Direct And Useful Evidence And Information example essay topic

Phytoliths are a durable floral micro fossil formed by silica absorbed by a plant during its life. Although the usefulness of in archaeology has been known for nearly a century, the field (independently) has not attained much popularity. Despite the fact that the yields of evidence and information from are truly amazing, the field itself is at times more tedious than dendrochronology, causing a delay in the development of the use of, as well as the lack of recognition. Phytoliths have been proven to be useful in a number of studies, ranging from pale-environments, ancient agriculture, ancient technology, even the diet of particular cultures and their livestock. The largest problem with tends to be the inability to identify certain or the need to correlate the with a different chronologies or reference collections. With all of the uses have, these problems seem to be recurrent.

However, in order to understand the use of, one must first come to a better understanding of what they are. Numerous sources have different terms for, and even go so far as to separate into two groups (Schiffer 1983: 227). This is not the case in this paper. The term will refer to a general definition that is broad and encompasses both of these groups; a is an opal or silica plant cell (Rapp and Hill 1998: 93). No source is completely sure of the biological purpose of the silica in the plant cells.

Phytoliths occur from silica in ground water being absorbed through plants roots and integrated into the living plant (Hertz and Garrison 1998: 55). This silica fills the spaces in the cell and hardens. These cells can endure long after the life of the plant, even through decay and burning (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 249). However, are susceptible to highly alkaline soils, erosion, corrosion, mechanical wear (ploughs) and water damage (Schiffer 1983: 234). The general cell morphology, as well as density and cell wall thickness can affect the durability of (Schiffer 1983: 235).

Phytoliths first were realized for their usefulness in 1908 by Schellenberg, who noticed in archaeological soils from North Kurgan (Herz and Garrison 1998: 55), however it was not again recognized until the 1950's with Helbaek's and Watanbe's work regarding cereals (Herz and Garrison 1998: 55). Although have been recognized as useful in examining many areas such as human and animal diet, agricultural technologies and crop exploitation, and pale-environments, in the near century that work has been done with these micro fossils the entire field of study has not reached popularity, and in many ways it seems like this is so for a good reason. The environment throughout history has been of particular interest to archaeologists. The environment dictates how human beings will live, what kind of food they will eat, and similarly what kinds of resources are available. One way of looking at the pale-environment is through the use of. Phytoliths can provide many insights as to what the environment may have been like at a particular time; they can tell if the weather was humid or dry, if it was windy and what direction the wind was going in, or if seasons were particularly hot or cold.

In 1984, Dwight Brown presented his research that looked at the various types of grass. Brown was particularly interested in looking at the migration rates of particular species of grass. He felt that the rates could indicate weather conditions. Brown looked at three shape classes of grass: bilobate's, saddles and trapezoids (Brown 1984: #4,345).

From his studies, Brown concluded that fluctuations in the ratios of shapes could indicate shifts in the environment to which the belonged (Brown 1984: #4,345). He also concluded that it was practical for one to be able to use analysis to obtain a better understanding of (flora) species migration and to be able to find the ancestors of major flora species (Brown 1984: #4,345). Despite these truly intriguing results of Brown's study, he did come across particular problems inherent in study; namely, he had difficulties identifying the different species from the. Brown realized that species tend to have within species variation, and as a result multiple samples of the same species (as well as others) would be needed in order to provide a measurement for this possible variation.

As a result, large comparative collections would be required. Prior to this, in 1970 Philip Armitage (mentioned later in this paper) realized that the of grass species tended not to contain silica that was unique to the species, making them hard to identify (Armitage 1970: #3,194). Another example would be a study done by Folger in 1967. Folger discovered plant in the dust filters of a ship. By examining the density gradients, Folger was able to assemble an index of wind direction and intensity of that region (Schiffer 1983: 243). In theory, a method similar to this could be used to find ancient wind indexes.

Other studies like this have been carried out in examining humidity levels, like Y eck and Gray's study in 1972 concerning in different moisture levels (Schiffer 1983: 244), and Bomb im and Muehlenbachs's tudy in 1980 concerning the variants of temperature and moisture (Schiffer 1983: 246). Despite the fact that could indicate what type of environment people lived in, the method has not caught particular popularity. Often the information has to be calibrated against modern experiments like those previously mentioned, and as discovered by Brown and various others there is a need for reference collections in order to account for within species variations, as well as to be able to identify different species of. Further to this, and perhaps even more applicable and useful is the use of to study ancient agriculture. One of the things most important to human life is the role of agriculture.

Agriculture can tell one a vast amount of information about a particular culture. Agriculture can indicate what types of food people were harvesting, when a particular type of domesticated flora was introduced into an environment (ie Maize), different uses the agriculture could be put to (ie in pottery, in bedding, in building), what types of technology were available (ie sickles, irrigation), and even how the diet of livestock and humans were construed. Of particular interest in the study of ancient agriculture has been the investigation of the introduction of maize and rice. Many studies have been done on these two types of plants. Piperno and Pearsall have conducted many studies in the field of maize.

Piperno and Pearsall were interested in when maize was introduced into South America. The date was speculated to also be indicative of the onslaught of food production in the region (Piperno and Pearsall 1993: #3,337). Piperno conducted research by collecting various species of maize in order to compare chronology. Despite the fact that the study was able to calibrate a date for maize production in South America (7000-4000 BP), Piperno and Pearsall encountered problems with analysis (Piperno and Pearsall 1993: #3,337).

Although Piperno was able to ascertain that the morphology of maize had a distinct cross-shaped, there were discrepancies with the from the different parts of the plant, some of these looking very similar to wild grass species (Piperno and Pearsall 1993: #3,338). Piperno and Pearsall concluded that in order to properly study one had to become acquainted to all the types of that could occur in the entirety of the plant. This would create a need for further specialization, and in some ways cause the process to be even more tedious. Similar to this, Hiroshi Fujiwara has conducted many studies concerning rice.

Fujiwara has been able to locate ancient rice paddies, yields, and dates of rice cultivation through the use of analysis (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 280,282). For example, by analyzing the of rice found in the walls of Jo mon Pottery (500 BCE), Fujiwara was able to prove that rice cultivation already existed in Japan (at that particular area) at that date in time (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 280,282). There is a vast amount of more information other than just introduction of species that can provide the archaeologist. Pearsall and Trimble did an in depth experiment in 1984 during the Waimea-Kawaihae Highway Project. Pearsall and Trimble were particularly interested using analysis to identify the types of cultivated plants, the evolution of the cropping systems, and to gain a model of the past environment (Pearsall and Trimble 1984: #2,120).

From the study, Pearsall and Trimble were able to ascertain that the sites examined illustrated the use of irrigation, field clearing, and the long use of the land as an agricultural area (Pearsall and Trimble 1984: #2,126). Despite this amazing yield of evidence, Pearsall and Trimble realized many set backs of analysis. They noted that dating the agricultural field and associating it with areas of human habitation could be difficult, that the variety of cultivation technology used by the population could affect the pattern of the data recovered, erosion and the loss of topsoil can create problems in identifying the cultivation surface which is pivotal for the identification of agriculturally related, and finally that the cultivated plants that were considered important in the area were not high in silica content, creating a problem in identification (Pearsall and Trimble 1984: #2,121). Pearsall and Trimble concluded that could provide direct information pertaining to the subsistence of a culture, as well as many other aspects concerning human interaction with the environment; however, they also concluded that in order to properly conduct a study such as the Waimea-Kawaihae Highway Project a tight co must be placed on the site, and other forms of analysis (ie Pollen Analysis) must be used to strengthen and supplement the evidence. Pearsall and Trimble also felt that the use of modern comparative aids was also a necessity. Despite the fact that the evidence found by Pearsall and Trimble was direct and useful, it could not have been found by the mere use of analysis.

Pearsall and Trimble had to collect various comparative collections from modern and ancient vegetation zones in order to have confidence in the analysis. Likewise, they also used other forms of analysis (soil analysis, pollen analysis, absolute dating methods), to supplement their findings. Pearsall and Trimble did prove that are an amazing source of information and evidence, but at the same time they illustrated the fact that alone cannot be counted on for accurate and concise information. In 1985, Piperno came to a similar conclusion.

Piperno had been studying four sites in Panama, dating as far back as 6610 BCE to as recent as 1520 CE (Piperno 1985: #4,250). Throughout his study, Piperno found maize, bamboo and other forms of that were not represented in the comparative chronology. He concluded that differences in percentages, ratios and frequencies of found in site could possibly indicate different functional roles of the plants recovered, changes in plant use, or different plant cultivation in different areas of the site (Piperno 1985: #4,250). As a result of his findings he came to various conclusions about the set backs of analysis. Piperno, like Pearsall and Trimble, realized that one could not be fully confident of information and evidence acquired through the use of alone; likewise, early food production (methods) could not be reconstructed by merely the use of analysis (Piperno 1985: #4,262).

This was because only gave a small view of plant exploitation. Piperno's study was able to indicate that maize, squash and beans had been present in Panama since 300 BCE. Despite the fact that he was able to ascertain this date, Piperno was not confident in his evidence. He felt that the use of alone was not concrete enough to actually prove the date he acquired. Mulholland came to a similar conclusion when studying the shape and frequencies of grasses in North Dakota. Mulholland concluded that in order to avoid large scale generalization and for the examination of fossils to be accurate there would have to be an extensive study of modern species to create precise references (Mulholland 1989: #5,489).

Agriculture was also an important component in diet. The diet of cultures as well as the livestock they reared can be identified through the use of study. Powers, Padmore and Gilbertson in 1989 conducted a study concerning the living areas of human occupation. Aside from finding that tended to be concentrated in this area due to the use of plant materials for sleeping mats and other 'household' needs, Powers, Padmore and Gilbertson came to the conclusion that it was possible to identify faecal remains through the use of analysis as well as concentration (Powers, Padmore and Gilbertson 1989: # 1, 42). Further to this there is another problem with analyzing fecal remains for.

In many species of animals (particularly feral herbivores), the would pass through the digestive tract and be excreted (with in tact) a fair distance away from the source of the flora ingested (Schiffer 1983: 236). This is another matter that could also cause errors in information gathered from. Prior to Powers, Padmore and Gilbertson, Armitage in 1975 had conducted an experiment in order to find the diet of cattle recovered from archaeological sites. He used the mandibles from four different cattle each from a different period, some as early as the Late Bronze Age and some as recent as 1500 CE (Armitage 1975: #3,187). Armitage washed the teeth thoroughly to ensure that there was no contamination from contained in soil that was still on the skeletal remains, it was also to ensure that the found would only be from residual food on the teeth. On the one mandible Armitage found a large amount of soil particles, he concluded that this could have been the result of the animal being pasteurized (Armitage 1975: #3,193).

Armitage did run into problems during his study. He found it extremely hard to identify what types of grasses the cattle had eaten during their lifespan. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Armitage concluded that several grass types do not contain silica that is unique to particular kinds of species, from this he concluded that a large reference collection would be required in order to accurately identify what types of grasses the cattle had been eating (Armitage 1975: #3,194). Studies of human dental remains have also been carried out. In 1994, Fox and Perez-Perez directed at study designed to obtain direct evidence concerning the diet of past cultures. In order to conduct this experiment, they used human dental remains, a scanning electron microscope (to see and count), and analysis.

They studied the dental remains of seven individuals from the Mediaeval site of La Ol meda (Spain) from the 7th and 13th centuries CE (Fox and Perez-Perez 1994: #1, 30). Fox and Perez-Perez looked at scratches in the enamel of the teeth left by silica and counted and identified remains. From these they were able to identify various cereal such as Gramineae ('panic-grass') and millet (used to make bread) (Fox and Perez-Perez 1994: #1, 30). Fox and Perez-Perez had to use large reference collections for comparative analysis in order to identify the on the teeth, a difficult and tedious process. Despite their findings, Fox and Perez-Perez encountered problems with analysis. Firstly, they discovered a problem with the scratches on the enamel that they had believed was caused by silica in remains.

They discovered that these scratches were not a mere characteristic of silica, but that carnivores could have these scratches too; the Inuit culture (which is primarily carnivorous) still had scratches on their teeth, this was considered to be a result of cleaning, cooking or preservation of food (Fox and Perez-Perez 1994: #1, 33). Similarly, Fox and Perez-Perez encountered a problem that many other archaeologists have dealt with, a lack of information on. Fox and Perez-Perez realized that from the Mediterranean area (in which they were conducting their study) were not easily identifiable or unique, except for certain cereals (Fox and Perez-Perez 1994: #1, 33). With a lack of many in their reference collection, many of the found were unidentifiable.

Despite the vast amount of evidence and information that can provide, the field had never gained much popularity. Phytoliths can give direct evidence as to what types of crops were being exploited, what types of agricultural technology was available to a culture, what wind patterns, heat or humidity were like at a certain period of time, even what kinds of food were available for humans or livestock. Analysing can be an enormously tedious process. Despite the fact that nearly an century has elapsed since the usefulness of were discovered, little has been done to improve the study, currently even the usefulness of reference collections is lacking. Often have to be used in conjunction with other methods of dating or analysis, ranging from pollen analysis to radiocarbon dating.

With the amount of cross referencing, control over the site, and labour hours in studying, it does almost seem like more effort than it is worth. It is amazing that such a field with such direct and useful evidence and information has essentially laid in stagnation since the time it was discovered. However, as most cases may be, it is probably more time efficient, cost effective, and less problematic to seek out other forms of analysis for similar information yields.

Bibliography

Armitage, Philip L. 1975 The Extraction and Identification of Phytoliths from the Teeth of Ungluates.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 2 (3): 187-193. Brown, D.A. 1984 Prospects and Limits of a Phytolith Key for Grasses in the Central United States.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 11 (4): 330-346. Fox, C. Lalueza, and A. Perez-Perez. 1994 Dietary Information Through the Examination of Plant Phytoliths on the Enamel Surface of Human Dentition.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 21 (1): 29-33. Herz, Norman and Erv an G. Garrison. 1998 Geological Methods For Archaeology.
Oxford University Press, Oxford. Mulholland, Susan C. 1989 Phytolith Shape Frequencies in North Dakota Grasses: A Comparison to General Patterns.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 16 (5): 489-501. Pearsall, D.M., and M.K. Trimble. 1984 Identifying Past Agricultural Activity Through Soil Phytolith Analysis: A Case Study from the Hawaiian Islands.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 11 (2): 119-131. Piperno, Dolores R. 1985 Phytolith Taphonomy and Distributions in Archaeological Sediments from Panama.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 12 (4): 250-264. Piperno, Dolores R., and Deborah M. Pearsall. 1993 Phytoliths in the Reproductive Structures of Maize and Teosinte: Implications for the Study of Maize Evolution.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 20 (3): 337-342. Powers, A. H, J. Padmore, and D. D Gilbertson. 1989 Studies of Late Prehistoric and Modern Opal Phytoliths from Coastal Sand Dunes and Mach air in Northwest Britain.
The Journal of Archaeological Science 16 (1): 27-42. Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn. 2004 Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice.
4th ed. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. Rip (Rapp), George Jr., and Christopher L. Hill. 1998 Geo archaeology: The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation.
Yale University Press, USA. Schiffer, Michael B. (editor) 1983 Advances in ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD AND PRACTICE vol.