104564131 the role of biogenic silica in archaeology

7/29/2019 104564131 the Role of Biogenic Silica in Archaeology

1/29

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 topollen 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.

1


2/29

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 phytolithariaGreek 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 HMSBeagle off Cape Verde in

1833 (Ibid). Upon observing a fine dust falling from theBeagles 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

2


3/29

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

3


4/29

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 siteshave mostly been silicified (Piperno 2006, 8). This is linked with the presence of multi-

cellular 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


5/29

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

5


6/29

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.

6


7/29

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 Identifiable plant part

Triticum monococcum(Einkorn wheat) Glume morphometricsTriticum dicoccoides (Wild Emmer Wheat) Glume

Triticum dicoccoides (Emmer Wheat) Glume

Triticum durum (Durum wheat) Glume

Triticum aestivum (Bread wheat) Glumes

Avena sativa (Common Oat) inflorescence

Avena strigosa (Pointed Bristle Oat) inflorescence

Hordeum vulgare* (Two-rowed & six-rowed Barley) Glumes

Hordeum spontaneum (Wild barley) Glume

Secale cereal* (Rye) Glume

Zea mays (maize) Glume/cupulate, Leaf and

husk

Curcurbita spp. (squashes & gourds) Leaf, fruit rind

Helinthus annus (sunflower) Achene

7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkornhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkorn


8/29

Oryza sativa (rice) Leaf, glume

Musa spp. (bananas) 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.

8


9/29

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

9


10/29

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


11/29

Fig 2.4 Assemblage formation

From Madella & Zurro 2010.

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

Contexts where

phytoliths

can be recovered

Possible inferences

Residues in Food vessels Food processing, diet and dating of vessel usePottery clay Refine geological fingerprint of clay source

Coprolites DietHuman & animal teeth Diet

Skeletal abdominal

sediment

Diet

Working edges of tools Tool function, plant processing and dating of use

Hearth ash Fuel preferences , burnt food and discernment of

non-visible ash

Archaeological sediment Spatial organization, microscale ecology and

irrigation

Natural Soils Micro to macroscale vegetation reconstruction

11


12/29

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


13/29

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 classificationkey

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


14/29

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 phytolithsproduced 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


15/29


16/29

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


17/29


18/29

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


19/29


20/29

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 disciplinesgreatest 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

Site Economic

Strategies

Palaeodiet

Material cultureStudies

Artefact

Function & Use

Palaeoecology

Phytoliths

20


21/29

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


22/29

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. andFaure-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 Plio-

Pleistocene 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 andH. 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
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236046%232006%23998519998%23618604%23FLA%23&_cdi=6046&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=2e182f283c509560569381a4b050bc31http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://home.byu.net/tbb/43.jpghttp://home.byu.net/tbb/50.jpghttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236046%232006%23998519998%23618604%23FLA%23&_cdi=6046&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=2e182f283c509560569381a4b050bc31http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://home.byu.net/tbb/43.jpghttp://home.byu.net/tbb/50.jpg


23/29

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)~ andLler~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 International193, 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
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236046%232009%23998069998%23751073%23FLA%23&_cdi=6046&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=eb87bfc074dd9586cdd84ffd7572f52chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236046%232009%23998069998%23751073%23FLA%23&_cdi=6046&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=eb87bfc074dd9586cdd84ffd7572f52chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403


24/29

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. Journalof 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
http://www.caherconnell.com/dig-resultshttp://archaeology.burrenforts.ie/Caherconnell%2007E0820%20final%20report.pdfhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232005%23999679994%23586397%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=68f4ac3a36979ab1b2f7bb59c3aeb1aahttp://www.caherconnell.com/dig-resultshttp://archaeology.burrenforts.ie/Caherconnell%2007E0820%20final%20report.pdfhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232005%23999679994%23586397%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=68f4ac3a36979ab1b2f7bb59c3aeb1aa


25/29

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. InEnvironmental 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

International193. 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
http://archaeobotany.dept.shef.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Phytoliths_-_Interpretationhttp://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Environmental+archaeologyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/series/UPM.htmlhttp://archaeobotany.dept.shef.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Phytoliths_-_Interpretationhttp://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Environmental+archaeologyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/series/UPM.html


26/29

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 ScienceVolume 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.EconomicBotany60,121-9

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
http://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232003%23999699992%23432483%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=53888e5a228ca4063f817f9b6379993dhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232003%23999699992%23432483%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=53888e5a228ca4063f817f9b6379993dhttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://www.sair.org.uk/sair3/sair3-contents.pdfhttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232003%23999699992%23432483%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=53888e5a228ca4063f817f9b6379993dhttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://%20void%200/http://www.sair.org.uk/sair3/sair3-contents.pdf


27/29

Rosen A.M. and Weiner, S. 1994. Identifying ancient irrigation: a new method usingopaline phytoliths from emmer wheat,Journal of Archaeological Science21, 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 phytolithassemblages: Does count size matter? Quaternary International193, 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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=advarchmeththeohttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232004%23999689993%23487954%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=eb913a95820d724013e73a8a59557ff7http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236046%232009%23998069998%23751073%23FLA%23&_cdi=6046&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=eb87bfc074dd9586cdd84ffd7572f52chttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=advarchmeththeohttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232004%23999689993%23487954%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=eb913a95820d724013e73a8a59557ff7http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236046%232009%23998069998%23751073%23FLA%23&_cdi=6046&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=eb87bfc074dd9586cdd84ffd7572f52c


28/29

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

Science36, 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

middleYangtze River Valley, China and rice (oryza sativa L.) domestication: Thephytolith evidence. Geoarchaeology15, 203-222.

28
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232009%23999639989%231420092%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=0734c009cd07e83b4d1ba6b80a301fd9http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Keith%20Wilkinsonhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Christopher%20Stevenshttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/36011/homehttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/69502641/issuehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232009%23999639989%231420092%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000006258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=77869&md5=0734c009cd07e83b4d1ba6b80a301fd9http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Keith%20Wilkinsonhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Christopher%20Stevenshttp://www.librarything.com/author/pipernodoloresrhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/36011/homehttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/69502641/issue


29/29

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 International193, 184-191.

104564131 the role of biogenic silica in archaeology

Documents