| 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 .