Analysis Of The Techniques For Recovering Plant Remains Researched By Robin W. Dennell
In Robin W. Dennell’s article, “Archaeobotany and Early Farming Europe”, he speaks on techniques for recovering plant remains that allow archaeologists to test samples from different parts of an ancient settlement without it having to slow down their excavations and research. Dennell’s preferred technique while conducting an excavation of his own on Neolithic settlements of Chevdar and Kazanluk in Bulgaria was froth flotation. This technique is both more efficient and faster as it processes a lot of earth material in just one day and even those that may be denser than water. Moreover, Dennell was able to distinguish various stages of grain processing by considering three variables which were: the composition of each sample, its context, and the size of cereal grains. He believed that if he took several samples from the large area in which they were found, then they could be put into those three categories and it would therefore be reasonable to assume that each category was the result of a specific activity.
To begin his work, Dennell had to recover several plant samples from the sites. Fortunately, the Bulgarian archaeologists working on the sites allowed him to gather samples of the plant remains from both the Chevdar and Kazanluk sites. While conducting his experiment, he realized that the samples fell into three distinct groups. The first group, was composed of samples that were found in ovens and on a floor at the Chevdar site. These samples were very pure, consisted of emmer, barley, legumes, and had very few weed seeds with no straw fragments. Due to the homogeneity of the samples Dennell then concluded that these samples represented crops in an advanced stage of preparation that were carbonized before storage or while cooked. Moreover, the second group was composed of samples that were found in floor deposits at the Chevdar and Kazanluk sites. “The samples found at these sites contained a wide range of plant species and a high proportion of weed seeds than the first group. ” Additionally, the cereal grains were found to also be smaller. Dennell believed that these samples perhaps represented crops that were at a different stage of preparation or could have been left after some other processing activity due to them not containing any straw fragments and spikelet. To help him determine the differences between these samples and those of the first group, Dennell conducted an experiment using modern samples of emmer wheat that contained both einkorn and weed seeds. At the end of his experiment he was able to determine that the differences between both samples was that they were both the result of grain cleaning. The second group of samples contained material removed from crop during cleaning, whereas those from the first group represented clean crops.
Furthermore, the third group consisted of samples that were found in refuse dumps at the Kazanluk site. These samples had several weed seeds, a large amount of straws as well as spikelet fragments, and very few cereal grains. These samples had both the smallest and largest examples from all the samples that were collected. The main aspect of this group was that these samples were burnt, but the middens in which they had been found were not. Dennell then concluded that because these samples had several straws and weed fragments, they represented the initial stage of preparation. He also believed that because these samples were burned, that people then may have combined winnowing and threshing into one single process in which they put the substance over a flame and beaten so that the grains would come out from the spikelees. What was left after consisted of spikelet fragments, cereal grains and weeds. Dennell believed that, ” these three types of samples from the Chevdar and Kazanluk sites represented crops at three different stages of preparation which were preliminary dehusking, cleaning, and the fully processed crops. ” The frequency in which grain and food plant samples appear in and the process that produces them is useful as it allows to, ” provide valuable information into everyday domestic activities of a prehistoric settlement and its technology as well. ” To add, the second important part of this data is that, “it allows researchers to display more accurately which plants were used for food and which were more important. ”
All in all, Dennell’s excavations have allowed him to recognize the idea that archaeobotanical data continues to become more complex and will allow archaeologists to one day have more than just a small list of different plants retrieved at excavation sites.
