Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:13:31.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collecting and Preserving Botanical Materials of Archaeological Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Elso S. Barghoorn
Elso S. Barghoorn*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In archaeological sites plant remains are frequently encountered either as artifacts or as natural deposits. A study of such remains commonly yields much valuable information, not only for the archaeologist but for other investigators as well. Thus, the former vegetation of a region and its possible bearing upon the previously existing climate are often revealed. Both the botanist and the paleontologist are interested in the preservation of plant remains and the structural and chemical changes which they have undergone since their deposition or submergence. In addition, of course, the careful study of woody artifacts frequently affords significant information regarding the Customs and practices of primitive peoples in working their materials. In order that the greatest value may be obtained from a study of botanical materials, however, it is essential that certain precautions and techniques be used in collecting and preserving them. Unfortunately, much botanical information available in an archaeological site is either discarded or overlooked in the process of digging and exposing the site.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , January 1944 , pp. 289 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, I. W., and Barghoorn, E. S. 1942. “Identification and Physical Condition of the Stakes and Wattles from the Fishweir.” In Johnson, Frederick et al., The Boylston Street Fishweir. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Vol. 2. Andover.Google Scholar
Barghoorn, E. S., and Bailey, I. W. 1940. “A Useful Method for the Study of Pollen in Peat.” Ecology, Vol. 21, pp. 513–514.Google Scholar
Cain, S. A. 1939. “Pollen Analysis as a Paleoecological Research Method.” Botanical Review, Vol. 5, pp. 627–654.Google Scholar
Darrah, W. C. 1938. “Technical Contributions to the Study of Archaeological Materials.” American Antiquity, Vol. 3, pp. 269–270.Google Scholar
Deevey, E. 1939. “Studies on Connecticut Lake Sediments. I. A Postglacial Climatic Chronology for Southern New England.” American Journal of Science, Vol. 237, pp. 691–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiseley, L. C. 1939. “Pollen Analysis and its Bearing on American Prehistory: a Critique.” American Antiquity, Vol. 5, pp. 115–139.Google Scholar
Godwin, H. 1934. “Pollen Analysis. An Outline of the Problems and Potentialities of the Method.” New Phytologist, Vol. 33, pp. 278–305; 325–338.Google Scholar