THE STUDY OF ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS:

VITALISING A DEBATE ON CHANGING CONCEPTIONS AND POSSIBILITIES

Anwar A-MAGID
Centre for Development Studies,
University of Bergen, Norway.
Contents.
1. Introduction.
2. The state of the study of archaeological plant remains.
3. Botanical issues.
3.1. Problems of nomenclature.
3.1.1. Definition and application of terms.
3.1.1.1.
Archaeobotany,
Palaeoethnobotany,
Archaeoethnobotany, Archaeological Botany.

Palaeobotany,

3.1.1.2. Fossil, Macrofossil and Microfossil.

3.2. The dual identity of Archaeobotany.
3.3. Methods of collection and analysis of samples.
3.4. Use (and misuse) of ethnographic and ethnobotanic data.
3.5. Manipulation of experimental studies.
3.6. Communication (between archaeobotanists).
4. Archaeological issues
4.1. Negligence of archaeobotanical remains.
4.2. Problems of sampling and interpretation.
4.3. Usage of the term cultivation.
5. Overlapping issues.
5.1. Problem of communication.
5.2. Problems of interpretation.
5.3. Ideal situation for efficient research (often lacking).
6. Potential contribution of Archaeobotany to the present day needs.

*************
1. Introduction.
In this paper, a modest attempt is made to initiate a debate on the current theory,
methodology and objectives of the study of archaeological plant remains with
special emphasis on issues relevant to archaeology and archaeological research on
ancient plant remains. The paper also includes some suggestions (that are open to
discussion) on prospective contribution of archaeobotanical research to applied
science, and hence the needs of the contemporary world. However, as the title
indicates, this presentation is not to be viewed neither as an exhasutive listing or
coverage of all the debatable theoretical, methodological and interpretative nor as
one that proposes definite answers, new ideas and /or solutions to the questions,
problems and issues raised. Rather, it is meant to provoke a debate that will
perhaps contribute new proposals and ideas and/or raise more issues.
In this debate, the phrase archaeological plant (or archaeobotanical) remains is
meant to denote all types of ancient plant remains which are recovered from
archaeological sites or from other areas with the intention of studying humanplants interrelationship and the context (environment) in which they took place.
These remains are often found in two main forms: namely, macrobotanical and
microbotanical remains (Magid, A., 1989: 65)). The macrobotanical remains are
those which can be seen by the naked eye or low power microscope, such as
seeds/grains, stones of fruits, leaves, charcoal, etc. The microbotanical remains can
not be seen by the naked eye and require high power microscope (ibid: 64), e.g.
pollen and phytoliths. Macro and microbotanical remains are deposited in or
brought to archaeological sites by natural and /or cultural processes. They are
preserved by carbonization, water logging, desiccation, and mineralization, as
stomach contents and residues, e.g. coprolites, impressions in pottery (ibid: 64).
They are identified (on the basis of their external morphology) by comparing them
with reference collections, manuals, and by sorting types, size, measurements,
shape and surface texture (ibid: 74).
It should be noted that in addition to published articles and books cited in this
work, some internet web sites (www) are also used and quoted in this work as
sources of information. The main emphasis are on those sites which have links to
other sites, thus, are thought to make a good starting point for those who are
interested to read further. These sites will be referred to as numbers preceded by
http:// (e.g. http://1). Detailed information on these sites is presented at the end
of the manuscript in their respective numerical sequence.
2. The state of the study of archaeological plant remains.
In this section, a broad outline on the history and the current position of the study
of the archaeobotanical remains is presented in order to establish areas of its
development and debate those areas of its weaknesses.
Interest in recovery and study of ancient plant remains captured the interest of
researchers in the Old World since 1826, e.g. C. Knut work on desiccated seeds and
fruits from ancient Egyptian tombs (Renfrew, J.M., 1973: 1). In the New World, the
study of ancient plants can be traced to1895 but interest in archaeological plant
remains started to developed during the 1930s (Pearsall, D.M., 1989: 1). As it
became an established fact that carbonized, desiccated and waterlogged plant
remains (e.g. seeds, fruits, etc.) could survive for thousands of years, studies on

ancient plant remains started to unfold. Most (if not all) of these studies were
mainly concerned with reporting the finding of a species at a particular site or
evaluating a particular plant species. Eventually, studies in the Old World began to
focus on botanical taxonomy and precise description of plant remains. Those
studies which were carried out in the New World (mainly in North America)
emphasised more the cultural aspects such as the presence and use of plants at a
site (ibid: 3).
The field of Ethnobotany was first introduced at the end of the 19 th century mainly
to study the relationship between contemporary small scale (or undifferential)
societies and plants (ibid: 1). This field witnessed two main developments in its
scope and conceptions since the early 1940s. These are: a. Introduction of interdisciplinary approaches in which anthropological and
botanical methods and techniques were used in ethnobotanical studies. Ideally, a
researcher who is familiar with methods, techniques and approach of both botany
(plant
sciences)
and
anthropology
should
conduct
interdisciplinary
(ethnobotanical/anthropological) research.
b. Expansion of the concept of ethnobotany whereby it included the relationship
between plants of both ancient communities and industrial societies. Accordingly,
the term ethnobotany was applied to the study of human- plant relationship,
without limit to time or to the degree of cultural development (ibid).
Toward the end of 1950s Palaeoethnobotany was introduced as a part (or subfield) of ethnobotany that is specifically concerned with the study of human-plant
relations in the past through the study of archaeological plant remains such as
macrobotanical remains as well as pollen, phytoliths analysis (ibid). Hence, the
European and Old World studies started to move away from their traditional focus
on taxonomy and morphology of remains towards cultural interpretations. In the
New World and America, there was increased interest on reconstructing subsistence
and palaeoenvironment, and greater emphasis was put (during the 1950s and
1960s) on recovering and studying macro-remains and pollen (ibid: 5).
Quantitative pollen analytical studies (which were known and first used in 1916)
became fairly widespread in archaeological research during the 1960s. In addition,
phytoliths analysis was known and used in the Old World since the beginning of the
20th century (1900, 1914) and in the New World since the 1960s (ibid: 326).
However it was only during the 1970 s and 1980s that the introduction and
development of techniques and methodology of these were applied on a wider and
more systematic scale in archaeological research. Finally, a major advancement in
recovery methods of marcobotanical remains was made when the method of Froth
Flotation was introduced and widely applied (ibid: 7-9).
The development, refinement and wide application of pollen, phytolith analysis and
the method of Froth Flotation in archaeological research are largely attributed to
increased interest in the origins and spread of agriculture and the past human
interaction with the environment. In turn, studies on archaeobotanical remains
have witnessed a dramatic increase in recent years (ibid: 4) and for the last three
decades or so, such studies got out of the laboratory and became an integral part
of many archaeological projects (Greig, J., 1989: 2). That is to say, archaeologists
developed a (healthy) trend toward interdisciplinary research in which biological
science started to play an active role.

The foregoing outline shows that the studies of archaeological plant remains have
undergone a remarkable development in their conceptions and scope mainly due to
developments and changes in interests and the nature of the questions asked. The
results and quality of these developments have been further promoted by
introducing and/or refining field and laboratory methods and techniques.
Nowadays, archaeobotanical research address a variety of questions and new
issues, the most common and widely researched ones are:
1. The study of the past human-plants relationships and their change over time.
This includes studies on: plant foods,
extractive strategies of plant foods and their change of overtime,
the craft uses of plants e.g. in construction, basketry, textiles, clothing, medicine,
etc. and
uses of plants for fuel.
2. The effects of resource availability on settlement patterns.
3. The surrounding environment at the time of the formation of the deposit (i.e.
occupation of the site).
Thus, many areas of developments and changes in the field may be viewed as
positive, yet there are other areas which remained unchanged or that the changes
introduced are disadvantageous, or conflicting and controversial in their
implications.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, I shall focus on some of (what I think are) the
main controversial issues and the potential contribution of this field of research. For
convenience of presentation, I will divide these into the following sub-headings:
Botanical issues,
Archaeological issues,
Overlapping issues.
Potential contribution of Archaeobotany.
3. Botanical issues:
These consist of the following:
3.1 Problems of nomenclature.
3.1.1 Definition and application of terms.
The main emphasis here are on those terms, which are widely and commonly used.
These are presented in two parts. The first part deals with some of the terms given
to the ? fields (or ? sub-fields) of the study of archaeobotanical remains. The
second part deals with some of the terms given to the archaeobotanical data.

3.1.1.1 Archaeoboatny, Palaeoethnobotany, Palaeobotany, Archaeoethnobotany,

and Archaeological-botany.
The
terms
Archaeoboatny,
Palaeoethnobotany,
Archaeoethnobotany,
Archaeological-botany etc. are handicapped by inadequacies, contradictions,
inconsistency and vagueness of their definitions, and hence, their theories,
objectives, applications and final results suffer the same weaknesses as
demonstrated in the following examples.
For
instance, some
researchers
use
the
terms
Archaeoboatny
and
Palaeoethnobotany as synonyms (Mason, S., 2002a; http://1) and defined both as
"the study of the interrelationship between people of the past and plants" (http://1;
http://2). Accordingly, the two terms are used alternatively and randomly,
sometimes within the same publication. Ideally, a definition of a scientific term is
meant to leave nothing to contention as it states and clearly explain the scope,
applications and exact limits of the term in question. In other words, each scientific
term should have its own well defined scope and limits leaving nothing to
contention. Therefore, applying one definition on two different terms obviously calls
for an explanation of the philosophy behind such usage. Until an explanation is
provided, such dual applications of these terms will keep creating a great deal of
confusion (particularly among students).
The picture becomes more blurred when we take into consideration another usage
in which the two terms (mentioned above) are regarded and used as synonyms but
they are defined differently. On one hand, Archaeoboatny is defined as being "the
study of ancient plant remains with emphasis on reconstruction of the environment,
climate and resource availability". On the other hand, Palaeoethnobotany is defined
as "the study of ancient plant-human relationships and their changes overtime"
(Owen, B., 2002). In other words, Archaeoboatny is mainly concerned with natural
vegetation and Palaeoethnobotany is restricted in scope to the study of (cultural)
plants, which are associated with human beings. As the two terms are defined as
having different scopes and limits, they should have been used as two distinct
terms. Comparison of these definitions with the one stated earlier does not only
create more confusion and inconsistency but it also reveals profound contradictions
and controversy in their scope, applications and interpretations.
Other examples show that some researchers tend to use more than one definition
for the same term. For instance one definition refer vaguely to Archaeoboatny as
being "the study of plant remains of any kind from archaeological sites" (Greig, J.,
1989: 1). Another definition associate the same term with the "recovery and
identification of plant remains by a specialist regardless of discipline" (Hastorf, C.A.,
and V.S. Popper, 1988: 1). This inconsistent and random usage clearly reflects a
confusion between methodology and scope which, in turn, creates controversy and
casts doubt as regards the basis/principles on which the definitions of these terms
are made.
In addition to the foregoing definitions of the term Palaeoethnobotany, there is one,
which proposes an entirely different scope and application. It defines
Palaeoethnobotany as "the study of the past cultures by an examination of human
population interaction with plant world" (ibid: 1). Obviously, this definition extends
the scope of Palaeoethnobotany far beyond the cultural interpretation of botanical
remains. It states explicitly that entire past human cultures are researched only by
studying the interaction between past human population and plants.
Other terms such as Archaeoethnobotany is defined as being the "study of
prehistoric plant use and origins of agriculture " (http://3). This definition explicitly

confines the scope of Archaeoethnobotany to the prehistoric period within which it

only deals with issues related to origins of agriculture. For some reason, this term is
not widely used as the other ones. Similar to Archaeoethnobotany, archaeological
botany is another term infrequently used in association with archaeological plant
remains without a clear definition of its meaning, or specifications of its scope and
objectives. Finally, there is another term, namely, Palaeobotany which is defined as
the study of plant fossils usually from the Tertiary, 65 to 1.5 mya- and earlier
(Greig, J. 1988: 3). But it is often used (especially by archaeologists) to denote the
study of plant remains recovered from Post-Pleistocene sites. Apparently, these
different applications indicate that there are different emphases on the term fossil
as discussed in more details in the following lines.
3.1.1.2 Fossil, Macrofossil and Microfossil.
Researchers are also divided as regards the usage of the terms macrofossil and
microfossil in relation to plant remains recovered from archaeological sites. On the
one hand, one group of researchers is of the opinion that these remains are not
fossils. They argue that fossils are confined to the classic definition, i.e "trace or
shape of an organism of the past geologic age which has been preserved in rock,
ice or earth for millions of years" (Macfall, R.P., and J.C. Wollin, 1983: 11).
Accordingly, they apply the term fossil to palaeobotanical data dated to the tertiary
period and earlier. All remains which date to periods younger than that are
described as macro (or micro)-botanical remains. On the other hand other
researchers lean more towards a modern usage and are of the opinion that the
term fossil also covers remains which have been dug from the earth regardl ess of
their age or the state in which they are found (e.g. petrified). The modern usage
extends application of the term fossil to inorganic matter, e.g. fossil lake, fossil
landscape, etc (Magid. A., 1989: 65).
As previously stated, these definitions are presented as examples reflecting the lack
of consensus on the distinction between the terms (Hastorf, C. A., and V.S. Popper,
1989: 2) and the subsequent faulty criteria used to define these terms. Evidently,
the lack of distinction between terms creates a state of confusion, and hence lack of
direction and loss of orientation among students and young researchers. Indeed, it
will be a perpetual dilemma. Therefore, there is immediate need and necessity for
drawing a clear distinction between these terms by revising and redefining their
scopes, and applications.
Until the problem of the controversial definitions is resolved, the present writer
opted to adhere to the term Archaeobotany and to employ it on the basis of its
literary meaning. That is to say, Archaeobotany is viewed as (an umbrella) term
that denotes the study of all types of ancient plant remains recovered from
archaeological sites and off site areas. These remains are studied to serve various
cultural and non-cultural research purposes e.g. study of past human-plants
relationships, interaction between humans and their environment, reconstructing of
past natural environment, climate, etc. More terms and definitions can be found in
most of the publications on ancient plant remains, e.g. J. Greig, 1989; C. A. Hastorf
and V.S. Popper, 1988; S. Mason, 2002b, http://4; http://5; http://6.
3.2 The dual identity of Archaeobotany.
The sources of data with which an archaeoboanist work are diverse and their nature
and value are equally varied (Greig, J., 1989: 3). While a very few individuals have
given attention to investigation of Archaeoboatny for its own sake, much of the
archaeobotanical information has accumulated in records incidental to
investigations for other purposes (ibid.) as for instance archaeological investigation.

Thus, the position of Archaeoboatny is not yet clearly identified as to whether it is

an independent discipline and or it is more like a service (or resources)- unit that
renders research services to other disciplines (e.g. archaeology). Some researchers
consider it as one of the archaeological sciences that form environmental
archaeology (together with other subjects). Others view it as an independent
discipline which render research service to archaeology as well as other fields of
research such as pharmacology, linguistics (place-names), environmental science,
etc. (ibid.).
It is probably more relevant to regard Archaeoboatny as a potential interdisciplinary
field of research awaiting development of its own research goals and questions.
Development of these areas, may positively direct researchers to appropriate
methods of data collection and analysis which will enable them to extract more
information from the botanical data for its own sake and for other research
purposes.

3.3 Methods of collection and analysis of data.

Theoretically the general rule stresses that it is "only after our methodologies and
interpretations are clearly expressed leaving nothing to implications that we can
invite all researchers to apply, discuss and improve them" (Hastorf, C.A., and V.S.
Popper, 1988: 3). Practically, most of the studies on archaeobotanical remains
suffer the following weaknesses:
a) Research has not developed beyond the technique-oriented one. Despite of the
fact that detailed reports and descriptions of the methods of collection and analysis
of data are provided, yet they seldom explain why a particular method or a set of
methods is used (ibid). In other words, most researches fall short of integrating
research goals and procedures.
b) Inseparable from the foregoing, there is lack of flexibility to change methods
with unexpected field and laboratory conditions (ibid: 4), for instance failure to
develop successful collection-method(s) of data for pollen analysis from arid areas.
Moving from qualitative and semi-quantitative lists of species recovered from
archaeological sites into a truly quantitative domain is still received with great
enthusiasm (ibid). Currently, most researchers believe in the logic that the more
statistical concerns are discussed, the more detailed matters of interpretation can
be raised. This could largely (but not fully) be the case in regions and at sites
where conditions provide 100% representative preservation for all botanical
remains originally buried in the site. Otherwise, this application does not seem to
have considered the difficulty (often the impossibility) of applying quantitative
analysis in areas where there are deposition and recovery biases in forms of underrepresentation or over-representation due to one or some or all of the following
circumstances:
a) Preservation conditions are not in favor of survival of certain types of vegetal
material, (e.g. with thin exterior surface), hence they are under represented while
other types of plant material (those with hard and woody exterior surfaces) survive.
Plant remains such as grains of cereals, tubers etc. perish shortly after their
disposal leaving no traces behind,
b) Plant foods which are most consumed are least represented in the archaeological
record. In addition to this

(i) cooked plant foods are less represented than those eaten raw,
(ii) plant foods with robust inedible portions are more likely to appear in the record
than foods that are completely consumed (e.g. staple cereal foods and stones of
fruits).
c) Plant foods eaten away from the site may leave no record (except may be in
coprolites but even coprolites may not survive), which means that part of the food
stuffs used may never be accounted for.
d) Deposition of seeds of weedy taxa that grew on the site during the occupation or
after the abandonment of the site (Pearsall, D.M., 1989: 440) may be interpreted
as being evidence of plant remains that are contemporary with the period of
occupation of site.
The present writer learnt (through his research-experience in arid and semi-arid
zones) that statistical studies of macrobotanical remains can be useful in certain
cases. For instance, they are useful if the objective is to compare efficiency of
different recovery methods and techniques at the same site or at several
contemporary sites with similar deposits, environmental and preservation
conditions. Biases of representation exist even in excellent preservation conditions.
It may be easy to count or weigh each fruit-stone or seed type recovered from a
site, but it is often difficult to interpret the meaning of the quantitative data.
3.4 Use (and misuse) of ethnographic and ethnobotanic data.
In order to help better processing of the data, to generate more questions and to
draw more dynamic interpretation, studies of archaeological plant remains have
many sources to tap. These sources comprise anthroplogical accounts,
ethnobotanical data of current plant use by existing people and documentary and
historical records (such as travelers, and geographers accounts, tales, writings of
classic authors, medieval herbal records, etc).
In exception of a few published works (that I am aware of), the use of ethnographic
and ethnobotanic studies and other useful sources in the interpretation of
archaeobotanical remains is both rare and unsystematic. Thus, the final
archaeobotanical interpretation provides only partial and sometimes biased if not
misleading information. This is not to be understood as if ethnographic and
ethnobotanic observations furnish us with ready answers for similar archaeological
occurrences and finds, rather, I would argue, they provide us with clues to
questions that researchers should ask (from the phase of data recovery, its context
and association to its analysis). Ethnographic and ethnobotanic research is (almost)
always guided by two main questions: one, how and in what ways people use
nature? Second, how and in what ways people view nature (http://1)? These,
together with their finds, steer archaeologits and archaeobotanists to the type of
questions they should raise and ask. As for instance, when we find a
macrobotanical remain, we might ask questions such as what sort of plant species
might be expected to grow with it, where might it be located in relation to other
cultural and biological finds, how was it brought to the site, etc. (ibid). We can keep
moving back and forth between our theories (ideas and questions) and the data
(the finds) and eventually we often realize that our original ideas about the finds
need to be changed. The more questions we ask the more we understand about the
context and the finds and will probably go on asking and changing ideas for ever
because we can feel pretty sure about something in the past but we can not
really prove it (ibid).

Unfortunately, some researchers tend to be skeptic about the use of ethnographic

studies (due to the wide temporal and cultural gap) and most of those who make
use of them tend to make almost blue copies of the ethnographic experiences in
their interpretations. In a previous work on plant remains recovered from
archaeological sites in the Sudan, the present writer discussed the validity and
limits of ethnobotanic and ethnographic data in archaeobotanical interpretation
(Magid, A., 2003).
3.5 Manipulation of experimental studies.
Experimental research on processing and preparation of (wild and domesticated)
food plants is also generally lacking and the few projects done or running are
uncoordinated and mostly access-restricted (Mason, S., 2002c).
Experimental studies contribute to our understanding of the archaeobotanical data
in three main ways (ibid):
a. producing samples of foodstuff at various stages of processing which can also be
used as reference material for comparison with the archaeological remains.
b. obtaining more or better understanding of the possible sequence that may need
to be undergone in producing an edible product from raw-plant.
c. providing greater insight into taphonomic biases, which are likely to affect
archaeological preservation as well as providing insight into the importance of such
things as cultural preferences.
It has been proven that doing experimental research in co-ordination with
ethnobotanic and ethnographic studies (e.g. on gatherers and incipient farmers)
make the task of experimental studies much more easier, cheaper, focused and
realistic(ibid).
3.6 Communication (between archaeobotanists).
There is a problem of provincialism and a general lack of communication among
researchers and most (if not all) of the communications are based on personal
relationships. Consequently, there is little integration of research goals and
procedures e.g. many papers dealing separately with the same issue are found
scattered in the literature. This is probably one of the main reasons for having
many conflicting terms and applications (as discussed earlier in this paper).
Another disadvantage for the lack of communication is that isolated researchers
(e.g. in Africa) fail to follow up recent developments in the field, and hence, they
fail to update and maintain the quality of their research and interpretations
(Pearsall, D.M., 1989: 7). Better communication through e.g. literature reviews and
regional and international meetings would enhance the research of all (ibid).
Finally, many of the publications and research results are found buried in the
literature of individual projects and institutions or little known languages, and hence
are difficult to access or make use of their contents (ibid).
Most (if not all) of the above mentioned difficulties can be overcome by establishing
an efficient network of communication and commitment of researchers.
4. Archaeological issues.

4.1 Negligence of archaeobotanical remains.

Increasing attention is being given to investigating archaeological plant remains.
Nevertheless, recovery and study of botanical remains is still largely an
afterthought in most of the archaeological projects (particularly those on prehistoric
research). It is often the case that an analyst is contacted for the first time after
the fieldwork and budget plans are made and repeatedly long after the fieldwork
was started (Pearsall, D.M., 1989: 8). This apparent negligence is partly attributed
to one or some or all of the following reasons (Mason, S., et al, 2002):
a. received opinion among many archaeologists is still that plant foods formed a
minimal part of the diet of the prehistoric (mainly late Pleistocene-Early Holocene)
populations,
b. even if plant foods are important, it has been argued that they are not well
preserved on early sites and it is unlikely to find evidence for their use. Moreover,
archaeological-research budgets are too little to allow for expensive
archaeobotanical analyses (that often yield negative results). Thus, archaeologists
interested in plant domestication and the origin of agriculture have often relegated
the botanical evidence a secondary (or no) position and focused mainly on the
economic, social and cultural developments.
c. archaeologists, especially processual ones, tend to focus on the most prelevant
(and flashy) part of the diet, such as animal bones, fish remains (http://4) etc.
This attitude ought to be changed to one in which botanical remains are valued as
significant finds and handled as any other faunal or material culture remains.
4.2 Problematic issues of sampling and interpretation.
A minority of archaeologists are keen to learn about the nature of archaeobotanical
material, the method and technique of its recovery and its laboratory treatment and
finally its advantages and limitations. Therefore, most (if not all) of the
archaeological approaches to collection of archaeobotanical data often lack any
definite plan or order or purpose. Every step is governed by or depending on
chance. In addition, many archaeologists embrace a positivist model of
interpretation (ibid) that is derived on the basis of empirical data and observations
and the results obtained are considered truthful and objective knowledge (Pearsall,
D.M., 1989: 8). By so doing, they repeatedly fail to explore and consider the
following scientific realities (ibid):
a. distribution of plant remains on a site is affected by planned and unplanned
cultural activities and by natural factors,
b. excavated area within a site constitutes a sample of the site. The excavated
sample of the site does not necessarily represent (i) the whole site, (ii) all activities
performed on the site or (iii) the distribution and types of botanical remains
originally deposited on the site.
c. the botanical sample retrieved constitutes a sample of the sample of the
botanical materials originally brought to the site (as we mentioned earlier in
connection with the botanical issues).
In addition to these scientific facts, archaeologists fail to involve the logic of
questions and answers in their interpretations of archaeobotanical data.

Consequently, these interpretations tend to be static in nature and limited in scope.

Static and limited explanations fail to provide room for the following:
(i) future developments in the methods and techniques which may enable
researchers to reveal remains not possible to uncover with the methods available.
For instance, until recently, exploitation of food-plants in the Early Holocene Central
Sudan has been interpreted as being mainly based on gathering of immediately
eaten food plants which do not require processing or preparation before being
eaten, e.g. fruits and berries (Magid, A., and I. Caneva, 1998: 78-87; Magid, A., in
press). The archaeobotanical evidence, on which the interpretation was derived,
consisted mainly of individual finds of stones and seeds of fruits which were mostly
hand-picked while excavating or during sieving (Magid, A., and I. Caneva, 1998:
78-87). However, this interpretation was proven wrong when the method of making
positive casts of plant impressions on pottery was introduced and evidence of wild
cereals and grasses was recovered from the same sites (ibid; Magid, A., 1989: 7193; 1995: 147-177). In fact, application of this method and extraction of new
archaeobotanical evidence changed long and firmly held interpretations of economic
strategies related to food-plant exploitation during both the Early and the Middle
Holocene periods in the Central Sudan (ibid; Magid, A., in press). It is also
anticipated that such methods as phytoliths analysis (and may be other new
methods to be developed) will be applied in arcaheobotanical research in the Sudan
in the future. Application of these methods may yield new evidence that lead to
changing further the present interpretations on food-plant exploitation.
(ii) possibilities for raising more questions which may generate different
interpretations because, no matter what archaeologists do, their cultural
interpretations are to a varying degree coloured with their cultural biases and
experiences. For instance, whenever evidence of pottery, grinders and wild
cereals/grasses are recovered from a Neolithic site (e.g. in the Sudan), these
findings are interpreted as being indicative of e.g. cultivation activity. But, a
different interpretation (e.g. suggesting gathering) is drawn when similar botanical
and cultural evidence are recovered from a Mesolithic site.
4.3 Usage of the term cultivation.
It is often the case that the term cultivation is used by archaeologists and in the
archaeological literature (on the early exploitation of food-plants) to denote
domestication. This usage strongly implies that the term cultivation is only
associated with domesticated plants. Indeed, some archaeologists argue that the
available evidence does not, in any direct or indirect way, show the actual transition
(or shift) from the gathering of wild food plants to their cultivation and
domestication. Therefore, they could not use the term cultivation unless they have
evidence of domesticated plants. Obviously this restricted use of the term
cultivation reflects a positivist model of archaeological interpretation, which
obviously seems to overlook the following scientific facts:
a. if wild plants were not regularly cultivated they would not have been
domesticated; thus, cultivation is an activity which can be exercised on wild plants,
incipiently and fully domesticated plants
b. all domesticated plants are cultivated but not all cultivated plants are
domesticated (Magid, A., 1989: 229). For more information on this issue see ibid:
228-230.
Therefore, it should be stressed that when dealing with prehistoric and early
historic economic strategies related to exploitation of food plant and/or evolution of

food plants, it is necessary and very significant to specify and distinguish between
cultivation of plants that are wild and those which are domesticated.

5. Overlapping issues
These are problematic issues and worries shared by both archaeologists and
archaeobotanists.
5.1 Problem of communication.
It is often the case that, on one hand, archaeobotanists only know and are only
concerned with the technical and scientific parts of the study of archaeobotanical
remains retrieved from archaeological site but they know very little or almost
nothing about the cultural context of these remains. On the other hand,
archaeologist often know nothing about the nature and limitations of the
archaeobotanical remains and the methods used to retrieve and analyise them.
Consequently, there is almost complete lack of a common language of
communication. Lack of a common language of communication creates situations
where archaeologists and archaeobotanists (unintentionally) misinform and/or
misunderstand each other and hence they fail to fulfil the goals and objectives of
their endeavour.

5.2 Problems of interpretation.

Building on the previous point, a question arises: Who should draw the final
interpretation of archaeobotanical data: the archaeologist who knows about the
cultural context or the archaeobotanist who knows about the botanical remains? In
either case, the end product is obviously incomplete interpretation because the
writings of an archaeologist are too often lacking the explicitness concerning the
plant remains involved and the archaeobotanist often fall short in ethnological
details. This dilemma leads us to the following issue.

5.3 Ideal situation for efficient research (often lacking).

As Archaeoboatny is marginal between botany and archaeology, the ideal situation
is to have a researcher trained in both archaeology and botany. Unfortunately, until
now there are a very few specialists who have such qualifications and it still is a
matter of debate whether it is better for archaeobotanist to be first good botanist
and then to learn about archaeology, or whether archaeologists can become good
botanists. The current positive tendency towards interdisciplinary research work
might motivate future archaeobotanists to acquire training in both disciplines. Until
then, it may be practical to suggest that both archaeologists and botanists embark
on developing a language of communication that enables each to learn the
fundamentals of his partners field of research. By so doing, they will be able to
promote a language which enables them to plan and investigate jointly those points
at which plant science and archaeology overlap and to interpret the mutual
significance of their interrelationship (Greig, J., 1989: 3). In short, archaeologists
and archaeobotanists need to acquire language by which they can understand and

communicate the questions to be asked, the plans to be made, the work to be

carried out, analysis to be done and objectives to be achieved.
6. Possible contribution of Archaeobotany to the present day needs.
Nowadays, the validity of any science or field of research lies in its durability and
ability to render tangible services to human-needs and expectations in different
situations at different places and environments. If it fails to meet these conditions,
then both interest and need for it rapidly decline. Consequently, research-grants
progressively dwindle until they cease to flow. So, one may ask whether
Archaeoboatny is capable of meeting such challenges and if the answer is yes, how
can it contribute to the needs of people in the times we live in? In a recent work,
the present writer attempted to address the relevance of Archaeoboatny to our
todays world, its needs and expectations (Magid, A. 2003). He concluded that
Archaeobotany has the potentials to restore and conserve (rapidly disappearing)
indigenous knowledge on plants and their uses. It also contributes to resettlement
and/or development of displaced people due to famines, civil wars and political
instability (ibid).
Archaeobotany also has the potentiality to furnish pharmaceutical research with
raw-materials and recipes and to promote the current healthy trend in the
(Developed) World towards the use of natural herbs for different purposes (e.g.
remedies, dietary, body-grooming, natural cosmetics, etc.). Archaeobotanical
research could contribute to serving these goals by assembling detailed information
on ancient plants, their types, properties and applications. This information can be
used to reviving ancient herbal recipes/applications and adding unknown ones to
the present formulas.
In short, Archaeoboatny has the potential of addressing issues related to current
socio-economic crises and rural development as it contribute to solving problems of
food-crises and resettlement of displaced communities. It also has the potentials to
enriching newly found old (e.g. remedial, cosmetic, etc.) ways of using plants.

References.
Greig, J.,
1989

Archaeoboatny. Handbook for Archaeologists No. 4. European Science

Foundation. Strasbourg.

Hastorf, C.A. and V.S. Popper,

1988
London.

Palaeoethnobotany. A handbook of procedures. Academic Press, Inc.

Macfall, R.P. and J.C. Wollin,

1983

Fossils for Amateurs.Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Second revised

edition. New York, London.

Magid, A.
1989

Plant Domestication in the Middle Nile Basin. An Archaeoethnobotanical

Case Study. Cambridge Monographs in African
Archaeology 35. BAR International Series 523.

1995

Plant Remains and their Implications. R. Haaland and A., Magid, (ed):
Aqualihtic Sites along the Rivers Nile and Atbara,
Sudan. Alma Mater, Bergen, Norway: 147-177.

Magid, A. and I. Caneva,

1998

Exploitation of Food Plants in the Early Holocene Central Sudan: A

Reconsideration. S. de Lernia and G. Manzi (ed):
Before food production in North Africa. Questions and
tools dealing with resource exploitation dynamics at
12000- 7000 bp. A.B.A.C.O. Edizion. M.A.C. sr1, Forl:
79-89.

Magid, A.
2003

Exploitation of Food-Plants in the Early and Middle Holocene Blue Nile

Area, Sudan and Neighbouring Areas. Complutum (14).
Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad Complutense de
Madrid, Spain.

Mason, S.
2002a

Ethnobotany
of
Wild
Plant
Foods.
Web
Site,
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/sm
ason/smethnob.htm (visited 20.01.2004)

Mason, S.
2002b

Comparative Studies of Hunters-Gatherers-Archaeology, Ecology and

Ethnobotany.
Web
Site.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/sm
ason/smhgs.htm

(visited 20.01.2004)
Mason, S.,
2002c

Experimental Approaches to the Archaeoboatny of Wild Food Plants.

Web
Site,
http://www.uclac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/sma
ssmexpmnt.htm (visited 20.01.2004).

Mason, S., G. Hillman and J. Hather

2002

Owen, B.

Investigation of the Role of Wild Plant Foods in Pre-Agrarian Europe.

Web
Site,
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/sm
ason/
smresear.htm
(visited 20.01.2004)

2002

Introduction

to Archaeology,
Bioarchaeology.
members.aol.com
19.01.2004).

Class 14: Archaeoboatny and

Web
Site,
http://www.
postquem/32402f14.htm
(visited

Renfrew, J.M.
1973

Palaeoethnobotany. The Prehistoric Food Plants of the near East and

Europe. Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Web Sites Cited

http://1

http://www.anthro.psu.edu/courses/palaeo.html
(visited 23.01.2004).

http://2

http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/peb/plethbot.html
(visited 23.01.2004).

http://3

http://www.anthro.fortlewis.edu/ethnobotany/ethno2.html
(visited 23.01.2004).

http://4

http://www.cgi.sfu.ca/~museum/landarch/index.cgi?palaeo
(visited 22.01.2004).

http://5

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/arch_pal.html
(visited 20.01.2004).

http://6

http://www.imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/arch/ArchDef/main.htm
(visited 20.01.2004).