Paleoethnobotany. A Handbook of Procedures

473 Pages·1989·15.415 MB·English

by  Deborah M. Pearsall (Auth.)

Paleoethnobotany
A Handbook of Procedures
Deborah M. Pearsall
Department of Anthropology
American Archaeology Division
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri
Academic Press, Inc.
Harcourt Brace fovanovich, Publishers
San Diego New York Berkeley Boston London Sydney Toronto
COPYRIGHT © 1989 BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR
ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
San Diego, California 92101
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS LIMITED
24-28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pearsall, Deborah M.
Paleoethnobotany : a handbook of procedures / Deborah M. Pearsall.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographies and index.
ISBN 0-12-548040-7 (alk. paper)
1. Plant remains (Archaeology) 2. Ethnobotany. I. Title.
CC79.5.P5P43 1989
930.1-de 19 88-28814
CIP
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
89 90 91 92 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To Richard Ford, who led me into paleoethnobotany; to
Donald Lathrap, who encouraged me in the search for
my own niche in archaeology; and to my husband,
Mike, for his loving support
Preface
Being something of an anthropologist and something of a botanist, one is
looked upon as not quite either. One goes through life feeling mis
cellaneous. Confucius say: "When man desire catch particular mouse,
he not seek cat with two heads/' Volney Jones, 1957
In this book I describe the approaches and techniques of paleoethnobotany, the
study of the interrelationships between human populations and the plant world
through the archaeological record. Paleoethnobotanists are truly grounded in two
worlds. If trained as anthropologists, we must struggle to learn techniques for iden­
tifying archaeological plant remains and to understand the ecology of human-plant
interactions. If trained as botanists, we must endeavor to view the plant world from
a cultural perspective and to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the archae­
ological record. Although this need to master two disciplines may be considered a
weakness by some (Jones's lament rings true today), in truth the diversity of training
and experience of its practitioners is at the heart of the exciting contributions made
by paleoethnobotany to archaeology and botany. One goal of this book is to make
the approaches and techniques of this field more accessible to the general an­
thropological and botanical audience. A greater understanding of the field, its con­
tributions, and its potential, should result.
Another goal is to provide an overview of paleoethnobotany for those wishing
to learn some or all of its approaches. Whether one's interest is in the study of
macroremains, pollen, or phytoliths, it is important to begin with a basic under­
standing of each data base. Each complements and strengthens the others.
Finally, archaeologists will find here a handbook of field sampling and flotation
ix
x · Preface
techniques as well as an introduction to methods of analysis in paleoethnobotany
that will guide critical evaluation of research in this field.
I begin in Chapter i with a brief overview of the field of paleoethnobotany and
the history of its development. Chapters 2 and 3 are dedicated to recovery and
analysis of macroremains—the charred, waterlogged, and dried botanical remains
recovered from sites by flotation or sieving. In Chapter 4, I turn to an overview of
archaeological palynology. This chapter presents the basic techniques of analyzing
pollen from archaeological sites and offers guidelines for understanding the work of
stratigraphie palynology. Chapter 5 presents the newest area of paleoethnobotany,
phytolith analysis—the recovery and identification of plant silica bodies. Whereas
in the early 1970s we could only discuss the "potential" of this technique, today
phytolith analysis is a proven contributor to archaeology and paleoecology. In the
final chapter, I discuss how the results of analyzing diverse types of botanical data
can be integrated to address questions of interest in archaeology.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to the development of
this book. Laboratory facilities for my macroremain and phytolith research are
provided by the American Archaeology Division of the Department of An­
thropology, University of Missouri-Columbia. I thank our director, Michael J.
O'Brien, and office staff, Peggy Loy and Judy Atteberry, for their support and as­
sistance. I also thank all the archaeologists who entrusted botanical remains to me
;
their research contributed greatly to this book.
Elizabeth Dinan provided invaluable help in coordinating production of figures
for the manuscript. She organized photo sessions of laboratory activities, selected
photos and designed layouts, and mocked up figures for the artists, contributing in
some way to the development of every figure. In addition, she created Figures 2.34,
2.35, 2.36, and Table 2.2, worked with Dolores Piperno to produce the original
drawing for Figure 5.16, and adapted Table 2.1. She and fellow laboratory assistant
Renee Roberts also took the phytolith photographs that appear in Chapter 5.
Janet Miller photographed the scenes that appear in Figures 2.11, 2.14, 2.17,
2.18, 2.19, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.28, 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, and 5.21. In
addition, Janet developed and printed all black-and-white photographs and re­
produced Figures 4.9 and 4.10.
Lisa Harrison created the original art in Figures 2.3, 2.15, 2.16, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20,
3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, 3.29, 3.32, 3.39, and 5.14. Her illustrations greatly en­
hance the text. Lisa also reproduced Figures 2.5, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.31, 2.33, 3.10,
3.16, 3.21, 3.22, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.6, 5.9, 5.10, 5.16, and 5.28.
Tom Holland drew Figure 3.17 and the Achras berry in Figure 3.20. Brian Deevy
took the photos in Figure 3.33. Eric Voigt drew the graph in Figure 3.42 and re-
Acknowledgments · xi
produced Figures 3.45, 5.34, 5-35, 536, 5.37, and 5.38. Renee Roberts created Figure
5.24. Andrea Hunter put together Table 5.12.
I thank paleoethnobotany lab assistants Marcelle Umlauf, Andrea Hunter, Eric
Hollinger, and Elizabeth Dinan for "reenacting" various laboratory activities and
some manual flotation sequences depicted in the text. I also thank Andrea Hunter
for her assistance in compiling and entering references.
Finally, special thanks are due to Naomi Miller, Christine Hastorf, Glenna
Dean, Vaughn Bryant, Jr., and Dolores Piperno, who read chapters of the book and
offered many useful suggestions and clarifications, and to Richard Ford, who re­
viewed and commented on the entire manuscript. Many improvements on the
original text are due to the efforts of these colleagues and to those of the staff of
Academic Press. I also thank all the other friends and colleagues who have shared
procedures and ideas with me over the years. I alone bear responsibility for errors or
omissions.
The following tables and figures are included in the text with permission of the
authors and publishers:
Table 2.1, from Thomas 1969, Society for American Archaeology
Table 3.3, from Asch and Asch 1985, University of Michigan, Museum of
Anthropology
Table 3.4, from Pearsall 1980, Academic Press
Table 3.5, from Johannessen 1984, University of Illinois press
Tables 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, from Flannery 1986, Academic Press
Table 3.12, from Pozorski 1983, Society of Ethnobiology
Table 3.13, from Pearsall 1988a, University of Calgary, Archaeological Association
Table 3.14, from Pearsall 1988b, University of Chicago Press
Table 4.1, from Schoenwetter 1974, Academic Press
Table 5.1, from Pearsall 1978, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Table 5.2, from Pearsall 1982, American Anthropological Association
Table 5.4, from Pearsall and Trimble 1984, Academic Press
Tables 5.5, 5.6, from Smith and Atkinson 1975, Paul Elek
Table 5.10, from Pearsall 1985a, US Army Corps of Engineers
Table 5.11, from Piperno 1985c, Academic Press
Table 5.12, from Dinan 1988, with permission of the author
Table 5.13, from Piperno 1984, Society for American Archaeology
Figure 2.5, from French 1971, The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
Figure 2.6, from Diamant 1979, Boston University Scholarly Publications, and the
Franchthi Cave Archives, courtesy of T. Jacobsen
Figure 2.7, from Davis and Wesolowsky 1975, reproduced with permission of the
Journal of Field Archaeology and the Trustees of Boston University
Figure 2.20, from Watson 1976, Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, with per­
mission of the Kent State University Press
xii · Acknowledgments
Figure 2.21, from Williams 1973, Antiquity, Girton College, England
Figure 2.26, from Gumerman and Umemoto 1987, Society for American
Archaeology
Figure 2.27, from Crawford 1983, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology
Figure 2.30, from Ramenofsky et al. 1986, Society for American Archaeology
Figure 2.31, from Kenward et al. 1980, Science and Archaeology, RCCA—North
Straffordshire Polytechnic
Figures 3.2, 3.3, from Bohrer and Adams, 1977, Eastern New Mexico University
Figures 3.30, 3.31, 3.37, 3.38, from Esau 1977, John Wiley and Sons
Figure 3.36, from Catling and Grayson 1982, Chapman and Hall
Figures 3.44, 3.47, from Johannessen 1984, University of Illinois Press
Figures 3.41, 3.48, 3.49, from Pearsall 1988b, University of Chicago Press
Figures 3.43, 3.46, from Pearsall 1983b, Society of Ethnobiology
Figure 3.45, from MacNeish 1967, University of Texas Press and the Robert S.
Peabody Foundation
Figure 3.50, from Hillman 1984, A. A. Balkema
Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, from Kapp 1969, by permission of the author
Figure 4.4, from Faegri and Iversen 1975, Munksgaard
Figures 4.6, 4.8, from Dimbleby 1985, Academic Press
Figure 4.7, from Hansen et al. 1984, Geological Society of America
Figures 4.9, 4.10, from Schoenwetter and Smith 1986, Academic Press
Figure 4.11, from Birks and Gordon 1985, Academic Press
Figure 5.6, from Twiss et al. 1969, Soil Science Society of America
Figure 5.7, from Lewis 1981, Society of Ethnobiology
Figures 5.9, 5.10, from Brown 1984, Academic Press
Figures 5.17, 5.33, from Pearsall and Trimble 1984, Academic Press
Figure 5.23, from Pearsall and Trimble 1983, Bernice P. Bishop Museum
Figures 5.27, 5.30, from Terry and Chilingar 1955, Society of Economic Paleon­
tologists and Minerologists
Figure 5.31, from Piperno 1988a, Academic Press
Figure 5.34, from Chiswell 1984, with permission of the author
The photographs used in Figures 2.8 and 2.28 are courtesy of G. Crawford.
Figure 2.9a was provided by P. Watson. The sketch on which Figure 2.22 is based is
courtesy of G. Hillman. Figure 2.33 was redrawn from lab documents provided by S.
Johannessen. Photographs used in Figure 3.8 are courtesy of M. Cornman. Figure
3.40a is courtesy of B. Cumbie; Figure 3.40b is courtesy of G. Brown. E. Wohlge-
muth kindly gave me permission to discuss results of his unpublished research.
chapter i The Paleoethnobotanical Approach
Introduction
In 1941, Volney H. Jones published a short 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" (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 which characterizes modern
ethnobotany may be traced to the influence of Jones and the Ethnobotanical Labora­
tory of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. Jones was also among
the first to call for an interdisciplinary approach to the field: "Ethnobotanical stud­
ies 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" (1941:220).
Jones's concept of ethnobotany was soon expanded to include ancient man 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 the
field of ethnobotany—specifically, that aspect concerned with elucidating human-
1
2 · Chapter 1 The Paleoethnobotanical Approach
plant relations in the past through study of archaeological plant remains such as
pollen grains, phytoliths, charred wood, seeds, and the like. In Richard Ford's words,
"Paleoethnobotany ... is the analysis and interpretation of the direct interre­
lationships between humans and plants for whatever purpose as manifested in the
archaeological record" (1979:286).
The subject matter of this book, paleoethnobotany, has two distinctive compo­
nents inherent in this definition. First, it is an archaeological approach. Research
materials of paleoethnobotany, archaeological plant remains (also referred to as
archaeobotanical remains), must be recovered from sites and identified. Much of a
paleoethnobotanist's energy and time may be devoted to discussing sampling strat­
egy, floating or sieving soil to recover charred seeds and wood, collecting pollen or
phytolith samples, compiling comparative collections, and processing and identify­
ing 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 archae­
ological 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, paleoethnobotany uses an ecological approach. 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
the impact of humans on vegetation. Problems addressed using paleoethnobotanical
data depend, not only on the nature and quality of remains, but on overall objectives
of research. This point brings us back to the importance of interaction between
botanical specialist 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 be­
tween anthropologists and plant scientists, so recently has the importance of cooper­
ation and communication among all specialists who study 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 orga­
nisms and human culture, whether prehistoric, historic, or contemporary" (1986:111).
The first conference of the Society of Ethnobiology in 1978 and the subsequent
Historical Overview · 3
appearance of its journal, 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, 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,
impossible to have expertise in all areas of study of mankind's interaction with the
living world.
In spite of this diversity, however, there are similarities in method and ap­
proach and common problems which unify the field of ethnobiology. Chief among
these are the shared ecological approach, and in the case of prehistoric applications,
limitations imposed by the nature of the archaeological record. For example, many
sampling, identification, and quantification problems that I discuss for botanical
macroremain analysis apply also to analysis of faunal materials. By staying in com­
munication 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" (1978:11).
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 of paleoethnobotany (e.g., Bohrer 1986; Ford 1979, 1981,
1985a, 1985b; Helbaek 1970; M. Jones 1985; V. Jones 1957; Nabhan 1986; Renfrew
1973; Towle 1961; Yarnell 1970). The following overview relies on several of these
sources.
The history of development of paleoethnobotany is actually the history of two
paleoethnobotanical traditions, one European, one American. Today these two may
be distinguished by the focus of many Old World ethnobotanists on precise botani­
cal description and taxonomic treatment of remains, especially of cultivated mate­
rials, and by the emphasis of many Americanists, especially those with anthropolog­
ical training, on cultural aspects such as use or presence of plants at a site.
The European paleoethnobotanical tradition is the older. Interest in analysis of
archaeological plant remains was sparked by Kunth's (1826) study of desiccated