The archaeobotanical record

Identification of plant remains from archaeological contexts has a long and venerable tradition, extending well back into the middle of the nineteenth century. However, specializations with a strong archaeological flavor are more recent developments. Perhaps a third of the archaeobotanists working in North America today had their basic training in anthropology programs (Burgess, 1980), and some of the most effective comparative botanical collections have been developed in the anthropology departments of several museums and universities. This trend can be explained by two principal concerns: (a) that paleobotanical materials, which can be identified only with the aid of extensive reference collections, derive increasingly from archaeological sediments and (b) that archaeobotanical residues require professional interpretation as a central aspect rather than a peripheral aspect of an archaeological research program. Whereas paleobotanical methods and results are concentrated in a half dozen or so major specialized journals, this is not true for archaeobotanical work, which is dispersed in a number of other media.

These archaeological, as opposed to botanical, developments have favored diversification of related research techniques, transcending the traditional concern with analysis of pollen grains. There now is much greater emphasis on macroscopic plant remains such as seeds, fruits, twigs, and leaves, that are commonly found in a carbonized state in archaeological strata. Another area that has profited from this upswing in archaeobotanical interests is the study of the microscopic silica structures of plants, known as plant opals or phytoliths.