The Role of Biogenic Silica in Archaeology

Chapter 1 Introduction Phytoliths, plant opals or silica cells are all names for concretions of biogenetic silica produced by living plants that are readily released into the environment isolated following the destruction of there parent material (Piperno 2006). There value to archaeology lies in there recurring taxonomically patterns of production. As a part of structural plant tissue they are deposited quite distinctly from pollen or seeds, resulting in applications unique to the discipline. Phytoliths robustly survive in soils, sediments, on the surfaces of interred artefacts and the teeth of humans and other animals (Pearsall 2000). Over the last 180 years they have been discovered, classified and crept into the study of past human societies, now forming a promising discipline of environmental archaeology. Once erroneous labelled as the Second palynology (Rovner 1974) for its similarities to pollen analysis, phytolith data has proven more remarkably more useful and replicable then earlier commentators anticipated. Despite several decades of dedicated research the full extent of phytoliths in plant taxa and their value has yet to be unravelled. (Pearsall 2000) as more as more taxa are studied more distinctive phytoliths are identified. Phytoliths from a single species appear in variable shapes and sizes unlike pollen, there is not necessarily a single phytolith morphotype that is characteristic of a particular plant taxon; rather, some plant species produce numerous phytolith morphotypes whereas others produce none. However we now know that morphotypes unique to a certain species phytoliths are longer necessary to infer archaeological data. Much information can now be gleaned from absolute quantities and morphotype combinations or suites.

Phytolith from varied contexts have been used for a myriad of purposes spanning crop identification in deposits, direct evidence of diet and vegetation change yet the discipline remains poorly understood or even unknown by non-specialists This synthesis aims to establish the scientific basis for archaeological phytolith research, the salient successes of its integration into archaeology and its current limitations. A history of phytolith studies The first recorded incidence of bio-genetic silica being observed in plants can be attributed to G.A. Struve; a botanist who published his findings in 1835 (Piperno 2006, 2). However it was pioneering microbiologist Christian Ehrenburg, who laid the foundations of a phytolith analysis relevant to archaeology. He recorded their presence in pre-quaternary sediments and termed them phytolitharia Greek for plant stones (Ibid, 2). He developed the first classification system. The most famous early observation of phytoliths was by Charles Darwin while sailing on the HMS Beagle off Cape Verde in 1833 (Ibid). Upon observing a fine dust falling from the Beagles sails, which scratched the ships instruments while many miles out to sea he became curious and collected samples sending them to Ehrenburg who recognised them as phytoliths. In the initial decades of the 20th there was number of sporadic archaeological applications of phytolith assemblages, for instance in Europe they were used to identify cultivated cereals in ceramic and ash heaps. This coincided with a great expansion of awareness and knowledge of the presence of phytolith in plants. The bulk of research during this period occurred in Germany. This florescence came to an end with the changing political landscape of 1930s Germany (Piperno 2006, 395). Other schools continued to examine biogenetic silica in soils such as in the Soviet Union. Soviet soil scholarship helped to initiate to important work in University College of North Wales beginning in the mid 1950s by a number of scholars particular Smithson (Powers 1992). Their comprehensive work on phytolith formation was essential for later work. The potential of phytoliths of

the grass family was realised and followed by much progress particularly by Smithson (Powers 1992). A refreshed interest in phytolith developed in the late 1970s as a means to fulfil a need for a proxy to examine vegetation histories in the American tropics. Most importantly research grew beyond grass species to many other plant species (Pearsall 1993, 10). Prehistoric plant use, crop domestication in particular the domestication of maize and associated crops in the Neotropics were key research foci (Piperno 1988). In the 1990s phytolith research broadened as new archaeological questions were posed during this time such phytoliths as a tracer of clay procurement, pottery manufacture and diet through phytolith survival on dental calculus. Their discovery in human dental calculus remains provided a rare instance of direct evidence of dietary information (Fox et al. 1994). Within Europe, applications have been slow to develop; rare examples in the 1990s include the identification of animal dung and peat phytolith signatures and also differentiation between roof and floor deposits in Hebridean houses (Powers 2003) and to examine cropping surfaces in the Hebrides (Smith 1996). More recently vegetal resource exploitation in Scotland (Madella 2007) and residue analysis of quernstones from Caherconnell fort, Co. Clare has been studied (Hardy 2007). This quern stone analysis was indeed hindered by a lack of a reference collection. Worldwide since the late 1990s as employment of phytoliths have burgeoned, as superior diagnostic techniques were developed (refer to chapter 4).

Chapter 2

The nature of phytoliths and assemblage formation

The properties of phytoliths Phytoliths can form in the stems, leaves, roots, inflorescence and infructescence of plants. They are typically 20-50m in diameter. Phytoliths are composed of an amorphous mix of silicon dioxide with trace amounts of other elements such as aluminium, iron, magnesium copper, nitrogen as well as proteins, monosaccharides and

lipids (Piperno 2006; Elbaum 2009). Phytolith contain material sufficient for direct carbon dating, stable carbon, hydrogen and oxygen isotope study. Although resistant to domestic fires, burning does change their discernible optical properties but can also lead to colour change (Elbaum et al. 2003).

Formation
Phytoliths are formed when monosilicic acid is carried into the plant via the xylem from groundwater (Piperno 2006, 5). This can only occur when silica is a feature in the growing medium; which is the case in the vast majority of soils (Wilkinson & Stevens 2003). This silica is transported into aerial structures where it is impregnated in to plant structures. This may occur in specialised silica accumulating cells: idioblasts or cellular and intercellular spaces of plants. In idioblasts accumulating silica does not take on the shape of the parent cells unlike when it accumulates in cellular or intercellular spaces (Pearsall 2000). The pattern of phytolith formation is often specific to a plant part e.g. incidence and types fond in wood, bark, stem, inflorescence or leaves is usually unique to that part (Tsartsidou 2007). Most fruit and flowers are not discernible, this was apparent in Tsartsidou and colleagues Greek study (ibid). One notable exception are grass species, varying ratio of grass floral parts may potentially suggest seasonality of a sites strata (Rosen 2001, 184). The process of phytolith formation is largely a genetic controlled mechanism but production is also under the sway of local climate and growing conditions. This may result in increased production in high producer taxa, greater variety of phytolith types or even the occurrence of phytoliths in taxa (usually low amounts) that dont usually accumulate silica. One factor that prompts increased variety is magnified levels of dissolved silica in the plants growth medium. Excess silica absorbed by the plant may be deposited in places not targeted for silica production when the primary depositional sites have mostly been silicified (Piperno 2006, 8). This is linked with the presence of multicellular phytoliths, known as silica skeletons (see fig 2.3). It now understood that climate influences variation in phytolith production (Harvey et al. 2005, 742). High evapotranspiration, such as in arid climes rates can induce high phytolith production. This is true in certain aerial structures such as leaf tips and inflorescence bracts especially in 4

grasses. However there are examples where phytoliths are most frequent in plant cells not associated with water loss such as the idioblasts (Piperno 2006, 10). Rosen and Weiner observed that German bread wheat produced much lower yields of phytoliths then samples grown in the Near East (1994). Multi-cellular types also occur in much reduced numbers in northern latitudes (Rosen pers. commun.). Phytoliths are not waste products of transpiration but fulfil several functions within the plant. These relate to plant structure, stability, reducing herbivory and possibly as an adaptation to cope with soil toxicity (Piperno 2006). To sum phytoliths are a normal product of plant growth and thus they occur in all environments (Piperno 2006). There is regional production variation, especially in high latitudes where less research has been carried out. This needs to be defined and documented. Are phytoliths taxonomically diagnostic? Some have expressed doubt on the usefulness of phytoliths. OConnor & Evans (2005, 163) prematurely dismissed their taxonomic resolution as inadequate for study of floristic and environmental change in European archaeology but in truth resolution is not yet fully understood and neither are the implications of new methods discussed later. Despite being functional they are absent in many plant families e.g. Fabaceae and aroids. In a study of medieval English crops most crops outside the grass family were found to be non-diagnostic although this study did not examine distinctive suits (Hart 2007). Many other species produce low numbers that are only limited diagnostic identifiable e.g. some legumes and strawberries (Hart 2007). On occasion these can only be classified as fruity or rooty (Ibid, 80). Low phytolith producer species create problems in interpretation of the phytolith record as certain species will be chronically underrepresented and thus
are not chronically underrepresented and thus are not practically measurable to absolute

levels. Woody species are one major group of low phytolith producers. Tsartsidou et al. (2007, 1268) found in a study of Greek flora that no wood types sampled contained more then 400 phytoliths per a gram of dry material, quite a contrast to the 1,500,000 produced per gram contained in bread wheat. Wood of some tree species produces none. A high

portion of wood phytoliths of are a typically variable morphology (Tsartsidou et al. 2007). Leaves of dicotyledons trees and shrubs produce moderate numbers of phytoliths ranging from hundreds of millions per a dry gram of plant material. However some low phytolith producers can still be identified when other factors are accommodated. For instance the paucity of wood in the phytolith record is partly compensated by woods characteristic production of siliceous aggregates; biogenic aggregates of soil minerals which often persist intact in the archaeological record.

Figure 2-2 Diagnostic Oat (A. Sativa) wavy long cells. From Hart 2007, 62

These particles do appear to be less stable in sediment then phytoliths (Albert et al. 2001). Silica deposition in underground plant organs is poorly understood. Up till Chandler-Ezell et al. described (2006) diagnostic phytoliths of South American crops little success had been reported on characterizing root phytoliths types or suites.

Fig 2-1 Diagnostic Spelt wheat (T.Spelta) zta) wavy long cells. From Hart 2007, 67.

Many major ecosystems in the United States have well documented phytolith signatures. Others such as European temperate forests are less well documented. It could be hypothesized that temperate deciduous dicot woodland is not usually discernable as Piperno (2006, 19) found in the Eastern United States, however this will require further research to clarify. Even when phytolith suites cannot be precisely matched to ecosystem types grassland can still be broadly distinguished from woodland, a distinction very relevant to archaeology. Key species economic identifiable phytoliths to species through phytoliths are outlined on table 1.

Table 1. Select list of economic plants with taxonomically diagnostically phytolith assemblages (collated data from Ball et al. 1999; Piperno 2006; Portillo et al. 2006) Species Triticum monococcum (Einkorn wheat) Triticum dicoccoides (Wild Emmer Wheat) Triticum dicoccoides (Emmer Wheat) Triticum durum (Durum wheat) Triticum aestivum (Bread wheat) Avena sativa (Common Oat) Avena strigosa (Pointed Bristle Oat) Hordeum vulgare* (Two-rowed & six-rowed Barley) Hordeum spontaneum (Wild barley) Secale cereal* (Rye) Zea mays (maize) husk Curcurbita spp. (squashes & gourds) Helinthus annus (sunflower) Leaf, fruit rind Achene Identifiable plant part Glume Glume Glume Glume Glumes inflorescence inflorescence Glumes Glume Glume Glume/cupulate, Leaf and morphometrics

Oryza sativa (rice) Musa spp. (bananas)

Leaf, glume Leaf, seed

*complete silica skeletons are needed to distinguish these species (Tsartsidou 2007). Deposition Phytoliths are deposited through a number of human and natural processes. Principally phytoliths enter sediment when they are liberated into the uppermost horizons of the soil profile through the decay of their parent vegetation. This process creates a local record of vegetation unlike regional informative pollen record. Phytoliths ubiquitous survival in the soil horizon contrasts greatly with pollen or plant macrobotanical remains. These are often only preserved on archaeological sites through selective processes waterlogging or charring, therefore are questionably representative. It is reasonable to assume much of the phytolith record in many areas was deposited from vegetation in-situ. This is particular true on sites were other processes of deposition can be ruled out such as caves. Ideally archaeological sites phytoliths survive in proportions representative of the frequency of their parent plant material. In many sites the majority of an assemblage entered the deposit simply through the continuous process of anthropogenically discarded plants (Piperno 2006).

Figure 2-3 Silica skeleton from a grass culm. From Madella et al. 2002, 710.

It is understood that several factors allow significant movement of phytoliths from their point of origin. They can be transported and deposited through herbivory via dung, wind and alluvial processes (Fredlund & Tieszen 1994). Phytoliths entering rivers or streams may travel some distance in suspension with other silt particles. Alluvial transport has been cited to explain substantial numbers of characteristic upland types identified in lake sediments (Zhao & Piperno 2000). Airborne transport can be significant depositor of phytoliths in some terrains especially when dry condition prevail, high velocity winds and few obstructions may allow phytoliths to be carried airborne over long distances. Phytoliths have been observed to be transported as far as 2000 km downwind but generally rest within 500 km of their origin (Piperno 2006, 106). This is associated with arid climates with little consolidating surface vegetation particularly after bush fires. Thus aeolian deposition can result in significant contamination of a plants phytolith assemblage. Although these processes complicate interpretation they are do allow phytolith record from certain contexts to be used as proxy data for the reconstructions of regional vegetation (Piperno 2006, 103). In certain contexts such as lakes with significant fluvial inflow the phytoliths record can represent greater regional area rather than just the immediate local vegetation. These factors are primarily a concern for palaeoecological studies rather then Archaeology. Although these processes represent significant contamination of the phytolith record. Clearly any natural process effecting a studied site whether alluvial, aeolian or others must be rigorously scrutinized before the phytolith record is interpreted (Piperno 2006). Phytolith taphonomy Once deposited complex taphonomic processes effect biogenetic silica which remain not entirely explained (Albert et al. 2005). It is critical that that the taphonomic processes that effect depositional bio-genetic silica are foreseen to allow the correct interpretation of

assemblages from archaeological or palaeoecological contexts. As phytoliths are inorganic they are not subject to the decay that destroys other plant remains. They tolerate burning, wet and dry soils and even alternating wet and dry conditions. In environments with surrounding sediment pH 9 or above silica solubility increases; but only in a minority of sites will this be a concern. Fluctuating ground water and bioturbation also play a role in their breakdown (Albert et al. 2005). Albert et al. (Ibid) note due to age or climatic factors some phytoliths form solidly in plant cells and are robust while others form poorly as fragile encrustations. In an East African study wood/bark phytoliths were found to be more resistant then more numerous types such as sedges and grasses (Albert et al. 2005). X-ray microanalysis has also highlighted that the level of weathering may be linked to levels of impurities. It is understood that the presence of aluminium, co-deposited in phytoliths reduces their susceptibility to solution. Aluminium content is associated with tree species (Carnelli et al. 2002, 351). Albert and Weiner (2000, 945) noted in Kebara cave in Israel that variable phytoliths show greater tendency for solution. Paradoxically X-ray microanalysis of phytolith from loess soils has shown that the impurity of silica plays a role in there breakdown as those with calcium, iron and sodium suffered greater deterioration (Osterrieth et al. 2009, 74-75).

10

Contexts where phytoliths can be recovered Residues in Food vessels Pottery clay Coprolites Human & animal teeth Skeletal abdominal sediment Working edges of tools Hearth ash Archaeological sediment Natural Soils
Fig 2.4 Assemblage formation From Madella & Zurro 2010.

Possible inferences Food processing, diet and dating of vessel use Refine geological fingerprint of clay source Diet Diet Diet Tool function, plant processing and dating of use Fuel preferences , burnt food and discernment of non-visible ash Spatial organization, microscale ecology and irrigation Micro to macroscale vegetation reconstruction

Chapter 3 Classification and interpretation

Constraints of classification To interpret an archaeological phytolith collection it is first necessary to investigate which local plants are relevant to the archaeological record, which produce identifiable phytoliths and in what absolute quantities (Tsartsidou 2007, 1263). Undoubtedly a lack of comprehensive comparable reference collections has hindered research hitherto (Hardy 2008). There two different basic types of phytoliths (Albert & Weiner 2001, 151-154); those with highly irregular morphologies. These are termed variable morphology phytoliths and those with unique forms, which are identifiable either by their characteristic shape or

11

by their cellular origin in the plant. The latter two groups are known as consistent morphology phytoliths. Using consistent morphology phytoliths there are two fundamental approaches to phytolith identification. The first is the morphological approach which relies on the characteristic features and seize of individual disarticulated phytoliths to establish their parent body (Pearsall 2000, 375). However variable morphology phytoliths cannot be connected to any particular species. Phytoliths may survive in deposits as articulated silica skeletons or epidermal sheets preserving the original orientation of the plant. In these cases it may be possible to examine the position, orientation and shape of phytoliths comparing them to their original anatomical position within a plant to define the parent species; this is known as the botanical approach (Pearsall 2000). Ideally a species could be distinguished by the presence of morphotype unique to that species, a typological approach. It is most effective when the taxa being considered produce individual or suites of phytoliths unique to those taxa. In such a case, the occurrence of a characteristic phytolith indicates the taxon. However this is not possible among many species furthermore diagnostic silica skeletons may be not present in appreciable quantities in a sample. Redundancy and multicity of phytolith types is persistent across many species and families (Pearsall 2000). For instance it cannot distinguish the phytoliths produced by the inflorescence bracts of Emmer and bread wheat, because no significantly different types are produced by any of these species (Terry et al. 1996). It is more common to infer parent plant by comparing diagnostic broad groups of morphotypes then by identification of a single type (Rovner 1983, 229). Several other approaches exist reflecting the complex set of questions asked of phytolith analysis.

Keys and discriminate analyses Morphometrics is a technique of taxonomic analysis using measurements of the size and shape. Since its induction to phytolith analysis it has allowed greater taxonomic

12

resolution of phytoliths when used in conjunction with typologies. Consistent morphology phytoliths of certain species can only be differentiated on the basis of length, width, and trough diameter, for instance those of the inflorescence glumes of wheat (Ball et al. 1996). Morphometric parameters can be directly measured by an eyepiece micrometer in the microscope or by more advanced technologies. These variables can be discerned through the use of a classification key or discriminant functions. Both have now being determined by researchers using computer-assisted image analysis to establish and rapidly measure the morphometric parameters (Pearsall 2000; Wu 2009). Discriminant analysis is a increasingly preeminent quantitative statistical method of identification. It was applied to the discipline to determine and classify the morphometric variables that vary between morphotype groups. A discriminant analysis method for cross-body phytoliths proved to be important for identifying for maize phytoliths in the American tropics, outside the range of wild maize species (Pearsall 2000, 384). Other instances of its use included the measurements of glume hair phytoliths permitting separation of wild and domesticated rice species (Zhao et al. 1998). Increasingly computer-assisted image technology is being used to assist identification and to rapidly measure of the morphotype parameters particularly in discriminant analyses. Tests have indicated that, at the genus level, both the selective use of a classification key and discriminate analysis of certain morphotypes of phytoliths can be reliable tools but vary hugely in accuracy according to species. In Ball and colleagues (1999) study, emmer wheat was classified only 40% successfully with discriminant analysis using the average morphometries of four morphotypes yet a relatively simple key achieved 80% correct classification.

13

Figure 3-1 Maize cross bodies (oblique and side view) (Ball 2010)

Quantitative methods By knowing the phytolith production per gram of dry plant material of each species it is possible to infer relative quantities of each plant on site. Quantities of phytoliths produced is often distinctive of certain plant families. Initially this only allowed very broad groups to be distinguished such as grassland or woodland by taking into account (Bonnett 1972; Verma & Rust 1969). Using this method, identification to the genus level may be possible if assemblage is homogenous. The phytolith difference index is a quantitative identification method. It contrasts assemblages from areas of archaeological interest with controls taken from natural control areas least likely to be affected by human activity. This methodology has been used to identify domestic animal dung to a species level but this depended on the local diet of livestock. This method can also allow efficient initial assessments: defining areas of human activity. However as different species may have similar PDI values, it is

14

desirable to crosscheck any conclusions with morphological variation (Tsartsidou et al. 2008).

Ratio of variable versus consistent morphotypes The proportion of variable to consistent morphotypes can be a diagnostic; especially when combined with phytoliths production per gram of dry plant material data. The proportions of variable phytoliths is distinctive of specific plant taxon and plant parts. For instance grasses generate practically no variable phytoliths while among the phytoliths produced by wood there is a high ratio of variable phytoliths. Albert and Weiner (2001) pioneered this technique to discern dicot wood from bark, grasses, leaves and herbaceous material. Since it has been expanded to identify other plant parts such as plant stems, inflorescence, legumes and fruits (Tsartsidou et al. 2007, 1270) Tsartsidou et al. 2009

Figure 3-2 Average ratios of variable to consistent morphology (v/c) phytoliths in several Greek plant categories (Tsartsidou et al. 2007, 1271)

Interpretive approaches and research avenues Numerous approaches have used to interpret phytolith data. From an early date phytolith types were divided into very broad groups such trees and grasses and to answer basic palaeoecological questions; such as forest-grassland dynamics and thus human inference (Bonnett 1972). This basic approach has helped elucidate fundamental archaeological 15

questions which correspond to clearance dynamics such as the local appearance of agriculture (Pearsall 2000). Other studies have grouped recognisable species into suites which indicate specific social actions such grain storage or animal enclosure. Recognition of specific human actions can allow reconstruction of the spatial organisation of a site. Due to the reoccurring feeding patterns of domestic herbivores animal dung can be recognisable down to a species level (Tsartsidou et al. 2008). The recovery of specific parts can indicate different agricultural practices and the stages of processing practised in site. This specialised agricultural data is important for archaeological interpretation as it allows the economic role of an archaeological site to be accessed (Fig 3-3). Preservation of plant macrofossil remains relies on specific and often exceptional conditions such as charring of spilt grain followed by rapid deposition or waterlogging. Frequently only plants exposed to fire during processing are visible in the archaeobotanical record (McClatchie 2008) creating misleading imbalances in the archaeobotanical record. Some may only be charred during rare catastrophes e.g. during conflagration. Crop processing waste such as light cereal chaff and delicate arable weed seeds may not be preserved, thus masking the evidence of the crop processing stage. Phytoliths from specific plants and anatomical parts often those subject to poor preservation of their macroremains e.g. stems, husks can frequently be distinguished. The glumes of oats, rye, wheat and barley are all readily identifiable, generally down to a species level (see Table 1). Less attention has been focused on the actual grain of cereals; most produce phytoliths with the notable exception of wheat (Tsartsidou et al. 2007). The glume can be indentified accurately with statistical methods such as discriminate analysis (Ball et al. 1999) but this is not possible with some species of cereal stems. Their identification would depend on more ambiguous Quantitative methods (Tsartsidou et al. 2008). As an inorganic structure, largely resistant to digenesis phytoliths offer a new line of evidence rivalling macrofossils Phytoliths typically can survive combustion of their parent material.

16

Fig 3.3 Rice Processing and Site Interpretation From Madella & Zurro 2010.

As has been mentioned phytoliths optical properties shift after burning. Once burnt phytoliths refractive index increases. This low- tech approach has allowed burnt from unburnt phytoliths assemblages to be distinguished (Elbaum et al. 2003). This principal allows otherwise undetectable ash/hearths to be discerned

Chapter 4

Discussion: The future role of phytoliths in Archaeology

Taphonomic processes may well restrict the presence of some phytolith groups from recovered phytolith datasets. As was shown vulnerability to dissolution is closely linked to how silica is originally deposited, yet this process is not yet fully documented. Perhaps one further major limitation is that often some knowledge of the assemblages origin is needed to counter the problem of morphotype redundancy, particularly at a species level (Ball et al. 2001). We have seen formulaic methods now exist to identify human activity areas and spatial organisation. However this is only possible if the phytolith record significantly reflects such divisions. Several studies have shown that on archaeological habitation floors the phytolith record may reveal a low resolution of plant use that will not exhibit use or division of space: spatial homogeneity (Tsartsidou et al. 2009). This may be a result of a 17

myriad of reasons, such as natural sediment being redeposited in house, thorough sweeping of house floors during occupation or varied use of a site during its occupation (Zurro et al. 2009) Furthermore a phytolith assemblage found on a habitation floor may be equally derived from a decayed roof as actual habitation furniture or deposited in-situ food waste. The natural process effecting the sampling site whether it be alluvial deposition or wind deposition must also be thoroughly taken into account before the phytolith record is examined. Even with these limitations phytolith analyses has the potential to help resolve or contribute to many archaeological problems where organic preservation is low or where remains werent charred. The possible livestock stockade function of the Irish ring fort could be tested through examination for dung phytolith suites. Investigation for dung spherulites would be an ideal complementary discipline in non-acid areas for such a research question. Efforts to develop morphometric identification parameters have been restricted to a handful of key economic species such as wheats. It is very probable that many other important species may be identifiable using this means. Morphometric research is only beginning on a number of important species such as the progenitor of Common Oats (Ball 2010, pers. comm). This wild species is frequently undistinguishable from its domesticated cousin Common Oat using conventional macrobotanical remains. Regardless to question posed, secure sampling contexts are key (Piperno 2006; Wilkinson & Stevens 2003). Like all approaches within archaeology interference of sites once deposited will always be a concern. On areas of modern agriculture survival can be surprisingly poor. High mechanical disturbance such as modern ploughing is most destructive (Hart 2007). Regardless of preservation both case studies demonstrate that phytolith analysis is best used as part of a multifaceted research approach. Starch analysis is particularly complementary to phytoliths but pollen, macrobotanical and dung spherulites study are also both indispensible. Unfortunately many underground root tubers appear to leave no trace in the phytoliths or pollen record but are visible archaeologically through the survival of starch granules (Piperno 2006, 149). In the Andes this problem has culminated in most of the major indigenous crops leaving no

18

phytolith remains (Piperno 2006, 152). In this instance starch granules have formed the fundamental methodology. This same problem characterised study of prehistoric agriculture in Papua New Guinea. The local staple crops were also non-producer of phytoliths. Lentfer et al. (2001) found that cultivation areas could be identified and delineated by the abundance of phytoliths from associated and often wild plant species. Clearance and fallow sites could be distinguished from areas of forest and those of clearance and substantial regrowth. These were interpreted as villages. This is the second scale of evidence: a semi-natural process informing us of human activity. Such an approach requires a fine resolution to rule out the possibility that natural environmental disturbance is mimicking human interference. For this research habitat indicator species local to the research region used in pollen analysis such as ribwort plantain could be targeted for phytolith investigation. This research is only possible with comprehensive regional reference collections. The creation of reference collections should be prioritized (Hardy 2008). This will serve the dual purpose clarifying phytolith representativeness in poorly researched areas.

19

Palaeoecology

Site Economic Strategies

Phytoliths

Material culture Studies Artefact Function & Use

Palaeodiet

Fig 4.1 interdisciplinary value of phytoliths

Chapter 5

Conclusions
It has been established phytoliths now have many and broad applications (refer to table 1). There are now well tested methods to analysis assemblages to answer questions pertaining to diet, material culture, archaeobotany and palaeoecology. The disciplines greatest asset is its ability to circumvent fickle preservation of biological remains (Pearsall 2000). In particular phytoliths offer unparalleled opportunity to examine in-situ vegetation on a microscale (Rovner 2001) along with artefact use. It remains to be seen to what extent this approach is feasible on already archived artefacts; if possible it would afford a vast avenue of data. The main limitations to reconstructing a site through plant 20

remains are now determined by how a site is used during its active life, archaeological deposit disturbance and the local patterns of silica deposition. The reluctance of uptake in northern latitudes of the world and the regional reduced production of certain types such as multi-cellular silica skeletons are only weakly correlated. The dominance of established archaeobotanical methodology has been more relevant. Methodologys complexity is also factor. Balls (1999) work has shown that achieving classification to a species level may require several methods. However phytoliths in addition to starch granules open a world of novel archaeobotanical evidence, scaling beyond traditional limits of archaeobotany, that is fostering a trend towards microscopic archaeology. It is only in the last 15 years with the publication of authoritative texts such as (Piperno 2006; Pearsall 2000; Meunier & Colin 2001) which built on the initial seminal phytolith monograph (Piperno 1988) have phytoliths begun to receive deserved comprehensive attention. It is reasonable to foresee that the acceleration in research seen will continue as new analytical methods allow even greater uptake.

21

Bibliography
Albert, R. M., and Weiner, S. 2001. Study of phytoliths in Prehistoric ash layers from Kebara and Tabun caves using a quantitative approach. (Eds) Meunier, J.D., Colin, F. and Faure-Denard, L. Phytoliths: Applications in Earth Science and Human History, Aix en Provence: Cerege fix. 251-267. Albert, R. M., Bamford M. K., Cabanes, D. 2005. Taphonomy of phytoliths and macroplants in different soils from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) and the application to PlioPleistocene palaeoanthropological samples. Quaternary International 148, 78-94. Albert, R. M., Shahack-Gross, R., Cabanes, D., Gilboa, A., Lev-Yadun, S., Portillo, M., Sharon, I., Boaretto, E., Weiner, S. 2008. Phytolith-rich layers from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Dor (Israel): mode of formation and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 57-75. Ball, T. B., Gardner, J. S., and Anderson, N. 1999. Identifying Inflorescence phytoliths from selected species of Wheat (Triticum Monoccum, T. Dicoccon, T. Dicoccoides, and T. Aestivum) and Barley (Hordeum Vulgare and H. Spontaneum) (Gramineae). American Journal of Botany 86, 16151623. Ball, T. B. 2010. 43...Gramineae...Zea...mays...laminae...SEM of crossbody, and bilobate; 50...Gramineae...Zea...mays...laminae...SEM of crossbody, side view, Terry Ball's Phytolith Page. http://home.byu.net/tbb/ (16th February 2010). Bonnett, O. T. 1972. Silicified cells of grasses: A major source of plant opal in Illinois soil. Agricultural experiment station bulletin 742. University of Illinois press, Urbana.

22

Carnelli. A. L., Madella, M., Theurillat, J.P., and Ammann, B. 2002. Aluminium In The Opal Silica Reticule of Phytoliths: A New tool in Palaeoecological Studies. American Journal of Botany 89, 346-351. Chandler-Ezell, K., Pearsall, D. M., and Zeidler, J. A. 2006. Root and Tuber Phytoliths and starch grains document manioc (Manihot Esculeivta), Arrowroot (Maranta Arundinacea)~ and Ller~N (Calathea sp.) At the Real Alto Site, Ecuador. Economic Botany 60, 103-120. Elbaum, R., Weiner. S., Albert, R. M., Elbaum, M. 2003. Detection of Burning of Plant Materials in the Archaeological Record by Changes in the Refractive Indices of Siliceous Phytoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 217-226. Elbaum, R., Melamed-Bessudo, C., Tuross, N., Levy. A. A., and Weiner, S. 2009. New methods to isolate organic materials from silicified phytoliths reveal fragmented glycoproteins but no DNA. Quaternary International 193, 11-19. Fox, C. L., Perez- Perez, A., and Juan, J. 1994. Dietary Information through the Examination of Plant Phytoliths on the Enamel Surface of Human Dentition. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 299-34. Fox, C. L., Juan, J. and Albert, R. M. 1996. Phytolith Analysis on Dental Calculus, Enamel Surface, and Burial Soil: information About Diet and Paleoenvironment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101, l0l-113. Fredlund, G. G., and Tieszen, L. T. 1994. Modern phytolith assemblages from the North American Great Plains. Journal of Biogeography 21, 321-335. Hart, T. C. 2007. A Stroll Through The Park: Evaluating The Usefulness Of Phytolith And Starch Remains Found On Medieval Sherds From Wicken, Northamptonshire, England. Unpublicised MA Thesis. University of Missouri: Columbia.

23

Hart, J. P., and Matson, R.G. 2009. The use of multiple discriminate analysis in classifying prehistoric phytolith assemblages recovered from cooking residues. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 74-83. Hardy, K. 2008. Residue analysis of surface material from two quernstones. Caherconnell Cashel, Caherconnell, Carron, Co. Clare Final Archaeological Excavation Report By Hull, G. and Comber, M. Dig results. http://archaeology.burrenforts.ie/Caherconnell%2007E0820%20final%20report.pdf (19th February 2010) Harvey, E. L., and Fuller, D. Q. 2005. Investigating crop processing using phytolith analysis: the example of rice and millets. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 739-752. Henry, M. G., and Piperno, D. R. 2008. Using plant microfossils from dental calculus to recover human diet: a case study from Tell al-Raq_ai, Syria. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1943-1950. Lentfer, C. J., Boyd W.E. and Torrence. R. 2001. Phtolith Research Relating to the Archaeology of West New Britain, Papua New Guinea. (Eds) Meunier, J.D., Colin, F. and Faure-Denard, L. Phytoliths: Applications in Earth Science and Human History, Aix en Provence: Cerege fix. 83-198. Madella, M., Power-Jones, A., Jones, M., 1998. A simple method of extraction of opal phytoliths from sediments using a non-toxic heavy liquid. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 801803.

24

Madella, M., Jones, M. K., Golberg, P., Goren, Y., Hovers, E. 2002. The Exploitation of Plant Resources by Neanderthals in Amud Cave (Israel); The evidence from Phytolith Studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 703-719.

Madella, M. 2007. The analysis of phytolith from Braehead archaeological site. In M Madella & D Zurro (eds) Plant People and Place - Recent Studies in Phytolith Analysis, Oxbow Books, 101-10.

Madella, M. & Zurro, D. Integrated Archaeobotanical Research Project. Accessed 18/4/10 http://archaeobotany.dept.shef.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Phytoliths_-_Interpretation McClatchie, M. 2007.The study of non-wood plant macro-remains: Investigating past societies and landscapes. In Environmental archaeology in Ireland (Ed) Murphy, E. M. and Whitehouse, N. J. Oxford books: Oxford.

OConnor, T. and Evans, J. 2005. Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Methods. Stroud, Glos: Sutton. Osterrieth, M., Madella, M., Zurro, D., and Alvarez, M. F. 2009. Taphonomical aspects of silica phytoliths in the loess sediments of the Argentinean Pampas. Quaternary International 193. 70-79. Pearsall, D. M., Dinian, E.H. 1992. Developing a phytolith classification system. In Rapp, G. R., Mullholland, S. C., (eds) Phytolith Systematics: emerging issues (Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science). Society for Archaeological Sciences. USA, 37-64. Pearsall, P. M. 1993. The nature and Status of Phytolith Analysis in Pearsall, P. M. and Piperno, D. R. (Eds) MASCA: Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in archaeology and paleoecology 10. University of Pennsylvania Press. 9-18.

25

Pearsall, P. M. 2000. Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press 355-494. Pearsall, P. M., Andres, T.A., Stothert, K. E. 2000. Phytoliths in Cucurbita and other Neotropical Cucurbitaceae and their Occurrence in Early Archaeological Sites from the Lowland American Tropics. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 193208 Piperno, D. P. 1988. Phytoliths Analysis: An Archaeological and Geological Perspective. Academic Press. San Diego.

Piperno, D. P. 2003. A few kernels short of a cob: on the Staller and Thompson late entry scenario for the introduction of maize into northern South America. Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 30, Issue 7, 831-836. Piperno, D. P. 2006. Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists. AltaMira press. Lanham, Maryland. 1-229.

Portillo, M., Ball, T., Manwaring, J. 2006. Morphometric Analysis of Inflorescence Phytoliths Produced by Avena sativa L. and Avena strigosa Schreb. Economic Botany 60, 121-9

Powers, A. H. 1992. Great Expectations: A Short Historical Review of Phytolith Systematics in Rapp, G. R., Mullholland, S. C., (eds) Phytolith Systematics: emerging issues (Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science). Society for Archaeological Sciences. USA, 15-36.

Powers, A. H. 2003. Chapter 15: The Phytolith Assemblage. (ed) Barber, J. Bronze Age Farms and Iron age Farm Mounds of the Outer Hebrides. Scottish Archaeological Internet Report 3, http://www.sair.org.uk/sair3/sair3-contents.pdf, 178-189

26

Rosen A.M. and Weiner, S. 1994. Identifying ancient irrigation: a new method using opaline phytoliths from emmer wheat, Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 132135. Rosen, A. 2001. Phytolith evidence for agro-pastoral economies in the Scythian period of southern Kazakhstan. (Eds) Meunier, J.D., Colin, F. and Faure-Denard, L. Phytoliths: Applications in Earth Science and Human History, Aix en Provence: Cerege fix. 83-198. Rovner, I. 1974 cited by Rovner, I. 2001. Cultural Behaviour and Botanical History: Phytolith Analysis in Small Places and Narrow Intervals. (Eds) Meunier, J. D., Colin, F. and Faure-Denard, L. The Phytoliths: Applications in Earth Science and Human History. Aix en Provence: Cerege fix, 83-198. Rovner, I. 1983. Plant Opal Phytolith Analysis: Major Advances in Archaeobotanical Research. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6, 225-266. Rovner, I. 2001. Cultural Behaviour and Botanical History: Phytolith Analysis in Small Places and Narrow Intervals. Eds) Meunier, J.D., Colin, F. and Faure-Denard, L. The Phytoliths: Applications in Earth Science and Human History. Aix en Provence: Cerege fix, 83-198

Rovner, I. 2004. On transparent blindfolds: Comments on identifying maize in neotropical sediments and soils using cob phytoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 31, Issue 6, 815-819.

Strmberg, C. A. E. 2009. Methodological concerns for analysis of phytolith assemblages: Does count size matter? Quaternary International 193, 124-140 Terry, B., Gardner, J. S., Brotherson, J. D. 1996. Identifying Phytoliths Produced by the Inflorescence Bracts of Three Species of Wheat (Triticum monococcum.,T. dicoccon

27

Schrank., and T. aestivum.) Using Computer-Assisted Image and Statistical Analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 619632. Tsartsidou, G., Lev-Yadun, S., Albert, R., Rosen, A., Efstratiou, N., Weiner S. 2007. The phytolith archaeological record: strengths and weaknesses evaluated based on a quantitative modern reference collection from Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1262-1275. Tsartsidou, G., Lev-Yadun, S., Efstratiou, N., Weiner, S. 2008. Ethnoarchaeological study of phytolith assemblages from an agro-pastoral village in Northern Greece (Saakini): development and application of a Phytolith Difference Index. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 600-613. Tsartsidou, G., Lev-Yadun, S., Efstratiou, N., Weiner, S. 2009. Use of space in a Neolithic village in Greece (Makri): phytolith analysis and comparison of phytolith assemblages from an ethnographic setting in the same area. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2342-2352. Wilkinson, K., and Stevens, C. 2003. Environmental Archaeology: Approaches, Techniques & Applications. Tempus Publishing Ltd. Verma, S.D. and Rust, R. H. 1969 cited by Piperno, D. P. 2006. Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists. AltaMira press: Lanham, Maryland. Verma, S.D. and Rust, R. H. 1969 cited by D. P. 2006. Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists. AltaMira press: Lanham, Maryland. Zhao, Z., and Piperno, D. R. 2000. Late Pleistocene/Holocene Environments in the middle Yangtze River Valley, China and rice (oryza sativa L.) domestication: The phytolith evidence. Geoarchaeology 15, 203-222.

28

Zurro, D., Madella, M., Assumpcio, I. B. 2009. Variability of the phytolith record in fisherhuntergatherer sites: An example from the Yamana society (Beagle Channel, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina). Quaternary International 193, 184-191.

29