11

The Study of Non-Wood Plant Macro-remains: Investigating Past Societies and Landscapes

Meriel McClatchie

Abstract

This paper provides an Irish perspective to approaches and techniques in the retrieval, identification and interpretation of non-wood plant macro-remains from archaeological deposits. The range of information that can be gleaned from the study of plant macro-remains preserved through various mechanisms is explored. The benefits of integration with a range of other archaeological and environmental approaches are also considered. Development of the study of plant macro-remains in Ireland is reviewed. A guide towards the selection and processing of samples is presented, and methods relating to the extraction and identification of plant macro-remains are examined. A case study is then presented, demonstrating an approach in the interpretation of plant macro-remains by assessing the significance of material from prehistoric and Early Medieval deposits at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford. The paper concludes by considering future opportunities for the study of plant macro-remains in Ireland.

Why Study Plant Macro-remains? A General Introduction

Archaeobotany is the study of past societies and environments through the analysis of preserved plant remains, the plant remains usually being derived from archaeological deposits. The terms ‘archaeobotany’ and ‘palaeoethnobotany’ are both used to refer to the study of preserved plant material deriving from archaeological deposits. The term ‘palaeobotany’ does not encompass cultural interactions and is therefore unsuitable in an archaeological context, but the term ‘palaeoethnobotany’ is also inappropriate, as it emphasises human-plant interactions, while paying less attention to evidence for past environments. The term ‘archaeobotany’ will therefore be used throughout this paper. Archaeobotany demands expertise in both archaeology and botany. The archaeologist must learn about vegetation systems, plant taxonomy and anatomy, and must also have the relevant skills necessary for the recovery and identification of preserved material. The botanist must learn how to communicate effectively with archaeologists, the ways in which preserved material might be interpreted in an archaeological context, and also how to deal with fragmentary material and the partial record that archaeology will almost always provide.

 

Range of study

A broad range of preserved plant remains is studied in archaeobotany, including seeds and fruits of higher plants, vegetative components of plants, parenchymatous tissues (underground storage organs of plants, such as roots and tubers), fibres, phytoliths, wood, pollen and starch grains, as well as lower plants, such as mosses and fungi. Most archaeobotanical workers focus their analyses on a small range of these various types of remains.

The term ‘plant micro-remains’ refers to material that requires high-power magnification for observation and identification. Phytoliths are an example of micro-remains, ranging in length from 0.005 to 0.25 mm. This paper will focus on non-wood plant macro-remains. The term ‘plant macro-remains’ usually refers to plant structures that can be seen with the naked eye when extracted from archaeological deposits, but these remains are often not discernible during excavation. Plant macro-remains can usually be identified using low-power magnification, in the range of x 6 to x 40. The use of other microscopy techniques, such as scanning electron microscopy, may also be required, for example in the determination of cell patterns. Seed, fruit and nut remains represent the most commonly encountered non-wood plant macro-remains, and delicate chaff from arable crops is also frequently recovered. Cereal bran is part of the periderm of the grass caryopsis and can be preserved in certain conditions (Dickson 1987). Other plant components, such as leaves, bud-scales and thorns can also be preserved, and criteria for the identification of vegetative parenchyma have been determined in recent years (Hather 1993; 2000).

 

Deposition and Preservation of Plant Macro-remains

Plant macro-remains can be deposited by human and animal action, or can be naturally incorporated in deposits, for example through silting and other methods of accumulation. Processes involved in the use, discard and deposition of material may greatly affect the potential for material to survive. Site-formation processes (taphonomic factors that include burial and post-burial processes and events) are also often significant (Gifford 1981; Huntley and Stallibrass 2000). A range of preservation methods–including charring, waterlogging, desiccation and mineralisation–will result in the survival of plant remains, and archaeological deposits can sometimes incorporate remains preserved by a combination of such methods (Boardman 2000; Holden 2000; Smith 2003).

On many occupation sites in Ireland–particularly on well-drained soils–plant macro-remains are most commonly preserved as a result of charring. Charring (also referred to as carbonisation) occurs during a burning event when the supply of oxygen is insufficient for combustion to occur and the plant material is transformed into a chemically-inert carbon. Preservation is less likely when plant material is incorporated into the oxidising conditions of the open flame, resulting in its combustion and reduction to mineral ash, perhaps leaving traces of silica skeletons (Robinson and Straker 1991). Various components of plants can be subject to differential preservation when charred; cereal chaff is, for example, less likely to be preserved than denser, more robust cereal grains (Wilson 1984; Boardman and Jones 1990). Charred plant macro-remains are generally stable–being carbon-rich, they are resistant to chemical and biological breakdown. Remains can, however, be degraded by mechanical damage, such as post-deposition trampling and careless handling during recovery, as well as by a continuous cycle of wetting and drying and/or freezing and thawing of deposits. A range of plants in the original thatch of Medieval and Post-Medieval structures can also be preserved through smoke-blackening (Letts 1999).

Charring can result from a range of activities, which may be either purposeful or incidental. Incidental burning may have occurred when cereals were dried after a damp harvest, prior to storage, during the separation of grains from chaff or in advance of malting (Hillman 1981; 1984a; 1984b; 1985; Jones 1984; Dineley 2004). Incidental charring of plant materials can also result from episodes such as catastrophic fires, for example in the burning of grain stores (Jones et al. 1986) or house and roofing structures. Purposeful burning may result from activities such as military actions, for example in the burning of an enemy’s arable crops (Calendar of State Papers Ireland 1600, 67). Purposeful burning may also result from the burning of stubble in fields and other traditional agricultural techniques such as graddaning (Fenton 1976, 94–5), which is the purposeful burning of cereal ears off their stalks in the field to facilitate less threshing of the crop. Repeated use of grain-storage pits may require occasional burning of the pits for sterilisation, which may result in the charring of material lining the pits. The burning of domestic waste, including floor sweepings and food debris such as nutshells, as fuel or to reduce its mass may also lead to the preservation of remains. Plants that are more likely to come into contact with fire during food processing, preparation and discard activities, such as cereals, pulses, arable weeds and nuts, will therefore often dominate assemblages of charred plant macro-remains. Another potential source for charred seeds is from burnt dung. While the use of dung as fuel has been considered a likely source for semi-arid environments of the Near East (Miller 1984; 1996; 1997; Miller and Smart 1984; Charles 1998), it may be less significant in north-western Europe, due to climatic constraints on drying dung and increased availability of wood fuels (Hillman et al. 1997; Fuller et al. in press).

Another method of preservation–evident especially in Irish urban deposits–occurs when material is incorporated into anoxic conditions, whereby air is excluded from deposits, and plant tissues do not break down and become degraded. Anoxic preservation is also referred to as waterlogging and anaerobic preservation, and this mechanism can occur in areas with a high water table, in deposits of a very organic nature, and occasionally when deposits are well-sealed, for example by a heavy clay (Weir and Conway 1988; Geraghty 1996; Tierney and Hannon 1997; McClatchie 2003). Anoxic preservation is also often encountered in natural deposits from environments such as peatlands, rivers and lakes.

Mineral replacement typically occurs in cess pits and deposits where there is a high concentration of calcium salts, principally phosphates, thus rendering the plant remains resistant to decay (Green 1979; McCobb et al. 2001). Desiccation is a mechanism of preservation rarely seen in Irish material, but commonly encountered in arid regions, and the range and quality of remains preserved can be superior to that encountered with waterlogged preservation (Van der Veen 1998; Smith 2003). As well as actual plant macro-remains, proxy evidence in the form of seed and other plant impressions can be observed in ceramic vessels, clay products and metal slag (Jessen and Helbaek 1944; Willcox and Fornite 1999; Reid and Young 2003). Preserved stomach contents and palaeofaeces (Hillman 1986) can supply direct evidence of foodstuffs consumed, providing information on the composition of meals.

When compared with charred remains, material preserved under waterlogged and desiccated conditions can provide more information about contemporary environments. Wider varieties of plants may be preserved in waterlogged and desiccated deposits, as they do not require exposure to fire. When considering assemblages preserved under waterlogged conditions, one must remember, however, that some categories of plants appear to be very susceptible to degradation and rarely preserve, while others are extremely durable. More durable material may therefore be recovered in relatively larger quantities from deposits, such as certain fruit seeds, perhaps resulting in biased interpretations relating to their significance in the diet.

 

Interpretation of Data

Recovery, identification and interpretation of plant macro-remains will provide information on past activities and environments (Fig. 11.1). The combination of diverse datasets of environmental remains and multi-proxy investigations will produce enhanced interpretations, when compared with any single approach. Where a range of remains is preserved, plant macro-remains data can be integrated with pollen, beetle and wood remains data to explore vegetation at various spatial scales (Weir and Conway 1988; Kenward and Hall 1995; Mason and Hather 2002).

Figure 11.1: The interpretation of plant macro-remains’ data can provide a range of information on past societies and environments. A selection of references is provided for examples of studies, with a focus on those relating to Ireland: (1) Van der Veen 1992; (2) Kenward and Hall 1995; (3) Mitchell 1979; Connolly 1994; Lewis 2002; (4) Hather 1993; 2000; Van der Veen 1999; (5) Dennell 1976; Charles et al. 1998; (6) Zohary and Hopf 2000; (7) Hurcombe 2000; (8) Hall et al. 1984; (9) Hillman 1981, 1984a; Jones 1985; Van der Veen 1992; Smith 2001; Stevens 2003; (10) Zvelebil 1994; (11) Morrison 1994; Leach 1999; Stone 2001; (12) Dickson 1994; (13) Smith et al. 2001; (14) Dickson 1996; (15) Greig 1996; (16) Hillman 1982; Dineley 2004; (17) MacLean 1993; Dark 2004; (18) Monk 2000; (19) Fairbairn 2000; (20) Behre and Jacomet 1991.

Stable-isotope analysis of human and animal bone collagen, particularly nitrogen isotopes, can provide information on the diets of mammals from which they were taken (for example, Schulting and Richards 2000). Molecular residue analysis of charred cooking residues can also indicate foodstuffs consumed (Copley et al. 2003), as can analyses of skeletal indicators relating to diet and health (Power 1993). The integration of documentary and ethnographic sources has been utilised to explore issues such as production methods, yields and social issues relating to the consumption of plants (Green 1984; Hillman 1984a; Jones 1984). Data from zooarchaeological records can also be useful when investigating arable farming systems, perhaps demonstrating interdependence between arable agricultural systems and animal husbandry (Charles et al. 1998). Most importantly, plant macro-remains analyses must be integrated with other elements of archaeological investigations, from artefact studies to theoretical narratives (Fredengren et al. 2004).

A History of Plant Macro-Remains Research

Early Studies

Renfrew (1973) has provided a general review of early plant macro-remains analyses, while Pearsall (2000) offers a more wide-ranging review of studies beyond Europe and the Near East. The comprehensive study of archaeological non-wood plant macro-remains commenced during the nineteenth century with the analysis of material such as the desiccated remains recovered from Egyptian tombs (Kunth 1826) and the waterlogged remains from Swiss Neolithic lakeside villages (Heer 1866). Analyses began in the Near East from around the middle of the twentieth century, with studies often focussing upon the evolution and domestication of crop plants (Helbaek 1966; 1969). Early plant macro-remains studies were often carried out by botanists without the implementation of systematic sampling strategies–archaeobotany tended to be a secondary study rather than one of the primary research aims of projects at this time.

 

‘New Archaeology’ and Innovative Approaches

Plant macro-remains studies entered a new phase with the arrival of processual archaeology in the 1960s, heralding a period when archaeological investigations increasingly made use of ecological approaches, and specialist analyses of environmental remains became progressively more widespread. Archaeological studies became more rigorously descriptive, and cultural behaviour came to be viewed as adaptive, hence the focus on economic systems and resource exploitation. There has been a significant increase in the quantity of work being carried out worldwide since this period, coinciding with the introduction of innovative processing and identification techniques, such as the use of flotation in the processing of soil samples (Struever 1968; Van Zeist and Casparie 1984).

In recent years, plant macro-remains studies have become more self-critical, with increased debate and discussion relating to issues such as taphonomy (Huntley and Stallibrass 2000). Ethnographic studies have been carried out to investigate issues relating to crop-processing techniques (Hillman 1973; 1981; 1984a; Jones 1984), while experimental archaeology has been utilised in the exploration of farming systems (Reynolds 1979; Robinson 1990). More recent approaches have established the use of Functional Interpretation of Botanical Surveys (FIBS), which is the application of functional attributes of weeds in order to distinguish between various agricultural regimes (Jones et al. 2000).

 

Post-processual Archaeology and Environmental Studies

The advent of post-processual and more recent theoretical approaches in archaeology has prompted a shift towards the investigation of subjective behaviour in studies of material culture. Processual studies were considered by some to be overly-deterministic, with too much emphasis being placed upon societies being adaptive and responsive to environmental change. Environmental archaeology, together with its perceived ecological approaches, was unfortunately viewed as being too closely associated with processual archaeology, resulting to some extent in its marginalisation (Shanks and Tilley 1992, 34–6; Albarella 2001).

The remains of plants such as cultivated crops are, however, cultural products (Thomas 2001, 56) and plant remains data have much to contribute in the construction of post-processual narratives. This has been cogently demonstrated with regard to the variety of ways in which plants relate to social practice (Hastorf 1993; 1996; 1998; Hastorf and Johannessen 1996; Skoglund 1999; Fairbairn 2000; Albarella 2001; Evans 2003; Fredengren et al. 2004). Studies relating to wild plants can also be used in the exploration of people’s engagement with landscapes, and in how people perceived and culturally modified landscapes in which they existed (Tilley 1994; 1996; Evans 2003). While an approach that is overly-environmentally deterministic is obviously inappropriate, it must, however, be considered that some environmental events may have been hugely influential in human activities (O’Connell 1990; Baillie 1998).

 

A History of the Study of Plant Macro-remains in Ireland

As in other parts of the world, the earliest studies of plant macro-remains in Ireland were carried out by botanists and scholars investigating the Quaternary period (Mitchell 1946). The recovery of preserved plant material from archaeological deposits was occasionally mentioned in appendices to excavation reports (O’Connor 1941), but the material was often unquantified and presented without contextual information or interpretation. One of the first major studies to be carried out on Irish material was by Jessen and Helbaek (1944), when they undertook a comprehensive survey of prehistoric plant husbandry in Britain and Ireland, concentrating on the earliest occurrences of various cereals. Frank Mitchell also carried out a number of early studies, beginning in the 1930s. Mitchell’s main focus was on Quaternary issues and vegetation history sequences, but he also had a keen interest in archaeobotany, producing a volume on plant macro-remains recovered from Medieval excavations in Dublin (Mitchell 1987).

Approaches to plant macro-remains research in Ireland have regularly been influenced by activities in neighbouring Britain. British workers such as Greig (1991) have produced studies that include Irish macro-remains data, but such studies are usually primarily focussed on British material, with few comparisons drawn with Irish and European assemblages. Mick Monk, a British worker specialising in the analysis of plant macro-remains, came to Ireland during the late 1970s, introducing more systematic methods for the sampling and recovery of archaeobotanical material in Ireland. Monk has authored a significant number of reports on plant macro-remains from Irish sites dating to a variety of periods, and has fostered the training of archaeobotanists with an archaeological background. An important study of Monk’s consists of a general review of material recovered from Irish archaeological sites (Monk 1986), while a number of his articles promote more sophisticated approaches to the interpretation of archaeobotanical data, particularly in relation to cultural issues (Monk 2000).

 

Current Issues

Well-funded, interdisciplinary projects combining archaeological excavations with a range of environmental analyses including non-wood plant macro-remains have, unfortunately, only occasionally been carried out in Ireland (for example in Discovery Programme projects). The small number of archaeobotanists specialising in the analysis of plant macro-remains in Ireland has resulted in a situation where interpretations suggested by individual workers often fail to be critically discussed within the Irish community.

Many Irish publications consist of reports on individual site assemblages. Such analyses are rarely fully integrated with archaeological evidence when overall excavation reports are being produced, as archaeobotany is often perceived as dealing with interactions between plants and various ecological factors rather than interactions between people, plants and environments. As a result, archaeobotanical data are not interpreted in a way that is meaningful to archaeology and the study of past social systems. Archaeobotany has great potential to be part of a larger study of cultural histories, and a small number of more wide-ranging Irish studies have illustrated this point (for example, Geraghty 1996; Tierney and Hannon 1997; McClatchie 2003; Fredengren et al. 2004). The utilisation of documentary sources and ethnographic data has also proved to be helpful in exploring the roles of various plants (Lucas 1960; Kelly 1997; Feehan 2003). Research areas have, however, been dominated by individual interests rather than any integrated and communally-constructed research strategies. This lack of cohesion in research, combined with the small number of studies being published, may go towards explaining why international audiences are often not well-informed about recent and current work in Irish archaeobotany.

 

Dissemination of Information

There exist a variety of organisations that provide regular opportunities for discussion and publication of plant macro-remains analyses. The International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany was established in 1969 in order to provide a forum for archaeobotanical research, with proceedings of these meetings being published in Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. The British-based Association for Environmental Archaeology holds regular meetings, the proceedings often being published, and also produces a journal, formerly Circaea, and more recently Environmental Archaeology. The Journal of Archaeological Science and organisations including the Quaternary Research Association provide further opportunities for discussion and publication. In Ireland, the Irish Quaternary Association, the recently formed Agri-History Society and the Association for Environmental Archaeology also provide opportunities for the presentation of current research.

Selection and Processing of Samples

Archaeological fieldwork has the potential to generate enormous quantities of data (Orton 2000, 6–7) and the prioritisation of certain deposits through sampling allows us to focus on selected material best suited to the research aims of the project. The method of sampling employed will strongly influence later phases of analysis and interpretation (Van der Veen 1984, 193), and will depend on the project’s research questions, labour availability and the nature of deposits on individual sites. Sampling strategies must be planned in advance and be well-structured, while still retaining some flexibility in order to allow re-evaluation as the excavation progresses. Sampling for various analyses must also be co-ordinated. Practical concerns such as budgetary constraints, storage implications and the possibility of on-site processing will affect the chosen methodology. The suggested stages in the analysis of plant macro-remains are shown diagrammatically in Figure 11.2.

 

Sampling Methods

It is often not practical to follow a ‘blanket sampling’ strategy, whereby all deposits are sampled. Blanket sampling can be inappropriate on sites, for example where there is evidence for intense long-term activity with complex stratigraphy. ‘Systematic sampling’, the term being used in its archaeological rather than statistical sense, is instead a popular methodology that can include various approaches, for example the sampling of a specified range of deposit types. ‘Simple random sampling’ occurs where deposits are sampled in a statistically random manner, perhaps using random number tables. Random sampling must be rigorously followed to be effective, but may miss significant deposits such as large concentrations of charred material.

‘Judgement sampling’ focuses on deposits that appear to be potentially rich and informative, such as concentrations of charred material. Judgement sampling is, however, heavily biased towards larger, more visible remains, such as nut shells and cereal grains, and other taxa such as cereal chaff and smaller seeds can be under-represented or absent. This is obviously an approach that should not be used on its own, but judgement sampling can be used along with random or systematic strategies. Another issue to consider is that plant macro-remains may not be homogenously distributed throughout a deposit. It is sometimes helpful to take a number of samples from a single deposit, particularly when the deposit is large, such as a ditch fill, in order to determine whether there is spatial patterning within a deposit. This is known as ‘scatter sampling’ (Lennstrom and Hastorf 1992).

Figure 11.2: Suggested stages in the analysis of plant macro-remains.

If the deposit contains charred material, it is suggested that 40 litres should be sampled from each deposit, or as much of the deposit as possible if its volume is below 40 litres (English Heritage 2002). Less can be taken when dealing with material preserved as a result of waterlogged conditions, in which case a sample of around 20 litres is appropriate, and such samples must remain moist after being collected. All samples should be kept in a cool, dark area and long-term storage should be avoided to prevent deterioration of the sample. Deposits that are clearly disturbed, such as those affected by rodent burrows and modern plough zones, are not suitable for sampling, as their contents will be too mixed to allow interpretation.

 

Processing of Samples

The sedimentary matrix in which the plant macro-remains are contained is disaggregated in order to extract the relevant material for analysis. The methodology followed for extraction will depend on the process by which the plant macro-remains have been preserved. Carbonised material is usually recovered by flotation, and this can often be carried out in the field. There is not a strong tradition of on-site flotation in Ireland, but this approach can be cost-effective, eliminating the need for storage of bulky samples prior to their delivery to the plant macro-remains analyst, and can be helpful in assessing the suitability of chosen sampling strategies when the excavation is still in progress. Differences in the density of organic and inorganic material mean that flotation is good method of separating the two from each other, as the specific gravity of water lies between that of organic and inorganic material. Flotation involves the placing of a soil sample into a container, then immersing the sample in water. When agitated, organic material such as charred plant macro-remains will be released from the soil matrix and float to the surface, or be suspended in the water, whereas inorganic material will sink to the bottom of the container. When dealing with heavy clays, the addition of ‘pre-treatments’ can sometimes be helpful in disaggregating the matrix. The floating organic material, or the ‘flot’, is poured into a bank of sieves containing various mesh sizes, the smallest being around 0.3 mm. This process is repeated until no more material is seen floating in the water. Inorganic material, as well as some denser organic material, will have collected at the bottom of the container. This is known as the ‘residue’ or ‘retent’ and can be decanted directly into a sieve containing mesh of 1 mm, and the contents washed in a concentrated flow of water. The flot and residue can be left to dry in sieves or on tightly woven cloths, such as muslin, while ensuring that the charred material is not handled when wet. Flotation systems of this type are reliant on human labour for the actual process of disaggregation. Mechanised flotation systems utilise air or water pressure that passes through the sample from below, the sample being held on mesh, in order to separate the sample. Pearsall (2000, 14–65) describes various flotation machines that have been developed. The development of flotation in the 1960s as a method for extracting remains resulted in a significant increase in the range and quantities of plant macro-remains recovered, as well as the increased recovery of artefacts from non-flot residues (Struever 1968).

Remains preserved under waterlogged conditions can be extracted using the fine-sieving technique, and this method is best practised in a laboratory–such material must be kept wet, or will shrink and crack when dried. Fine-sieving is required as waterlogged material will not always separate and float when the flotation technique is applied. The sample should be placed into a sieve with mesh measuring 0.3 mm, or into a bank of sieves with the smallest mesh measuring 0.3 mm and the sample washed in a concentrated flow of water. When fine-sieving has been carried out, waterlogged material must be kept in watertight containers containing water or alcohol (Kenward et al. 1980). Flotation of samples prior to fine-sieving may sometimes be carried out in deposits where significant quantities of charred remains are mixed with waterlogged remains and, in this case, the residue only is fine-sieved. Fine-sieving can also be carried out without the use of water, which may be preferable when processing samples containing desiccated remains. Impressions of seeds, leaves, cordage and other organic material on a range of fabrics can be cast using various casting agents, such as silicone or casting gels used in dentistry, and it is the experience of this author that this work can be easily carried out in the field.

Scanning, Sorting and Identification

The scanning, sorting and identification of plant macro-remains following sample processing must only be carried out by trained workers familiar with the various changes in appearance that the preserved remains may have undergone. Cereal grains may, for example, decrease in length, while increasing in width (Renfrew 1973, 13). Although whole cereal ears and fruits can occasionally be recovered (Maier 1996), fragmentation of material often occurs, and the analyst must therefore be trained in recognising fragments of preserved material and in distinguishing diagnostic breakage patterns. Depending on the quantity of processed material, it may be desirable to introduce sub-sampling with the use of a Riffle box, perhaps analysing only 50% or less of the sample, while still ensuring the examination of a representative quantity (Van der Veen and Fieller 1982).

 

 

Scanning and Sorting

The scanning and sorting processes aim to extract any non-wood plant macro-remains from the flots and fine-sieving material, and then sort the plant macro-remains into broad groupings. In the case of flots for example, non-wood remains must be separated from other organic materials, such as fragments of charred wood. The use of magnification may not be required for the scanning and sorting of remains larger than 2 mm. Any fractions under 2 mm can be examined using magnification of at least x 6–x 40, with an external light source such as fibre-optic lights.

 

Identification

The identification of plant macro-remains is usually carried out by comparing gross morphological features and internal anatomies with those of modern plant components. Identification may also require the examination of cell patterns and various anatomical characteristics. A regional comparative collection of modern specimens (Nesbitt et al. 2003) and botanical illustrations (Beijerinck 1947; Katz et al. 1965; Berggren 1969; 1981; Anderberg 1994) are necessary for the identification of preserved material. Access to examples of non-native species that may have been imported, such as Ficus carica L. (fig), must be available. Collections of modern specimens should also include charred and dissected material. Identification of most plant macro-remains can be carried out using a light microscope, with magnification ranging from x 6 to x 40. Some remains may benefit from the application of other microscopy techniques such as scanning electron microscopy, which provides excellent depth of field and is used to determine minute anatomical structures (Butler 1991).

Characteristics that will aid in identification include size and shape, texture, colour (if un-charred) and presence of scars and attachments. Sketching seeds can also be helpful in highlighting characteristics that might assist in securing identification. More careful description, measurement and illustration of remains can be useful in allowing comparisons of materials between sites, particularly when dealing with issues such as crop evolution in the analysis of cereals and pulses (Körber-Grohne 1991). Identification of vegetative parenchyma is enabled by the analysis of diagnostic morphological and anatomical characteristics, although this is possible for only a small percentage of fragments, as many are too small or poorly preserved to be identified (Hather 2000, 4). Features such as stomata cells, leaf outline and venation can aid in the identification of leaves. Leaf arrangement and bud-scales can also provide a guide to identification of stem material (Tomlinson 1985). The level of identification reached may depend on the state of preservation, the ability to determine differences in various species–which sometimes is difficult in genera such as Carex (sedges)–and on the completeness or otherwise of the reference collection used.

 

Quantification

Numerical analyses of plant remains’ data can be carried out inductively and deductively in order to determine patterns in data (Jones 1991; Van der Veen 1992; Shennan 1997; Orton 2000). Such analyses do not necessarily depend on large datasets (Colledge 2001, 183). Quantification of data has the potential to determine patterns and trends, for example relating to landscape use at different times and in different locations by grouping samples from the same activity area, geographical region or chronological phase. Numerical analyses based upon the utilisation of raw counts of plant components recovered may, however, be inappropriate, as counting fragments can overstate levels of representation, thereby distorting statistical significance (Orton 2000, 149). Some species, such as fig, also produce very large numbers of seeds, again possibly contributing to biased interpretations.

An Irish Case Study: Tracing Agricultural Change at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford

When recovery and identification of the plant macro-remains are completed, the next stage of analysis is interpretation of the data. All relevant contextual, phasing, dating and other archaeological information must be made available to the plant macro-remains analyst at an early stage to aid in interpretation of the plant material. The plant macro-remains assemblages analysed for this paper derive from the excavation of archaeological deposits at Kerlogue townland, Co. Wexford (excavation licence number 02E0606), which were investigated by Stafford McLoughlin archaeological consultancy in advance of a business park development (McLoughlin 2002a; 2002b).

The site is located less than 2 km to the south of Wexford town and around 0.7 km from the modern shoreline (Fig. 11.3). Four areas of archaeological activity were recorded –Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Fig. 11.4). Site 2 comprised a circular structure of Iron Age date, with numerous associated internal features. Excavations at Site 3 revealed Early Neolithic pits, an undated Iron Age gully and evidence for cultivation in the form of ard-marks. Sites 4 and 5 produced a range of features, including Early Neolithic pits, an Early Bronze Age pennanular ring ditch, undated gullies and Early Medieval pits. Animal bone was not recorded in deposits at Kerlogue. Cereal or possible cereal remains were, however, found in deposits dating to each period, and this section will focus on the significance of these remains in reconstructing activities at Kerlogue over several millennia.

Figure 11.3: Location map of archaeological site at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford.

Figure 11.4: Plan of archaeological features at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford (after McLoughlin 2002a). Archaeological features shaded grey; modern furrows in white.

The sampling strategy undertaken at the site was systematic, whereby efforts were made to sample a wide range of deposits, with judgement sampling being imposed in areas where concentrations of burning were recorded. Scatter sampling was also undertaken in some deposits (Table 11.1). Processing of the soil samples was carried out by the excavators, following consultation with the author. Approximately eight litres of soil were processed from each sample using the flotation method, with meshes ranging from 0.25 mm to 2 mm. The well-drained soils at the site resulted in the recovery of plant macro-remains that were preserved by charring, and the taxa recorded are presented in Tables 11.1 and 11.2. Plants are referred to by their Latin names, following nomenclature in Flora Europaea (Tutin et al. 1964–83) when mentioned for the first time, and are thereafter referred to by their common names if available. The modern ecology of plants, as indicated by regional floras, has been drawn upon in order to provide a general basis for the consideration of past plant communities. It should, however, be noted that modern descriptions of habitat preferences and ecological groupings cannot necessarily be applied to archaeological data without modification.

 

Early Neolithic Material

The Early Neolithic deposits at Kerlogue consisted of pit fills at Site 3 and Site 5. A series of pits was recorded at Site 3, some of which contained worked flint and Early Neolithic pottery, the latter dated on typological grounds to the first half of the fourth millennium BC (McLoughlin 2002b). A series of ard marks was also located less than 5 m to the east of these pits, although they did not provide datable evidence. Ard marks thought to be associated with Neolithic activity have, however, previously been found elsewhere in Ireland (Byrne 1992). Three samples from two of the pit fills (Contexts 3a and 6a) at Site 3 contained shells of Corylus avellana L. (hazelnut) and grains of Triticum sp. (wheat). Some of the wheat grains were identified as possible Triticum dicoccum L. (emmer wheat) and a poorly-preserved glume base of a hulled wheat variety was also recorded (Fig. 11.5). Site 5 also produced a series of pits, some of which contained worked flint. Four fills from three of the pits (Contexts 6a, 10a, 11a and 11b) contained hazelnut shells and cereal grains. A fill of one of the pits (Context 10a) produced a large quantity of hazelnut shell fragments (Fig. 11.5), which were radiocarbon dated to 4970±45 BP (3810–3650 cal. BC; WK-13726). Significantly smaller quantities of hazelnut shell fragments were recovered from other Early Neolithic pit fills at Site 5. The pit fills also produced possible emmer wheat grains, a grain of Hordeum sp. (barley), cereal grains that could not be identified to genus, and a culm stem node and culm fragment of Gramineae (grass). The culm node and culm fragment may represent cereal remains, but both are poorly preserved.

Many of the plant macro-remains recorded in Early Neolithic deposits at Kerlogue were poorly preserved, which may result from movement and fracturing of the remains prior to and post-deposition. Cereals were mainly represented by the recovery of grains, and relative to the grains, more fragile plant components, such as cereal chaff, may not have survived. The cereal remains recovered in these pits are likely to have been charred in fires elsewhere and would have been deposited in the pits at some later stage, thereby representing secondary or even tertiary refuse.

Table 11.1: Taxa recovered from prehistoric deposits at Kerlogue. N=Neolithic; BA=Bronze Age; IA= Iron Age; UN= Undated.

Table 11.2: Taxa recovered from Early Medieval deposits at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford.

Figure 11.5: Examples of plant macro-remains recovered from Kerlogue, Co. Wexford. Left: Hazelnut shell fragments from an Early Neolithic deposit at Site 5 (Context 10a, Sample 17); Middle: Possible emmer wheat grains from an Early Neolithic deposit at Site 3 (Context 3a, Sample 3); Right: SEM image of hulled barley grain from an Early Medieval deposit at Site 5 (Context 1 d, Sample 24).

Arable farming is thought to have been introduced into Ireland around 4000 BC, earlier dates than this having failed to gain widespread acceptance (O’Connell and Molloy 2001). The introduction of arable agriculture into Ireland represents not just the movement of crops, but also the transportation of knowledge involved in crop husbandry. The main significance of the Kerlogue material lies in its date and location, as it represents the earliest published macro-remains evidence for cultivated cereals in the Wexford region. Wexford is not an area that regularly appears in discussions relating to Early Neolithic activities in Ireland (Cooney and Mandal 1998; Cooney 2000) due to the comparative lack of archaeological remains discovered to date, although Green and Zvelebil’s work (1990; 1993) in nearby Co. Waterford has identified a number of Neolithic sites, as well as evidence for early agriculture. Excavations being carried out under the auspices of the National Roads Authority are also likely to enhance our knowledge of Early Neolithic activities in the south-east of Ireland.

Emmer wheat has regularly been recorded in Irish Early Neolithic deposits (Monk 2000), for example at Tankardstown, Co. Limerick (Monk 1988), and Corbally, Co. Kildare (Purcell 2002), while barley has also been recovered (Jessen and Helbaek 1944; Monk 2000). Hazelnut shells are also regularly recorded in Neolithic deposits (McComb and Simpson 1999). The hazelnut shells recorded from Kerlogue are likely to represent food-waste that was burnt in order to reduce its mass, or could be the remains of material thrown onto the fire to increase its heat output. It has been suggested that hazelnut shells are over-represented on Early Neolithic sites (Jones 2000, 80–1), as the shells are waste and are therefore likely to be burnt, which can lead to an over-estimation of the extent to which early farming communities relied on gathered foods.

 

Early Bronze Age Material

An Early Bronze Age pennanular ring-ditch was recorded at Sites 4 and 5. A fill of the ditch, Context 3a, produced hazelnut shell fragments and a possible cereal grain. Cereal cultivation during the Bronze Age is thought to have been focused on the production of barley, with the occasional presence of wheat (Monk 1986), although this hypothesis is based mainly on evidence from seed impressions in ceramic vessels rather than charred remains. A more recent study focused on charred remains from Bronze Age sites in Ireland and suggests that whilst barley was certainly a significant crop at this time, evidence for wheat can also regularly be found (Fuller et al. in press).

 

Iron Age Material

A circular structure at Site 2–comprising a slot trench, an internal ring of post-holes and other interior features–was dated to the Iron Age. Fills of the slot trench, Context 1, contained grains of wheat, wheat/barley and Avena sp. (oat), as well as a glume base of hulled wheat, a grass culm node and culm fragments. Hazelnut shell fragments and seeds of Polygonum sp. (knotgrass) were also recorded in Context 1, the latter representing a genus that can be seen growing in disturbed ground and arable fields. Prunus spinosa L. (blackthorn) and Salix sp. (willow) charcoal from Context 1 were radiocarbon dated to 2237±67 BP (410–110 cal. BC; WK-15498).

The slot trench enclosed a number of features, including pits and post-holes. Context 7 was a sub-rectangular pit that contained cremated human bone, burnt stone and charred plant remains. Grains of wheat and barley were recorded in a fill of Context 7, in addition to grass culm node and culm fragments. A hazelnut shell fragment and a seed of Galium cf. aparine L. (cleaver) were also recorded. Cleaver can be found growing in range of habitats, including arable fields. Quercus sp. (oak) charcoal from Context 7 was radiocarbon dated to 2217±38 BP (390–170 cal. BC; WK-15497). Fills of two interior postholes, Contexts 2 and 71, also contained charred plant remains. Context 2 produced a barley grain and a grass culm fragment, while Context 71 contained burnt stone and a wheat grain.

The Iron Age material from Kerlogue is significant, as a relatively small number of cereal grain assemblages dating to this period have been published in Ireland (Monk 1986). When compared with the Neolithic assemblage, a wider range of cereals is represented in Iron Age deposits at Kerlogue, possibly representing changes in agricultural techniques and strategies. There is evidence for the introduction of a range of new farming tools from the Bronze Age in Ireland (Eogan 1994), and soil-improvement techniques, such as manuring, may also have become more widespread. There is also further evidence for the management of landscapes, demonstrated, for example, by the increase in construction of field systems. The diversification in cereal types recorded is accompanied by a dramatic reduction in the occurrence of hazelnut shell when compared with Neolithic deposits at Kerlogue, suggesting that the gathering of this latter foodstuff had declined in importance. The quantity of cereal remains recorded in Iron Age deposits at Kerlogue is, however, similar to that present in Neolithic deposits. Naked and hulled barley are commonly recorded in late prehistoric deposits in Ireland, while oat occurs less frequently (Monk 1986). It has been suggested that oat was not cultivated until the Early Medieval period (Monk 1986), and its presence in late prehistoric deposits may therefore represent a wild variety. The cereal remains recorded in Iron Age deposits at Kerlogue are likely to represent secondary or tertiary refuse, having been charred in fires elsewhere prior to deposition in the slot-trench, pit, post-holes and gullies. The presence of cremated human bone in pits within the Iron Age circular structure suggests that this area may have been the focus of ceremonial activities associated with disposal of the dead. Cereal foodstuffs may have been an integral part of such activities, being consumed by the living and perhaps accompanying the dead.

 

Early Medieval Material

Two Early Medieval pits that may have functioned as hearths in Sites 4 and 5 contained a substantial quantity of plant remains (Table 11.2). Contexts 1 and 2 were large, oval pits, and the base of each pit was burnt. The quantity of cereal remains observed after flotation of fills of Context 1 was substantial, and it was decided that the identification of a maximum of c. 500 whole seeds/grains from each layer in Context 1 would be representative of the cereal remains present. The sample from Context 1a was examined in its entirety and, with the use of a Riffle Box, sub-samples of two other deposits in Context 1 were analysed: approximately 50% of Context 1b and approximately 15% of Context 1d. It is estimated that Context 1b therefore contained c. 3500 components and Context 1d contained c. 13,000 components.

Hulled barley grains were predominant in both pits, including both asymmetrical and symmetrical grains. The recording of asymmetrical grains indicates the presence of six-row barley, as two-row barley crops consist solely of symmetrical grains. The ratio of asymmetrical grains to symmetrical grains in a six-row barley crop is 2:1. The ratios of asymmetrical to symmetrical grains encountered in Contexts 1b, 1d and 2a range from 1.18:1 to 1.56:1, reflecting the predominance of six-row barley in these deposits. The recovery of asymmetrical grains in Context 1a also reflects the presence of six-row barley in this deposit. Smaller quantities of Triticum sp. (possible free-threshing wheat) and oat grains were recorded in both pits, as well as more substantial quantities of poorly-preserved cereal grains that were indeterminate to genus. Context 1 contained a small quantity of hazelnut shell fragments, a grass culm node, and seeds of knotgrass and Polygonum persicaria L. (redshank). Context 2 also contained redshank seeds, representing a species that can be found growing in a variety of environments, including disturbed ground and arable fields. Charred cereal grains from Context 1 were radiocarbon dated to 1541±38 BP (420–610 cal. AD; WK-13725). Hulled wheat was not recorded in the Early Medieval deposits at Kerlogue, providing a contrast with prehistoric deposits at this site. In common with Iron Age deposits at Kerlogue, there are also very few occurrences of hazelnut shell in Early Medieval deposits.

Despite the large number of fragmented cereal grains in Contexts 1 and 2, many of the whole cereal grains were relatively well-preserved when compared with prehistoric cereal remains at Kerlogue (see Fig. 11.5). If the grains were burnt within these pits, some of them may not have been subject to a great deal of movement after being burnt, thereby explaining their better condition. Although large numbers of cereal grains were recorded, a very small quantity of chaff and weed seeds was present in Early Medieval deposits at Kerlogue, suggesting that the cereal crops were well cleaned of contaminants before entering these deposits. The relatively small quantity of cereal grains, as well as weed seeds and chaff, in prehistoric deposits at Kerlogue precludes such a comparison.

When pit fills produce substantial quantities of cereal remains, it is sometimes assumed that the pits functioned as grain-storage pits. Such an interpretation is, however, problematic, as cereal remains can often comprise secondary and tertiary deposits emanating from fire-waste, rather than primary deposits (Fuller et al. in press). The evidence for in-situ burning in these Early Medieval pits, and the relative lack of other food debris does, however, suggest that these pits may at some time have been used in the processing of crops or preparation of foodstuffs.

There is a significantly higher quantity of cereal remains in Early Medieval deposits at Kerlogue when compared with prehistoric deposits. This may result from the Early Medieval cereal remains being located in their primary context, but may also indicate changes in farming strategies over time. Archaeological and documentary evidence from many parts of Ireland suggest a general increase in arable farming dating to the Early Medieval period (Fredengren et al. 2004). It seems that the climate from the second to the mid-sixth century AD in Ireland was well suited to crop cultivation (Lamb 1981). Despite the possibility of climatic deterioration occurring around the middle of the sixth century (Baillie 1993), there seems to have been further arable expansion during the eighth and ninth centuries, with many horizontal mills being constructed at this time (Rynne 1998). The operation of these mills suggests changes in the management of agriculture and larger-scale production. In addition to the substantial quantity of cereal grains from Early Medieval deposits at Kerlogue, there is a clear focus on production or consumption of one type of cereal–six-row hulled barley–perhaps reflecting larger-scale production of this cereal type for the creation and eventual redistribution of crop surpluses.

Six-row hulled barley is a relatively hardy crop that can be used in human and animal foodstuffs. Early Medieval documentary sources indicate that differing levels of status were attached to various cereal types. Bretha Déin Chécht, an eighth-century law text, provides a list of seven cereal types, whose order is based on the relative prestige of each type of grain, which is correlated with a particular grade in human society (Bretha Déin Chécht §1–2; Binchy 1966; Kelly 1997). Triticum aestivum L. (bread wheat) and then Secale cereale L. (rye) are placed at the top of the list, with different types of hulled wheats and barley further down, and finally oat. Bread wheat is equated with the rank of superior king, bishop or chief poet, whereas at the other end of the scale, oat is equated with the commoner. Oat and barley are more regularly recovered from archaeological deposits in Ireland, therefore reflecting their lower status (Monk 1991). Bread wheat and rye are rarer in the archaeological record, as their status was perceived as being higher. Cereals were therefore regarded not just as a source of sustenance, but also as cultural symbols that could distinguish social classes. The recovery of possible free-threshing cereal grains at Kerlogue, which may be of bread wheat, indicates that people involved with activities at this site had access to higher-status cereals. Six-row barley is, however, second-last in the eight-century list of cereals, and the recovery of a far more substantial quantity of six-row barley grains demonstrates that activities at Kerlogue were more usually associated with the lower end of the social scale.

A number of undated gullies was also recorded at Site 3 and Site 4/5. Context 7 at Site 3 was interpreted as a gully, and this deposit contained flint and grains of barley, including Hordeum nudum L. (naked barley), in addition to culm node and culm fragments. Context 16 at Site 4/5 was also interpreted as a gully, containing burnt stone and six-row hulled barley.

 

 

Overview of Material from Kerlogue

Archaeobotanical analysis of deposits at Kerlogue provides evidence for activities associated with arable agriculture at this site over several millennia. Changes can be observed in the types of cereals encountered over time, and also in the quantities of cereals preserved. Hulled wheat is only represented in prehistoric deposits, particularly in Early Neolithic deposits, whereas free-threshing wheat is confined to deposits of the historic period. Indeed, archaeobotanical evidence from other sites suggests that large-scale production of free-threshing wheat is not observed until the Medieval period in Ireland (Monk 1986). Six-row hulled barley meanwhile, appears to be of far greater significance during the Early Medieval period. It has been suggested in this paper that these changes may result from a range of factors, including improved soil management and harvesting techniques, climatic influences, market requirements and social constraints. The nature of activities on the site is also likely to have been influential. Smaller quantities of remains were recorded in Iron Age deposits associated with ceremonial activities, while more substantial quantities were present in Early Medieval pits that may have been linked to more domestic pursuits. Ard marks at Kerlogue provide evidence for the cultivation of crops at this site, although the phase in which this activity was carried out is unclear. There is also regular evidence for gathered foodstuffs at Kerlogue in the form of hazelnut remains. Large quantities of hazelnut shell were recorded in early prehistoric deposits, but this resource seems to have decreased in significance during later periods.

There is little archaeobotanical evidence for plants growing in the local environment surrounding the site at Kerlogue. Seeds of the knotgrass genera and cleaver were occasionally recorded, but these plants may have been growing alongside cereals in arable fields, and their seeds inadvertently harvested. The value of any plant is, however, determined by the perceptions of its viewers. Many plants that we would consider to be weeds may have been considered useful in past societies, for example in contributing to food resources and medicines. Such plants may not have been prepared in the vicinity of fires, thus reducing their likelihood of being charred and preserved. Similarly, the absence of vegetable and fruit remains from Kerlogue does not indicate that such foodstuffs were not utilised, as they may also have been consumed without coming into contact with fire.

Potential, Prospects and Opportunities

It seems clear that the analysis of plant macro-remains has the potential to inform us on an ever-widening range of archaeological issues. But who sets our agenda? Research pursued often seems to be structured chiefly by archaeological work, and while the need to ensure relevance to the archaeological community is essential, plant macro-remains analysts must also form regionally-based research agenda that are known throughout the archaeobotanical community in Ireland, as well as by archaeologists and other environmental analysts. This must be carried out with regard to the restricted budgets and timeframes that now affect much archaeological practice within Ireland.

The integration of plant macro-remains analyses with other approaches could also contribute to more widespread current interests in Ireland, for example in the recreation of traditional farming practices and in assessing the impact of humans on various ecosystems, thereby contributing at some level to social policy. Other opportunities for future research in Ireland include the more comprehensive integration of ethnographic information with plant macro-remains data. Archives can be consulted from a number of sources in Ireland, including the Congested Districts Boards, folklife sections of museums, farming organisations such as Teagasc, the Folklore Commission, the Schools Folklore Collection and photographic archives. Studies in Ireland would also greatly benefit from being broadcast more regularly to wider international audiences, and also in receiving increased peer-review and feedback from such audiences.

Many plant macro-remains analyses are, unfortunately, unpublished, and there is an urgent need for an injection of funding in order to collate and assess the data that are being accumulated. The validity of comparisons drawn between various assemblages represents another area that should be focussed upon. Government organisations with responsibility for the monitoring of methods used in archaeological excavations have not given sufficient attention to the implementation of structured sampling strategies on archaeological excavations, resulting in a situation where the quality of plant macro-remains data is extremely variable. It is through the increased dissemination of data and interpretations relating to plant macro-remains analyses that such problems can be tackled, thereby demonstrating the relevance and necessity for the continuation and improvement of archaeobotanical investigations.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Phil Austin, Sue Colledge, Dorian Fuller, Gordon Hillman, Mark Keegan, Mick Monk, Clive Orton and Ken Thomas for discussion relating to issues raised in this paper. I am very grateful to Allan Hall for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and would also like to thank this volume’s editors, Eileen Murphy and Nicki Whitehouse, for their advice and patience. The production of illustrations was enabled by the creativity and expertise of Mark Keegan, and thanks also to Sandra Bond and Kevin Reeves for assistance with production of photographs. I would finally like to thank Catherine McLoughlin and Emmet Stafford of Stafford McLoughlin Archaeology for their enthusiasm and ready provision of information regarding archaeological deposits at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford.

References

Albarella, U. (ed.) 2001. Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Anderberg, A.- L. 1994. Atlas of Seeds Part 4: Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Baillie, M. G. L. 1993. Dark ages and dendrochronology. Emania 11, 5–12.

Baillie, M. G. L. 1998. Evidence for climatic deterioration in the 12th and 17th centuries BC, pp. 49–55 in Hänsel, B. (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Kiel: Oetker-Voges Verlag.

Behre, K.- E. and Jacomet, S. 1991. The ecological interpretation of archaeobotanical data, pp. 81–108 in Van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K.- E. (eds.), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Beijerinck, W. 1947. Zadenatlas der Nederlandsche Flora. Wageningen: H. Veenman and Zonen.

Berggren, G. 1969. Atlas of Seeds Part 2: Cyperaceae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Berggren, G. 1981. Atlas of Seeds Part 3: Salicaceae-Cruciferae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Binchy, D. A. (ed.) 1966. Bretha Déin Chécht. Ériu 20, 1–66.

Boardman, S. 2000. Appendix X: charred macroplant analysis, pp. 275–81 in Crone, A. (ed.), The History of a Scottish Lowland Crannog: Excavations at Buiston, Ayrshire, 1989–90. Edinburgh: Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research.

Boardman, S. and Jones, G. 1990. Experiments on the effects of charring on cereal plant components. Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 1–11.

Butler, A. 1991. The Vicieae: problems of identification, pp. 61–73 in Renfrew, J. (ed.), New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Byrne, G. 1992. Céide Fields, Glenulra and Behy, p. 98 in Bennett, I. (ed.), Excavations 1991: Summary Accounts of Archaeological Excavations in Ireland. Bray: Wordwell.

Calendar of State Papers, Ireland. 16th December, 1600, 67.

Charles, M. 1998. Fodder from dung: the recognition and interpretation of dung-derived plant material from archaeological sites. Environmental Archaeology 1, 111–22.

Charles, M., Halstead, P. and Jones, G. (eds.) 1998. Fodder: Archaeological, Historical and Environmental Studies. Environmental Archaeology 1, 1–110.

Colledge, S. 2001. Plant Exploitation on Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites in the Levant (BAR International Series 986). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Connolly, A. 1994. Saddle querns in Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 57, 26–36.

Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge.

Cooney, G. and Mandal, S. 1998. The Irish Stone Axe Project. Bray: Wordwell.

Copley, M. S., Berstan, R., Dudd, S. N., Docherty, G., Mukherjee, A. J., Straker, V., Payne, S. and Evershed, R. 2003. Direct chemical evidence for widespread dairying in prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, 1524–9.

Dark, P. 2004. Plant remains as indicators of seasonality of site-use in the Mesolithic period. Environmental Archaeology 9, 39–45.

Dennell, R. W. 1976. The economic importance of plant resources represented on archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 3, 229–47.

Dickson, C. A. 1987. The identification of cereals from ancient bran fragments. Circaea 4, 95–102.

Dickson, C. 1994. Macroscopic fossils of garden plants from British Roman and medieval deposits, pp. 47–72 in Moe, D., Dickson, J. H. and Jørgensen, P. M. (eds.), Garden Plants, Species, Forms and Varieties from Pompeii to 1800 (PACT 42). Belgium: Rixensart.

Dickson, C. 1996. Food, medicinal and other plants from the 15th century drains of Paisley Abbey, Scotland. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 5, 25–31.

Dineley, M. 2004. Barley, Malt and Ale in the Neolithic (BAR International Series 1213). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Eogan, G. 1994. The Accomplished Art: Gold and Gold-Working in Britain and Ireland During the Bronze Age (circa 2300–650 BC) (Oxbow Archaeological Monograph 42). Oxford: Oxbow.

English Heritage 2002. Environmental Archaeology: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods: From Sampling and Recovery to Post-excavation (Centre for Archaeology Guidelines). London: English Heritage.

Evans, J. G. 2003. Environmental Archaeology and the Social Order. London: Routledge

Fairbairn, A. S. 2000. On the spread of plant crops across Neolithic Britain, with special reference to southern England, pp. 107–21 in Fairbairn, A. S. (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5). Oxford: Oxbow.

Feehan, J. 2003. Farming in Ireland: History, Heritage and Environment. Dublin: Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin.

Fenton, A. 1976. Scottish Country Life. Edinburgh: John Donald.

Fredengren, C., McClatchie, M. and Stuijts, I. 2004. Reconsidering crannogs in Early Medieval Ireland: alternative approaches in the investigation of social and agricultural systems. Environmental Archaeology 9, 161–6.

Fuller, D. Q., Stevens, C. and McClatchie, M. (in press). Routine activities, tertiary refuse and labour organization: social inferences from everyday archaeobotany, in Madella, M. and Savard, M. (eds.), Ancient Plants and People –Contemporary Trends in Archaeobotany. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Geraghty, S. 1996. Viking Dublin: Botanical Evidence from Fishamble Street (Medieval Dublin excavations 1962–81, Series C, Volume 2). Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

Gifford, D. P. 1981. Taphonomy and palaeoecology: a critical review of archaeology’s sister disciplines, pp. 365–438 in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4. New York: Academic Press.

Green, F. 1979. Phosphatic mineralisation of seeds from archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 6, 279–84.

Green, F.J. 1984. The archaeological and documentary evidence for plants from the medieval period in England, pp. 99–114 in Van Zeist, W. and Casparie, W. A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany (Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Green, S. W. and Zvelebil, M. 1990. The Mesolithic colonisation and agricultural transition of south-east Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 57–88.

Green, S. W. and Zvelebil, M. 1993. Interpreting Ireland’s prehistoric landscape: the Bally Lough archaeological project, pp. 1–29 in Bogucki, P. (ed.), Case Studies in European Prehistory. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Greig, J. R. A. 1991. The British Isles, pp. 299–334 in Van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K.-E. (eds.), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Greig, J. R. A. 1996. Archaeobotanical and historical records compared: a new look at the taphonomy of edible and other useful plants from the 11th to the 18th centuries AD. Circaea 12, 211–47.

Hall, A. R., Tomlinson, P. R., Hall, R. A., Taylor, G. W. and Walton, P. 1984. Dyeplants from Viking York. Antiquity 58, 58–60.

Hastorf, C. 1993. Agriculture and the Onset of Political Inequality before the Inka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hastorf, C. 1996. Gender, space and food in prehistory, pp. 460–84 in Preucel, R. W. and Hodder, I. (eds.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Press.

Hastorf, C. 1998. The cultural life of early domestic plant use. Antiquity 72, 773–82.

Hastorf, C. and Johannesson, S. 1996. Understanding changing people/plant relationships in the pre-hispanic Andes, pp. 61–78 in Preucel, R. W. and Hodder, I. (eds.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Press.

Hather, J. 1993. An Archaeobotanical Guide to Root and Tuber Identification: Volume 1, Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28). Oxford: Oxbow.

Hather, J. G. 2000. Archaeological Parenchyma. London: Archetype Publications.

Heer, O. 1866. Abstract of the treatise on the plants of the lake dwellings, pp. 336–54 in Keller, F. (ed.), The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and Other Parts of Europe. London: Longman, Green and Company.

Helbaek, H. 1966. Appendix A: Pre-pottery Neolithic farming at Beidha, pp. 61–6 in Kirkbride, D. (ed.), Five seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98, 8–72.

Helbaek, H. 1969. Appendix I: plant collecting, dry-farming, and irrigation agriculture in prehistoric Deh Luran, pp. 383–426 in Hole, F., Flannery, K. V. and Neely, J. A. (eds.), Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain (Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology I). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Hillman, G. 1973. Crop husbandry and food production: modern models for the interpretation of plant remains. Anatolian Studies 23, 241–4.

Hillman, G. C. 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops, pp. 123–62 in Mercer, R. (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hillman, G. 1982. Evidence for spelting malt, pp. 137–41 in Leech R. (ed.), Excavations at Catsgore 1970–1973: A Romano-British village (Excavation Monograph No. 2). Bristol: Western Archaeological Trust.

Hillman, G. C. 1984a. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey, pp. 1–41 in Van Zeist, W. and Casparie, W. A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Hillman, G. C. 1984b. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts, part I: the glume wheats. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1, 114–52.

Hillman, G. C. 1985. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products and equipment that might feature in Sumerian texts, part II: the free-threshing cereals. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2, 1–31.

Hillman, G. 1986. Plant foods in ancient diet: the archaeological role of palaeofaeces in general and Lindow man’s gut contents in particular, pp. 99–115 in Stead, I. M., Bourke, J. B. and Brothwell, D. (eds.), Lindow Man: The Body in the Bog. London: Guild.

Hillman, G. C., Legge, A. J., and Rowley-Conwy, P. A. 1997. On the charred seeds from Epipalaeolithic Abu Hureyra: food or fuel? Current Anthropology 38, 651–9.

Holden, T. 2000. Appendix V: waterlogged macroplant analysis, pp. 208–29 in Crone, A. (ed.), The History of a Scottish Lowland Crannog: Excavations at Buiston, Ayrshire, 1989–90. Edinburgh: Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research.

Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (eds.) 2000. Taphonomy and Interpretation (Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No. 14). Oxford: Oxbow.

Hurcombe, L. 2000. Plants as the raw materials for crafts, pp. 155–73 in Fairbairn, A. S. (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5). Oxford: Oxbow.

Jessen, K. and Helbaek, H. 1944. Cereals in Great Britain and Ireland in prehistoric and early historic times. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Biologiske Skrifter 3, 1–68.

Jones, G. E. M. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: ethnographic models from Greece, pp. 43–61 in Van Zeist, W. and Casparie W. A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany (Proceedings of the 6th symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Jones, G. E. M. 1991. Numerical analysis in archaeobotany, pp. 63–80 in Van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K.-E. (eds.), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Jones, G. 2000. Evaluating the importance of cultivation and collecting in Neolithic Britain, pp. 79–84 in Fairbairn, A. S. (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5). Oxford: Oxbow.

Jones, G., Bogaard, A., Charles, M. and Hodgson, J. G. 2000. Distinguishing the effects of agricultural practices relating to fertility and disturbance: a functional ecological approach in archaeobotany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1073–84.

Jones, G., Wardle, K., Halstead, P. and Wardle, D. 1986. Crop storage at Assiros. Scientific American 254, 84–91.

Jones, M. K. 1985. Archaeobotany beyond subsistence reconstruction, pp. 107–28 in Barker, G. W. and Gamble, C. (eds.), Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe. London: Academic Press.

Katz, N. J., Katz, S. V. and Kipiani, M. G. 1965. Atlas and Keys of Fruits and Seeds Occurring in the Quaternary Deposits of the USSR. Moscow: Nauka.

Kelly, F. 1997. Early Irish Farming: A Study Based Mainly on the Law-texts of the 7th and 8th Centuries AD. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Kenward, H. K. and Hall, A. R. 1995. Biological Evidence from 16–22 Coppergate (The Archaeology of York: the environment 14/7). York: Council for British Archaeology.

Kenward, H. K., Hall, A. R. and Jones, A. K. G. 1980. A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits. Science and Archaeology 22, 3–15.

Körber-Grohne, U. 1991. Identification methods, pp. 3–24 in Van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K.-E. (eds.), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Kunth, C. 1826. Examen botanique, pp. 227–9 in Passalacqua, J. (ed.), Catalogue Raisonné et Historique des Antiquités Découvertes en Égypt. Paris: Galerie d’Antiquités Égyptiennes.

Lamb, H. H. 1981. Climate from 1000 BC to 1000 AD, pp. 53–65 in Jones, M. and Dimbleby, G. (eds.), The Environment of Man: The Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period (BAR British Series 87). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Leach, H. M. 1999. Intensification in the Pacific: a critique of the archaeological criteria and their application. Current Anthropology 40, 311–39.

Lennstrom, H. A. and Hastorf, C. A. 1992. Testing old wives’ tales in palaeoethnobotany: a comparison of bulk and scatter sampling from Pancán, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 205–29.

Letts, J. B. 1999. Smoke Blackened Thatch: A Unique Source of Late Medieval Plant Remains From Southern England. London and Reading: English Heritage and University of Reading.

Lewis, H. 2002. An investigation of ancient cultivation remains at Hengistbury Head Site 6, Christchurch, Dorset. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 83–102.

Lucas, A. T. 1960. Irish food before the potato. Gwerin 3, 8–43.

MacLean, R. 1993. Eat your greens: an examination of the potential diet available in Ireland during the Mesolithic. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56, 1–8.

Maier, U. 1996. Morphological studies of free-threshing wheat ears from a Neolithic site in southwest Germany, and the history of the naked wheats. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 5, 39–55.

Mason, S. L. R. and Hather, J. G. (eds.) 2002. Hunter-gatherer Archaeobotany: Perspectives from the Northern Temperate Zone. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

McClatchie, M. 2003. Section 12: the plant remains, pp. 391–413 in Cleary, R. M. and Hurley, M. F. (eds.), Excavations in Cork City 1984–2000. Cork: Cork City Council.

McCobb, L. M. E., Briggs, D. E. G., Evershed, R. P., Hall, A. R. and Hall, R. A. 2001. Preservation of fossil seeds from a 10th century AD cess pit at Coppergate, York. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 929–40.

McComb, A. M. G. and Simpson, D. 1999. The wild bunch: exploitation of the hazel in prehistoric Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 58, 1–16.

McLaughlin, C. 2002a. Archaeological excavations at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford. Unpublished excavation report, Stafford McLoughlin.

McLoughlin, C. 2002b. Prehistoric remains at Kerlogue, Co. Wexford. Archaeology Ireland 16, 16–9.

Miller, N. F. 1984. The use of dung as fuel: an ethnographic example and an archaeological application. Paléorient 12, 71–9.

Miller, N. F. 1996. Seed eaters of the ancient Near East: human or herbivore? Current Anthropology 37, 521–8.

Miller, N. F. 1997. Reply. Current Anthropology 38, 655–9.

Miller, N. F. and Smart, T. L. 1984. Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological record. Journal of Ethnobiology 4, 15–28.

Mitchell, G. F. 1946. Evidence of early agriculture. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 76, 16–8.

Mitchell, G. F. 1979. Tillage tools in Ireland during the past 5000 years. Journal of Earth Sciences, Royal Dublin Society 2, 27–40.

Mitchell, G. F. 1987. Archaeology and Environment in Early Dublin (Medieval Dublin Excavations 1962–81, Series C, Volume 1). Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

Monk, M. A. 1986. Evidence from macroscopic plant remains for crop husbandry in prehistoric and early historic Ireland: a review. Journal of Irish Archaeology 3, 31–6.

Monk, M. 1988. Appendix 3: archaeobotanical study of samples from pipeline sites, pp. 185–91 in Gowen, M. (ed.), Three Irish Gas Pipelines: New Archaeological Evidence in Munster. Bray: Wordwell.

Monk, M. A. 1991. The archaeobotanical evidence for field crop plants in early historic Ireland, pp. 315–28 in Renfrew, J. (ed.), New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Monk, M. A. 2000. Seeds and soils of discontent: an environmental archaeological contribution to the nature of the early Neolithic, pp. 67–87 in Desmond, A., Johnson, G., McCarthy, M., Sheehan, J. and Shee Twohig, E. (eds.), New Agendas in Irish Prehistory: Papers in Commemoration of Liz Anderson. Bray: Wordwell.

Morrison, K. D. 1994. The intensification of production: archaeological approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 111–59.

Nesbitt, M., Colledge, S. and Murray, M. A. 2003. Organisation and management of seed reference collections. Environmental Archaeology 8, 77–84.

O’Connell, M. 1990. Origins of Irish lowland blanket bog, pp. 49–71 in Doyle, G. J. (ed.), Ecology and Conservation of Irish Peatlands. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

O’Connell, M. and Molloy, K. 2001. Farming and woodland dynamics in Ireland during the Neolithic. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 101B, 99–128.

O’Connor, P. 1941. Appendix, p. 236 in Walshe, P. T., The excavation of a burial cairn in Baltinglass Hill, Co. Wicklow. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 46C, 221–36.

Orton, C. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pearsall, D. M. 2000. Palaeoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures (second edition). London: Academic Press.

Power, C. 1993. Reconstructing patterns of health and dietary change in Irish prehistoric populations. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56, 9–17.

Purcell, A. 2002. Excavation of three Neolithic houses at Corbally, Kilcullen, Co. Kildare. Journal of Irish Archaeology 11, 31–75.

Reid, A. and Young, R. 2003. Iron-smelting and bananas in Buganda, pp. 118–23 in Mitchell, P., Haour, A. and Hobart, J. (eds.), Researching Africa’s Past: New Contributions from British Archaeologists. Oxford: School of Archaeology, University of Oxford.

Renfrew, J. M. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany: The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near East and Europe. London: Methuen and Company.

Reynolds, P. 1979. Iron Age Farm: the Butser Experiment. London: British Museum Publications.

Robinson, D. E. (ed.) 1990. Experimentation and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology (Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No. 9, Roskilde, Denmark, 1988). Oxford: Oxbow.

Robinson, M. and Straker, V. 1991. Silica skeletons and macroscopic plant remains from ash, pp. 3–13 in Renfrew J. (ed.), New Light on Early Farming. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Rynne, C. 1998. The craft of the millwright in Early Medieval Munster, pp. 87–101 in Monk, M. A. and Sheehan, J. (eds.), Early Medieval Munster: Archaeology, History and Society. Cork: Cork University Press.

Schulting, R. J. and Richards, M. P. 2000. The use of stable isotopes in studies of subsistence and seasonality in the British Mesolithic, pp. 55–65 in Young, R. (ed.), Mesolithic Lifeways: Current Research from Britain and Ireland (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 7). Leicester: University of Leicester Press.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1992. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice (second edition). London: Routledge.

Shennan, S. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology (second edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Skoglund, P. 1999. Diet, cooking and cosmology: interpreting the evidence from Bronze Age plant macrofossils. Current Swedish Archaeology 7, 149–60.

Smith, H., Marshall, P. and Parker-Pearson, M. 2001. Reconstructing house activity areas, pp. 249–70 in Albarella, U. (ed.), Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Smith, W. 2001. When method meets theory: the use and misuse of cereal producer/consumer models in archaeobotany, pp. 283–98 in Albarella, U. (ed.), Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Smith, W. 2003. Archaeobotanical Investigations of Agriculture at Late Antique Kom el-Nana (Seventieth Excavation Memoir). London: Egypt Exploration Memoirs.

Stevens, C. J. 2003. An investigation of agricultural consumption and production models for prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environmental Archaeology 8, 61–76.

Stone, G. D. 2001. Theory of the square chicken: advances in agricultural intensification theory. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 42, 163–80.

Struever, S. 1968. Flotation techniques for the recovery of small-scale archaeological remains. American Antiquity 33, 353–62.

Thomas, K. 2001. Environmental archaeology is dead: long live bioarchaeology, geoarchaeology and human palaeoecology. A comment on ‘Environmental archaeology is not human palaeoecology’, pp. 55–8 in Albarella, U. (ed.), Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tierney, J. and Hannon, M. 1997. Plant remains, pp. 854–93 in Hurley, M. F., Scully, O. M. B. and McCutcheon, S. W. J., Late Viking Age and Medieval Waterford Excavations 1986–1992. Waterford: Waterford Corporation.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.

Tilley, C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic: Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomlinson, P. 1985. An aid to the identification of fossil buds, bud-scales and catkin-bracts of British trees and shrubs. Circaea 3, 45–130.

Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M. and Webb, D. A. 1964–83. Flora Europaea (Volumes 1–6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van der Veen, M. 1984. Sampling for seeds, pp. 193–9 in Van Zeist, W. and Casparie,W. A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany (Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Van der Veen, M. 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes: An Archaeobotanical Study of Farming in Northern England 1000 BC –AD 500 (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 3). Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.

Van der Veen, M. 1998. A life of luxury in the desert? The food and fodder supply to Mons Claudianus. Journal of Roman Archaeology 11, 101–16.

Van der Veen, M. 1999. The economic value of chaff and straw in arid and temperate zones. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8, 211–24.

Van der Veen, M. and Fieller, N. 1982. Sampling seeds. Journal of Archaeological Science 9, 287–98.

Van Zeist, W. and Casparie,W. A. (eds.) 1984. Plants and Ancient man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany (Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Weir, D. A. and Conway, M. 1988. Haughey’s Fort: a preliminary palaeobotanical analysis. Emania 4, 28–31.

Willcox, G. and Fornite, S. 1999. Impressions of wild cereal chaff in pisé from the 10th millennium uncal B.P. at Jerf el Ahmar and Mureybet, northern Syria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8, 21–4.

Wilson, D. G. 1984. The carbonisation of weed seeds and their representation in macrofossil assemblages, pp. 201–6 in Van Zeist, W. and Casparie, W. A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany (Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 2000. Domestication of Plants in the Old World (third edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zvelebil, M. 1994. Plant use in the Mesolithic and its role in the transition to farming. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 35–74.