement, others were used as water canals. Several pits show a secondary use as roofed construction in the context of handicrafts. In addition, mapping the microfacies types reveals a differentiated use of space. Finally, differences between waste categories are visible. Dung was used as fuel and probably as fertilizer, whereas animal bone fragments and ceramic sherds have been stored on rubbish dumps, where they were available as raw material. These new insights into the use of pits, ditches, and settlement areas as well as the handling of resources provide an important basis for understanding everyday life in the settlement of Basel‐Gasfabrik.

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Interdisciplinary examination of taphonomic aspects of ceramic sherds, animal bones and sediments from the La Tène period settlement at Basel-Gasfabrik

“…Nevertheless, reconstructing house plans proved very difficult, although micromorphological investigations did identify rammed earth floors. The analyses revealed that no (micro-) remains (de facto refuse) could be detected directly above these house floors [30]. It is therefore assumed that the floors were kept clean or covered.…”

“…The infilling processes were reconstructed by geoarchaeological means and initial taphonomic investigations of ceramic sherds and animal bones were carried out. This resulted in the hypothesis that objects deposited in pits are generally better preserved than those found elsewhere within the settlement [30].…”

“…These objects, however, were most probably parts of secondary fills and therefore cannot be directly linked with the primary function of the pits. Geoarchaeological investigations have also shown that some pits had a secondary use as covered workshops (probably in the context of craftworking) [30]. Another category of features that is frequently found are ditches, which came to light in many areas of the settlement.…”

“…One important purpose, however, may have been to drain off surface water. Some ditches may also have served to divide the settlement into different areas [30]. Other features included a small number of wells and numerous post pits.…”

“…Remains of (stratified) archaeological layers only survived in natural depressions in the ground. The well-preserved archaeological layers in the area investigated were divided into four archaeological horizons (aH1-aH4) that differed from each other in their composition and layer formation processes [30]. All these features contained more than 700,000 artefacts and 1.6 million animal bones; several hundred geoarchaeological samples were also taken.…”