Paleoethnobotany

A Handbook of Procedures

Deborah M Pearsall

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315423074
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This new edition of the definitive work on doing paleoethnobotany brings the book up to date by incorporating new methods and examples of research, while preserving the overall organization and approach of the book to facilitate its use as a textbook. In addition to updates on the comprehensive discussions of macroremains, pollen, and phytoliths, this edition includes a chapter on starch analysis, the newest tool in the paleoethnobotanist's research kit. Other highlights include updated case studies; expanded discussions of deposition and preservation of archaeobotanical remains; updated historical overviews; new and updated techniques and approaches, including insights from experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies; and a current listing of electronic resources. Extensively illustrated, this will be the standard work on paleoethnobotany for a generation.

Chapter One
The Paleoethnobotanical Approach

Introduction

In 1941, Volney H. Jones published an article, “The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany,” in which he formalized a field of inquiry into mankind’s knowledge and use of plants: ethnobotany, “the study of the interrelations of primitive man and plants” (Jones 1941:220). Although the term ethnobotany was first used by J. W. Harshberger in 1895 to refer to use of plants by aborigines, the focus on ecological interactions of human populations and the plant world that characterizes modern ethnobotany may be traced to the influence of Jones and the Ethnobotanical Laboratory of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. Jones was also among the first to call for an interdisciplinary approach to the field: “Ethnobotanical studies can be most successfully made when ethnobotanical problems are paramount in the investigation and when the worker or workers are familiar with the techniques, methods and approach of both anthropology and the plant sciences” (Jones 1941:220).

Jones’s concept of ethnobotany was soon expanded to include ancient populations and contemporary cultures at whatever level of complexity. Margaret Towle’s definition is typical: “This all-pervading association [between humans and plants] has come to be known as ethnobotany, a term applied to the study of the relationship between man and the plant world, without limits to time or to the degree of his cultural development” (Towle 1961:1).

Paleoethnobotany (the term was introduced by Helbaek in 1959) is part of ethnobotany, specifically, that aspect concerned with elucidating human-plant relations in the past through study of archaeological plant remains (also referred to as archaeobotanical remains). In Richard Ford’s words, “Paleoethnobotany . . . is the analysis and interpretation of the direct interrelationships between humans and plants for whatever purpose as manifested in the archaeological record” (Ford 1979:286).

The subject matter of this book, paleoethnobotany, has two distinct components inherent in this definition. First, while historical documents may provide insights into plant-people interactions, paleoethnobotany is essentially an archaeological approach. The primary research materials of paleoethnobotany, archaeological plant remains, must be recovered from sites and identified. Human interactions with the plant world—for example, cultivation and consumption of a domesticated plant like maize—result in the deposition and preservation of four primary kinds of plant remains (Fig. 1.1). Macroremains, represented in Fig. 1.1 by a corn kernel and cob fragment, are larger plant tissues that are visible to the naked eye. Often, plant tissues preserve by becoming charred, for instance, in a cooking accident. Food preparation may also result in the deposition of starch on grinding stones and in cooking pots, where it may be preserved in crevices or food crusts. Decay or burning of plant tissues such as leaves, stems, and fruits—like the cob shown in Fig. 1.1—release phytoliths (plant opal silica bodies) into site sediments. Certain kinds of cooking techniques may also result in phytolith deposition in vessels or ovens. In the process of creating gardens, people cut down and weed out some plants, and cultivate and encourage others. This changes the mixture of pollen that is deposited over the landscape. Pollen deposited and preserved in lake sediments records the history of human-plant interrelationships on local and regional scales. Pollen may also be ingested—for example, in a tea made from flowers—and preserved in human fecal remains (coprolites) with other plant and animal tissues. It is not uncommon for plants to be represented in the archaeological record in multiple ways.

Much of a paleoethnobotanist’s energy and time may be devoted to discussing sampling strategy, floating or sieving soil to recover charred seeds and wood, collecting pollen or phytolith samples, recovering starch residues from tools, compiling comparative collections, and processing and identifying materials in the lab. If the paleoethnobotanist is not trained as an archaeologist, then he or she must learn to think like one, or at least to communicate with archaeological field personnel and project directors.

The nature of these archaeological research materials also demands expertise in botany. Much as an archaeological ceramic specialist or lithic specialist must learn about parent materials, manufacturing technology, and the like, so the archaeological botanical specialist must learn plant taxonomy, anatomy, and laboratory skills necessary to recover and identify plant remains. Even paleoethnobotanists whose primary training is in botany must adapt their skills to deal with fragmentary materials and the incomplete archaeological record.

Second, the “wellspring” of paleoethnobotany, to use Watson’s (1997) phrase, is its ecological approach. As discussed in Chapter 3, the social and cultural contexts of botanical data are increasingly also of concern to paleoethnobotanists. For discussions of changing theoretical paradigms in paleoethnobotany, see Gremillion’s (1997a) review of the interplay of cultural ecology, systems theory, and evolutionary ecology (optimal foraging theory) in the field; Watson’s (1997) and Hastorf ’s (1991, 1999) comments on the role of processualist and postprocessualist approaches to understanding human-plant interrelationships; and Rossen (2008) on the possibilities of a new theoretical archaeobotany. Once fieldwork and identifications are done, data are interpreted to elucidate the nature of human-plant relationships. These relationships may take many forms: how plants are used as fuels, foods, medicines, or in ritual; how seasonality of plant availability affects settlement systems; the extent and nature of human-plant interdependency; and human landscape management. Problems addressed using paleoethnobotanical data depend not only on the nature and quality of remains, but on the overall objectives of research. This point brings us back to the importance of interaction between paleoethnobotanist and archaeologist: data, including plant remains, are only as good as the archaeology; interpretations are constrained by sampling strategy.

Much as Jones recognized the importance for ethnobotany of cooperation between anthropologists and plant scientists, so has the importance of cooperation and communication among all researchers who study the relationships between humans and living organisms been recognized with formalization of the field of ethnobiology. Weber defines ethnobiology as “work that draws on both biology and anthropology to make statements about the interrelationship between living organisms and human culture, whether prehistoric, historic, or contemporary” (Weber 1986:iii). The first conference of the Society of Ethnobiology in 1978 and the subsequent appearance of its Journal of Ethnobiology mark recognition of the diversity of approaches to the study of human relations with the biotic environment. Diversity of approach has led inevitably to specialization; in the area of prehistoric approaches alone, there are pollen analysts, phytolith analysts, starch analysts, specialists in analysis of botanical macroremains (seeds, wood), vertebrate faunal analysts, invertebrate specialists, and so on. It is difficult to master more than one area in the plant or animal kingdom and impossible to have expertise in all areas of study of people’s interaction with the living world.

In spite of this diversity, however, there are similarities in method and approach and common problems that unify the field of ethnobiology. Chief among these are shared approaches and, in the case of prehistoric applications, the constraints imposed by the nature of the archaeological record. For example, as discussed in Chapter 7, many sampling, identification, and quantification problems of botanical macroremains apply also to faunal materials. By staying in communication with fellow ethnobiologists and noting methodological developments in related fields, we can help lessen the isolation that led Dimbleby to write in the introduction to Plants and Archaeology, “In principle, I am opposed to the writing of this book. Being trained as an ecologist makes me constantly aware that an artificial distinction is being made by dealing only with man’s relationships with plants and omitting the animal kingdom, geology, soils and other components of the environment” (Dimbleby 1978b:ll). In the remainder of this chapter, I first look briefly at the field of ethnobotany from a historical perspective, then summarize current thinking on the nature and status of the field.

Historical Overview

There are a number of journal articles, reviews, and book chapters that include reviews of the development and status of paleoethnobotany (e.g., Bohrer 1986; Bryant 1993; Bryant and Dering 1995; Bryant and Hall 1993; Buurman and Pals 1994; Denham et al. 2009; Ford 1979, 1981, 1985a, 1985b; Fullagar 2006; Gremillion 1993c, 1997; Hart 2008; Hastorf 1999; Helbaek 1970; M. Jones 1985; V. Jones 1957; Mahesh-wari 1983; N. Miller 1991, 1997a; Mulholland and Rapp 1992; Nabhan 1986; Piperno and Pearsall 1993a; Powers 1992; Renfrew 1973; Rossen 2008; Towle 1961; Torrence 2006; van Zeist et al. 1991a; Ugent 2006; Warnock 1998; Watson 1997; Weiss and Kislev 2007; Yarnell 1970). The following overview relies on many of these sources. Recent research directions and issues (1990s and after) are discussed only for macroremains here. See Chapter 4 for recent developments in pollen analysis, Chapter 5 for phytoliths, and Chapter 6 for starch grains.

The history of development of paleoethnobotany is actually the history of two paleoethnobotanical traditions, one European and one American. Until recently, these traditions were distinguished by the focus of many Old World ethnobotanists on precise botanical description and taxonomic treatment of remains, especially of cultivated materials, and by the emphasis of many Americanists, especially those with anthropological training, on the cultural implications of plants discovered at sites. These distinctions have become increasingly blurred.

The European paleoethnobotanical tradition is the older. Interest in analysis of archaeological plant remains was sparked by Kunth’s (1826) study of desiccated material from Egyptian tombs and Heer’s (1866) analysis of waterlogged material from lakeside Swiss villages. Among the materials identified by Heer (1878) were a number of varieties of barley, wheat, and millet; numerous common field weeds; vegetables such as peas and lentils; fruits and berries such as apples, pears, plums, grapes, and cherries; nuts, including walnuts and water chestnuts; and a variety of fibers, woods, mosses, and aquatic taxa. Heer used these data to discuss cultural connections, seasonality of site occupation, and the differences between ancient plants and modern types.

Study of macroremains continued in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries in Europe on sites in Switzerland, central Europe, Germany, Italy, Greece, Anatolia, and Egypt, as well as in coastal Peru (see Renfrew 1973:1–6 and Towle 1961:1–13 for more detail on these early studies). It was also during this period that pollen and phytoliths began to be studied systematically. While the application of pollen analysis in archaeology was quickly realized (see Chapter 4 and Bryant and Holloway 1983; Bryant and Hall 1993), early phytolith studies such as Netolitzky (1900, 1914) were largely ignored (see Chapter 5 and Bryant 1993; Piperno and Pearsall 1993a).

Beginning in the 1950s, the geographic scope of paleoethnobotany in Europe expanded to include the Near East. Much work in the 1950s and 1960s was carried out by Helbaek, working on materials excavated by Braidwood in Iraq (Helbaek 1959, 1960a, 1960b) and Hole, Flannery, and Neely in Iran (Helbaek 1969), among other projects. This research and work of other ethnobotanists such as van Zeist (1975; van Zeist and Casparie 1968), Hopf (1969), and the Cambridge economic prehistory group (Higgs 1972) provided the basic botanical evidence for domestication of many food crops of the Near East.

The 1970s through the 1990s saw a dramatic increase in paleoethnobotanical research by Old World scholars, a trend paralleled by expansion of the field in the New World. This “rags-to-riches” (Watson 1997:14) progression from the periphery of archaeology to the center was related in part to development of the flotation technique for recovering macroremains (see Chapter 2); to greater application of pollen analysis in archaeology; and to the “discovery,” first of phytoliths, then of starch, by paleoethnobotanists. These developments were in turn related to increased interest in archaeology in agricultural origins and dispersals and human interaction with the environment. In 1968, the International Work Group for Paleoethnobotany was founded as a forum to bring together European and Mid-Eastern researchers who were working in comparative isolation. Symposia are held every three years; publication of proceedings volumes (e.g., van Zeist and Casparie 1984; van Zeist et al. 1991b) and bibliographies are two important activities of the work group. Proceedings of the 15th conference were published as Volume 20 of Vegetation History and Archaeobotany (2011), a journal established by one of the founders of the work group, Prof. Karl-Ernst Behre (Bittmann 2011).

The first paleoethnobotanical study of New World macroremains was conducted by Saffray (1876), who examined contents of a Peruvian mummy bundle. This was followed in 1879 by a report by Rochebrune on plant specimens from Ancon, Peru, and work by Harms (1922) and Yacovleffand Herrera (1934, 1935), among others. Towle (1961) conducted the first analyses of stratigraphically excavated Peruvian materials (and observed starch grains in root and tuber specimens).

In spite of the early studies of Peruvian materials by European and Latin American scholars, American archaeologists and botanists did not show much interest in archaeological plant remains until after 1930. A very similar situation existed for pollen analysis, and phytoliths were largely only of interest to botanists and soil scientists, and starch to food scientists. Although a few macroremain studies were carried out prior to 1930, such as Young’s (1910) identification of plant material in coprolites (human feces) from Salts Cave, Kentucky, it took Guthe’s (1930) invitation for archaeologists to send botanical material for identification to the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan to spark interest in the field. Identifications at the museum were made by Melvin Gilmore and Volney Jones.

Analyses by Gilmore (1931) and Jones (1936) of desiccated plant remains from rockshelter sites in the United States helped fuel interest in paleoethnobotany in North America. In particular, Jones’s report of plant remains from Newt Kash Hollow, Kentucky, demonstrated the great potential of plant remains for paleoenvironmental and archaeological interpretation. In this study, which set the standard for subsequent ethnobotanical analyses, Jones identified a variety of wild and cultivated plants, including seeds extracted from coprolites. He discussed size differences in chenopod seeds recovered from the site and suggested that larger seeds were the product of cultivation. Differences in size between archaeological and wild modern Iva and Helianthus seeds were also discussed from the viewpoint of their potential cultivation. Jones drew inferences about gathering practices from the nature of may-grass remains and suggested a possible extension of prairie based on the presence of grassland indicators.

Although research of the Michigan lab during the 1930s and 1940s led more archaeologists to save botanical materials, it was publication of Excavations at Star Carr by British archaeologist J. G. D. Clark (1954) that convinced many of the importance of biological remains for archaeological interpretation. With increased interest in American archaeology on reconstructing subsistence and paleoenvironment, greater emphasis was put during the late 1950s and 1960s on recovering and analyzing macroremains and pollen. Phytolith analysis would not be added until the late 1970s; starch grain studies not until the late 1980s. I have already mentioned the work by American archaeologists in the Near East; research by MacNeish and colleagues in Mexico is another example. A number of American botanists became involved with the study of crop plants recovered from New World sites, especially those in the American Southwest and Mexico, where dry conditions gave excellent preservation. Among these were, for corn, Mangelsdorf (1974), Cutler (1952, 1956; Cutler and Blake 1976), and Galinat (Galinat and Gunnerson 1963); for cucurbits, Whitaker and Cutler (1965; Whitaker et al. 1957) and Heiser (1973); for beans, Kaplan (1956, 1963); and, for cotton, Stephens (1970, 1975). Additional references to publications by these and other researchers studying macroremains of crop plants may be found in Chapter 3.

After Struever (1968) described flotation, archaeologists systematically began to look for botanical macroremains from a great diversity of sites, not just those in which dry or waterlogged conditions preserved quantities of material. Where flotation quickly became a routine part of excavation, for example, in the Midwest and Southwest of the United States, established paleoethnobotany labs were almost overwhelmed with data. Even with the founding of new laboratories in university and museum settings and the growth of consulting firms specializing in paleoethnobotany, this situation became acute during the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s as a result of data generated by cultural resource management (CRM) projects. A number of large projects, such as Dolores in Colorado (Bohrer 1986) and FAI-270 in Illinois (Bareis and Porter 1984), employed their own professional paleoethnobotanists. So many important data have come from CRM projects that it is difficult to keep abreast of developments in North American paleoethnobotany. As Nabhan (1986) pointed out in his review of Ford’s (1985c) Prehistoric Food Production in North America, a number of papers in this synthesis of horticultural evolution were outdated by new CRM data even before they were published. A similar situation occurred in England as a result of rescue archaeology.

Since the 1990s, paleoethnobotanical literature has continued to grow exponentially, and it is beyond the scope of this review even to summarize the diverse array of research topics being addressed through the analysis of macroremains. The following sampling was selected to illustrate the breadth of applications:

Advances in identifying cultivated plants (Dahlberg and Wasylikowa 1996, sorghum; Decker and Wilson 1986, cucurbits; Fuller and Harvey 2006, Indian pulses; Hunter 1992, little barley; Kenéz et al. 2013, glume wheat)

Identifying beverages (Bouby et al. 2011, charred spr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• List of Illustrations
• Preface to the Third Edition
• Preface to the Second Edition
• Preface to the First Edition
• Chapter 1. The Paleoethnobotanical Approach
• Chapter 2. Deposition, Preservation, and Recovery of Macroremains
• Chapter 3. Identification and Interpretation of Macroremains
• Chapter 4. Pollen Analysis
• Chapter 5. Phytolith Analysis
• Chapter 6. Starch Analysis
• Chapter 7. Integrating Biological Data
• References
• Index
• About the Author