Flotation samples and some paleoethnobotanical implications

Going underground: experimental carbonization of fruiting structures under hearths

“…One route of entry of seeds to archaeological sites is the deliberate use of plants (Hillman, 1981;Hillman et al, 1997) or animal dung (Miller, 1996) as fuel either for heat, cooking or to destroy unwanted or diseased plants (Ferrio et al, 2004;Van der Veen, 2007;Wright, 2003Wright, , 2005. Seeds can also become carbonized through accidental burning during food preparation (Gustafsson, 2000;Van der Veen, 2007) or storage (Ferrio et al, 2004;Wright, 2003Wright, , 2005, but it is widely accepted that the use of plant remains for fuel is the foremost source of carbonized assemblages in agricultural contexts (Hillman, 1981;Van der Veen, 2007).…”

A comparison of the influences of flotation and wet sieving on certain carbonized legume and cereal remains

“…But the species that were analyzed in this paper, are certainly some of the most common species found in samples, so we believe that this analysis will give some important answers to archaeobotanists, when the need to make a decision about the right water recovery method for their sample or want to discuss the ratio of different carbonized fi ndings previously water recovered. Wright (2005) concluded that the results of archaeobotanical analysis depend on fl otation sample size, how the sample is measured and processed and how well the plant material within the sample withstands the rigors of fl otation. Some other previous studies have also shown that wet sieving affects plant residues of different species differently, so Hosch and Zibulski (2003) demonstrated in their paper that the number of fragile remains (e. g. cereal chaff remains and Malus sylvestris Mill.…”

What is a litre of sediment? Testing volume measurement techniques for wet sediment and their implications in archaeobotanical analyses at the Late Neolithic lake-dwelling site of Parkhaus Opéra (Zürich, Switzerland)

“…Several measurement techniques are cited in the reference literature (Pearsall, 1989;Jacomet, Kreuz et al, 1999;Wright, 2005), mainly oriented to the recording of either sediment volume or weight. The difficulties of using one or another method were already pointed out in previous work (Jacomet, 1980).…”

“…The difficulties of using one or another method were already pointed out in previous work (Jacomet, 1980). In general, the measurement of the volume is preferred: Pearsall recommended the use of calibrated buckets to measure the volume of the sediment (Pearsall, 2000: 35); Wright (2005) listed several inconsistencies derived from the recording of the weight, like the fact that results might vary due to differences in moisture content. The presence or absence of stones might be a problem as well.…”

“…One cannot control the empty spaces that are encountered in between the components of the sample: the larger the components, the more possibilities of increasing the error in the measurement (Wright, 2005). But the displacement volume can be problematic too, since it should be measured when the samples have a similar degree of density and humidity for it to be comparable.…”