Imagine food being cooked over a campfire.   Perhaps you are roasting some meat or root vegetables.   Maybe it’s animal meat that you hunted for or purchased from a store.   Or it could be something you fished out of a river or a stream — a fish, a crab, a crawfish?   Could it be something you foraged for?   Something you grew?   Did you process it in some way, or eat it as is?   What would be left of that meal in fifty years?   A hundred years?   Five hundred years?   What might the remains of that meal say about you, your diet, or your cultural foodways?

These are just some of the questions that archaeologists pose when studying the foodways of the archaeological past.  Zooarchaeolgists and paleoethnobotanists examine all types of foods that are consumed by ancient (and not-so-ancient) peoples, as well as other plant and animal materials found at archaeological sites. This chapter touches on some of the more core concepts, but it is important to remember that environmental variation will affect the plants and animals present at different times and places.

Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany defined

Animal and plant remains found at archaeological sites provide important insight on past human behavior and how humans interacted with their environment. The evidence obtained can tell us about past dietary practices, what environments were like in the past, how and when plants and animals were first domesticated, foraging strategies, and how plant and animal resources were used for medicines, tools, and ritual items. Analysis of past animal and plant remains represent two specialized fields in archaeological research.

Zooarchaeology is the study of animal (zoology) remains from prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. The overall goal of zooarchaeological research is to develop a better understanding of how past peoples interacted with their environment, specifically with animals (fauna). Zooarchaeology is an interdisciplinary field of study that combines zoology and archaeology, but with an emphasis on the latter. Fields such as ecology, biology, osteology, taphonomy, animal husbandry, and various others also contribute to zooarchaeological studies. Zooarchaeological or faunal remains are a reflection of past human behavior and living strategies. Analyzing animal remains from archaeological deposits can provide a wealth of information on how past peoples lived (e.g., Russell 2012) — not just their behavior but also their impact on the environment in which they lived at the time.

Paleoethnobotany is the study of how people (ethno) used plants (botany) in the past (paleo), or how people interacted with and impacted their environment through the use, manipulation, and consumption of plants. Paleoethnobotany can be used to understand what plants people ate, how people were acquiring plant foods, how people prepared plants for consumption, the origins of agriculture, or what the environment was like at the site, to name a few. Fields such as botany, ecology, agronomy, and soil science also greatly inform paleoethnobotanical studies.

At its core, archaeology consists of the analysis and interpretation of material culture left behind by past peoples. Faunal and floral remains utilized by prehistoric and historic peoples represent specialized material culture obtained from the living biotic environment (often termed ecofacts), and as such are often subsumed under the category of environmental archaeology. The data obtained during floral and faunal analysis represents only the initial step used to address research questions in archaeological studies. In order to gather significant information from faunal and floral remains, it is necessary to examine in some detail the methods and techniques employed.

Zooarchaeology and Faunal Analysis

Zooarchaeological faunal analysis focuses on the study of preserved faunal or animal remains recovered from archaeological sites. Typically, the preserved remains consist of the hard parts of an animal such as bones, teeth, antler, shell, and scales. Depending on various taphonomic factors, a representative sample of animal remains may preserve over time, forming a zooarchaeological or faunal assemblage for a particular site. Soft items (e.g., hair, skin, muscle, and marrow) only rarely preserve in the archaeological record, in settings such as unusually anoxic wet (e.g., peat bog) or arid (e.g., dry cave) conditions. During analysis, each faunal remain or specimen is examined individually and a series of characteristic traits and conditions recorded. This initial step focuses on element and taxonomic identification; essentially, identifying the part of the animal as well as the type of animal represented by each specimen. (See Special Topics — Taxonomic Classification, above).  The information obtained is used to develop a zooarchaeological profile of the assemblage, which can then be used to address research questions regarding the human behavior that created the assemblage.

Comparative Specimens and Reference Guides

The analysis of zooarchaeological remains begins through specimen recognition and identification. Each piece of bone or shell is examined individually and compared to known specimens, either in a comparative collection or in reference manuals. A faunal comparative collection consists of elements from individual animals, all properly cleaned and labeled, that can be used to assist in the identification of typically fragmented or incomplete zooarchaeological remains. Reference manuals consist of books, journal articles, and similar publications that provide detailed illustrations (usually drawings, but also photographs) of skeletal elements that can be used for identification. In general, comparative collections are preferable to reference manuals; it is often difficult to obtain the precision necessary to accurately recognize small, distinct traits visible on skeletal elements through drawings or photographs. In addition, many skeletal remains can be quite small, making them difficult to illustrate. Finally, no reference manuals exist that contain detailed illustrations of every bone from every animal found in a given region.

Animal Remains and Basic Osteology

In order to recognize the variety of faunal remains present in an archaeological assemblage, it is necessary to have a basic familiarity with a diverse array of animal skeletons. The animal kingdom can be divided into vertebrates and invertebrates. Vertebrates have backbones or spinal columns, and at least some internal skeletal elements; they include mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Invertebrates, in contrast, lack a spinal or vertebral column. Common invertebrates include mollusks (bivalves, gastropods, squids, octopi), arthropods (insects, arachnids, crustaceans), annelids (earthworms, leeches), and cnidarians (jellyfish, corals, sea anemones). Other than some mollusk and arthropod remains, Invertebrate remains rarely occur in the zooarchaeological record, so the primary focus is on the analysis of vertebrate skeletal remains.

The typical vertebrate skeleton consists of axial and appendicular elements. The axial skeleton consists of the skull (cranium, mandibles, teeth, hyoid) and rib cage (ribs, sternum, vertebrae). The appendicular skeleton includes the bones of the fore and hind limbs, the shoulder or pectoral girdle, and the hip or pelvic girdle. The number and character of the different axial and appendicular bones varies between taxa, so zooarchaeologists need to be familiar with the general osteological structures of and variations between mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish (Figure 1). Each element differs in some respect between animals, with the differences more pronounced between animals that are not closely related. For example, forelimb bones are similar between dogs and foxes, but very different between dogs and beavers. Some animals, such as turtles and fish, have very distinctive skeletal elements that are easily recognized, but differences are still found between the same bones of different species (e.g., catfish bones are easily distinguished from those of freshwater bass). These differences can be used to make class, genus, and species-level classifications between specimens.

Mollusk or shellfish remains are some of the few invertebrate remains typically encountered in a zooarchaeological assemblage. Both bivalves and gastropods (univalves) have hard shells with distinct characteristics (e.g., shape, thickness, color, size and orientation of teeth, presence of exterior bumps or ridges) that can be used for identification. Even when working with fragmentary pieces of shell, examination of multiple characteristics can often be used to distinguish between different species. Whether working with vertebrate or invertebrate remains, however, often the poor condition of the specimens prevents identification to a specific element or distinct taxon. Faunal remains should never be assigned a level of identification that is not wholly supported by the available evidence.

Specimen Identification and Analysis

As part of the analysis, the following data are recorded for each piece of bone: element; side of the body (when applicable); portion or section of the element present; the age of the animal; and taxonomic classification, to the most precise level permissible. For age, an approximation generally equivalent to juvenile or adult is used, based on epiphyseal closure of the long bones, tooth eruption, occlusal wear on the chewing surfaces of the teeth, or similar traits (O’Connor 2000: 80-97). (See Special Topics — Aging and Sexing Skeletal Elements, below.) Mollusk shells are treated in a similar manner, with element, portion, and taxon recorded for each specimen.

Each faunal specimen is also examined for evidence of non-cultural and cultural modification. Non-cultural modification, reflecting alterations caused by non-human agents, includes such things as weathering, rodent and carnivore gnawing, and similar taphonomic effects (Lyman 1994). These modifications can impact bone preservation and identifiability; understanding the nature of these impacts aids in accurately documenting and interpreting faunal assemblages. Cultural modifications include those resulting from direct and indirect human activity. Possible cultural modifications include burned or unburned condition; presence and types of butchery marks; and modification relating to the manufacture of bone or shell tools, ornaments, and similar items. Butchery marks include cut marks, fractures, splinters, and other damage caused by carcass processing (e.g., Binford 1981:87-181). Bones, antler, shell, and other animal parts also served as raw materials for a wide array of implements and items used in daily and ceremonial activities. Modified faunal remains can be recognized by cut, scrape, and/or polish marks that resulted from impacts that changed the original shape of the element.

Paleopathologies are a unique situation, as they can result from internal (e.g., disease) or external (e.g., trauma) factors, and in the case of the latter can be caused by human behavior (Baker and Brothwell 1980; Bartosiewicz 2013). Animal husbandry, or the domestication and breeding of certain taxa, can also result in changes to animal bone that can be recognized in the zooarchaeological record (O’Connor 2000:147-159).

Recovery Methods, Sampling, and Context

The composition of a faunal assemblage does not reflect a perfect representation of all animal remains present at an archaeological site. Rather, it is a biased sample. Not all faunal material preserves over time; acidic soil conditions, for example, can result in the destruction of more fragile animal remains. In addition, recovery techniques (e.g., hand collection, screening, flotation) can impact the assemblage composition. Flotation through fine-grained mesh will undoubtedly recover more microfaunal remains than screening through one-quarter inch mesh, for example. Finally, it is rare that an entire archaeological site is completely excavated. As such, only the faunal material present in those areas investigated will ever make it to the zooarchaeologist for analysis.

Context is likewise an important consideration. It is typically assumed that the majority of faunal material recovered from an archaeological site represents the remains of animals used by the site inhabitants. Some bone and shell recovered may be intrusive, meaning that it was deposited before or after human habitation of the site. In addition, some animal remains are commensal, and represent animals that live in or near human habitations but are not directly associated with human activity. For example, in any given backyard there may be mice, voles, snakes, frogs, snails, and other animals unnoticed by the people living in the adjacent house.

Zooarchaeological Quantitative Data: NISP and MNI

Following specimen identification, it is necessary to quantify or count the faunal remains in such a way that useful, meaningful data are collected. Quantitative data are used to measure the relative abundance of each taxa, so that zooarchaeologists can determine what animals were being used by humans, how important each animal was in comparison to other animals used, and what animal representation might reveal about past environmental conditions. The information recorded can be of varying usefulness when analyzing a faunal assemblage. Certain basic data are typically recorded for all faunal specimens; some other types of data can be calculated based on the information obtained. These are referred to as primary and secondary data, respectively (see Grayson 1984; Lyman 2008; Reitz and Wing 1999:142-238).

The most common primary data recorded is the Number of Identified Specimens per taxon or NISP. The NISP documents the number of specimens identified to each element for a given taxon. For example, if an assemblage contains three rabbit molars, two rabbit vertebrae, nine raccoon rib fragments, and seven raccoon humerus pieces, the NISP for rabbit would be five and for raccoon would be 16. The taxon does not have to be specific, however; if six long bone shaft fragments are classified as unidentifiable large mammal, then the NISP for large-sized mammal would be six. It should also be noted that NISP counts recognize partial elements, as well as side of the body, age, size, and other factors. Suppose that the same assemblage contains the following deer bones: one left femur, proximal end only; one left femur, distal end only; two right femora, both complete; and one femur, mid shaft portion only. The deer NISP is five, because each specimen is counted separately even though some of the femur fragments may be from the same element. The NISP is the basic unit of data from which most other quantitative measures in faunal analysis are derived.

One drawback of the NISP is that it can, on the surface, overestimate the presence and therefore the relative importance of a particular taxon. Using the above example, there are more raccoon bones (NISP=16) than rabbit (NISP=5) or deer (NISP=5) bones in the assemblage, which would seem to suggest that raccoons were used to a greater extent than rabbits or deer. The NISP does not, however, reflect the number of individuals represented in the assemblage, only the number of specimens or pieces of bone. To compare individuals, the analyst must calculate the

Minimum Number of Individuals per taxon or MNI. MNI calculations are based on repeating elements from the same taxon (Figure 2). If an assemblage contained four right ulnae and two left ulnae identifiable as muskrat, the MNI for muskrat would be four. Minimally, at least four individual muskrats must be represented, as only one right ulna is found in a single animal. There could be as many as six muskrats represented, if the two lefts were from totally separate animals, but this cannot be determined with certainty. Having multiple skeletal elements from animals of different ages (e.g., adult or juvenile) can also affect MNI counts, as adult and juvenile ulnae, for example, would represent separate animals. In general, paired elements are the most useful in determining MNI; bones that are similar and/or occur in relatively large numbers, such as ribs, are less suitable and less likely to provide significant results.

The MNI is usually only calculated for specimens that can be identified to the genus and/or species level, but some exceptions are made on occasion (see Reitz and Wing 1999:198-199). Unfortunately, this means that MNI estimates are not made for general classification categories (e.g., “indeterminate fish” or “indeterminate mammal”). As a result, potentially significant information on faunal representation may be lost if only the MNI is used. If, for example, an assemblage contains 500 fish bones but none are identifiable to the genus level, then none will be included if the analyst only focuses on MNI results. MNI can also be impacted by preservation to a greater extent than NISP. If bones are poorly preserved, it is less likely that they can be classified to the genus/species level. In most faunal analyses, both NISP counts and MNI determinations are included, so that complementary lines of information are available.

Secondary Data

In addition to NISP and MNI, there is an array of other data that can be gathered from a faunal assemblage. Most of these, however, are drawn from or derivative of NISP or MNI calculations, or do not provide information that reflects past human behavior. Specimen weight (used to calculate biomass) may be recorded, for example, but the results have more to do with the initial size and robustness of the bone itself and do not necessarily reflect relative dietary importance. For example, one deer bone might weigh as much as several hundred small fish bones; that does not mean, however, that deer were necessarily a more important food item, but the raw weight values would seem to support such an argument. In contrast, the NISP and MNI counts would suggest that fish were of greater dietary value than deer. Lyman (2008:84-113) and Reitz and Wing (1999:222-231) provide excellent summaries of the pros and cons of various types of primary and secondary zooarchaeological data (see also Grayson 1984).

Paleoethnobotany and Floral Analysis

Paleoethnobotany is usually split into two methods of analysis based on the size and type of plant remains being studied: macrobotanical and microbotanical analysis. Macrobotanical analysis deals with plant remains such as carbonized seeds and plant parts you can see with your eyes or the aid of a low-powered microscope. Microbotanical analysis deals with plant remains that you can only see with the aid of a high-powered microscope, such as pollen, starch, and phytoliths. Starchis a semicrystalline carbohydrate produced by plants, and is helpful for plant identification because of morphological (shape and size) variation between different families and genera of plants (Messner 2011). Phytoliths are made of silica (like glass, or sand) and help give plants structure by forming in between cell walls when plants uptake silica from groundwater. As with starch, phytoliths can be identified to plant family or genera based on their unique shape and size. Starches are found in carbohydrate-rich plants such as beans, tubers, maize, and cereal grains, while phytoliths are found in greater quantities in the grass family (Piperno 2006). In fact, many grasses feel rough to the touch because of phytoliths. Pollen is a fine powder that plants make when they reproduce. Plant and tree pollen is then dispersed by the wind and settles into soil or on top of bodies of water, such as lakes, where it falls to the bottom and accumulates into the sediment over time. Archaeologists can then take core samples of the soil to investigate changes in pollen type and abundance throughout time. Pollen morphology is also unique to families and genera.

This section will broadly cover a few of the sampling, processing, and analytical methods used by paleoethnobotanists to learn about plant use in the past. While macrobotanical and microbotanical data can be used together to answer similar social and environmental questions, the ways in which each type of botanical data is recovered and processed can be very different.

Considering the environment and conditions at a site can help archaeologists to determine the suitability of certain sampling strategies. As with zooarchaeological remains, sampling strategies are often determined or guided by the unique taphonomy at an archaeological site. For example, botanical remains in archaeological contexts can be affected by the pH of the soil, and whether the botanical sample has been carbonized, waterlogged, or desiccated (completely dried out). Botanical remains that have been carbonized or desiccated tend to preserve in archaeological soils much better than samples that have not. On the opposite side of the spectrum, samples that have been waterlogged, or continually in water protected from the effects of oxygen, also tend to preserve very well. However, once removed from water, these samples can deteriorate quickly. Botanical remains in more acidic soils risk being dissolved at a faster rate, especially if they are not carbonized or desiccated. All of these factors guide what method archaeologists choose to recover botanical remains.

Sampling Methods

Paleoethnobotanical analysis first begins with sampling from a field site; depending on whether an analyst will be doing macrobotanical or microbotanical recovery, these samples can range from soil to residues on artifacts, to dental calculus. Macrobotanical data are derived almost entirely from plant remains found in soil samples (except for the cases where botanical remains are desiccated or preserved in waterlogged contexts), while microbotanical data can be derived from remains isolated from all three sampling methods.

Soil Sampling

Macrobotanical analysis begins with sampling soil both across an archaeological site and within individual features or units. Important factors to consider when collecting soil samples include:

• what questions researchers want to ask from the data
• the context of the site and its features
• the archaeologist’s time, resources, or personnel constraints.

But how much soil or residue do you need for a sample, and how does it differ based on the analyses someone wants to make?  Guedes and Spengler (2014) state that sampling across a site generally takes the form of one or a combination of the four following methods:

• blanket sampling
• probabilistic sampling
• random sampling
• systematic sampling.

Generally, blanket sampling (also called full coverage or total sampling) is the preferred sampling method because soil samples are taken from all units and individual features. This reduces the possible bias introduced by other sampling methods (Pearsall 2000). For a further discussion of how factors like time, personnel, person power, and site size might dictate one of the other sampling strategies, see Guedes and Spengler (2014).

In addition, archaeologists must also consider how best to sample within a feature or stratigraphic level. The three most common strategies include: bulk sampling (soil is collected from a single layer within a single context); pinch sampling (for large cultural layers or levels of construction fill, a small amount of soil is collected from various spots and combined into one sample); and column sampling (soil is taken in a line down a single column at each unique stratigraphic level). Unlike site-wide sampling methods, in which there is usually only one strategy in place, for features and contexts it is common to use all three feature-sampling methods listed above.

For macrobotanical (e.g, wood, charcoal, seeds) analysis, the standard practice is to take 10 L of soil for each context sampled (D’Alpoim et al. 2014). This amount of soil is large enough to be representative of the context as a whole. If a researcher wants to answer questions that also require microbotanical analysis, a subsample of soil from the 10 L should be taken at the same time so that both the macrobotanical and microbotanical data from the site can be fully integrated. Microbotanical analysis only requires a small amount of soil—roughly 100 mL to 300 mL (or half a cup).

Other Sampling Methods

Other common sources for collecting microbotanical data include residues on artifacts and dental calculus. Residues include carbonized food residues from the inside of ceramic sherds, absorbed residues from the fabric of a ceramic sherd, or residues from the cutting edges of lithics, among others. Residues from ceramic sherds can tell archaeologists what people were cooking or storing in ceramic vessels, while residues from lithics can tell archaeologists what people were cutting with these tools. These residues are typically collected in the lab using a sanitized sonicating toothbrush. Dental calculus is mineralized plaque that accumulates in layers on teeth and can be collected from both animal and human remains using a sanitized dental pick or sonicating toothbrush in a lab setting. Microbotanical analysis of dental calculus can inform paleoethnobotanists about what a person was eating directly, unlike the previous methods mentioned, which are only secondary sources of information about diet or how people were using plants in their day-to-day life. Pollen data are recovered by taking a soil core from lake sediment and sampling each stratigraphic level; pollen is used to reconstruct ancient environments.

Processing Soil for Macrobotanical Remains

The process for recovering macrobotanical remains from soil is called flotation. While there are several different methods of flotation, the principle behind the process is to separate the dense material in the sediment (the soil matrix itself, rocks, bone, stone tool flakes, etc.) from the light material (wood charcoal, carbonized and modern plant seeds, plant parts, etc.). These light and heavy fractions are separated by adding the soil sample to water and agitating to

• dissolve the soil into solution
• let the heavy fraction sink
• let the light fraction float.

The light fraction is skimmed off of the top and collected in a small piece of chiffon gauze that allows only water to pass through. The remaining heavy fraction is collected in a 2mm window screen mesh. After drying both the light and heavy fractions (out of the sun to avoid heat-induced popping or stress on botanical material; this may take 2 to 3 days), the heavy fraction is sorted to ensure no plant or other material remains have been overlooked. Botanical material that is found in the heavy fraction is added to the dry light fraction and labeled and sealed in plastic bags for future analysis.

Analysis of Macrobotanical Remains

Once back in the laboratory, analysis of macrobotanical remains requires only a few simple tools. A geological sieve is necessary to separate the light fraction into different size classes both to simplify the analysis and ensure that small seeds are not lost within large pieces of grass or fine silt sediment. The most common sieve sizes are 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm, and finally the pan, which catches the remaining material, but this varies by region and by researcher. For example, some projects use 2 mm, 1.4 mm, 0.7 mm, and pan, while some regions without many small seeds skip the 1.4 mm fraction entirely.

A scale is used to weigh the entire light fraction as well as each individual size class from the geological sieves. This allows the researcher to calculate statistics such as densities and ratios that are valuable in answering archaeological questions. Below under the Paleoethnobotanical Data heading, there is more information on common statistical approaches to macrobotanical data. Finally, a low-powered stereo (also called dissection) microscope allows analysts to better see small seeds and unique morphologies necessary for identification and later analysis.

Wood is one of the most ubiquitous botanical remains a paleoethnobotanist will come across in either the field or the laboratory due to its abundant use as a source of fuel and shelter. Wood is primarily encountered as wood charcoal, having been preserved by fire through incomplete burning—either accidentally or intentionally. In rarer cases, at sites with extreme weather conditions a paleoethnobotanist may encounter wood samples that are waterlogged or desiccated. Because wood charcoal is often highly fragmented and it would be impossible to know whether the wood in your sample is from one branch or 10, it is only ever weighed rather than counted. In addition, data for wood charcoal is only recorded at the 2 mm fraction and above since these are representative of the entire sample; the small amounts of charcoal remaining in the other fractions are negligible.

Seeds are the primary material that paleoethnobotanists use to answer anthropological questions regarding past peoples’ foodways, environment, economy, and more. All seeds 1mm and above, both whole and broken, are counted and weighed. Generally, seeds below 1 mm in size are only counted if they are whole, though this may vary by project. Seeds below 1mm are not weighed because they are too light to register on the scale so archaeologists only record count data.

When identifying seeds, it is important to identify distinct morphological features such as size, general shape, surface texture, appearance of the seed fractured versus whole, and more. Much of this knowledge will come from analyzing samples with a skilled graduate student or professor, as well as comparative reference collections both online, physical, and in book form. Popular online reference manuals include: Digital Plant Atlas, the website for the Ohio State University Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, and the Searchable Seed Image and Illustration Gallery, among others. Popular books that have useful images and descriptions of key family characteristics include Seed Identification Manual (Martin and Barkley 2004) and Botanical Macro-remains (Schoch et al. 1988).

Analysis of Microbotanical Remains

After samples are collected, they are chemically processed according to the type of analysis. For example, starch remains are more delicate than phytoliths or pollen, so the same method cannot be used to extract all types of microremains. Chemical processing often involves the separation of materials, often by using specific chemicals to dissolve parts of the sample while leaving others intact. Chemical floatation can also be used. Just like standard soil flotation, chemical floatation uses differences in material densities to separate the microbotanical remains from their matrix. This process involves chemicals other than water so that specific densities can be achieved to separate the microremains. Methods for processing these samples can vary greatly, and each lab that analyzes microbotanical samples has a standardized method for each sample type.

After samples are chemically processed, drops of the isolated microbotanical sample are pipetted onto a slide and mixed with a mounting medium for microscope analysis and identification of diagnostic microbotanical remains. These slides are then analyzed under a high-powered microscope with polarizing- or colored-light filters. Polarizing filters allow for the identification of starches because under polarizing light they have a distinctive cross shape (Figure 4). Colored filters can increase the contrast between the background of the field of view and the microbotanical remain being viewed.

Identification to the level of species or genus usually requires recognizing unique combinations of shape, features, and size. For phytoliths (Figure 5), these shapes include rondel, cross, bilobate, polylobate, bulliform, and hair cells, with different shaped and sized phytoliths coming from different parts of the plant in some occasions (Madella et al. 2005; Piperno 2006). For starches, shapes can include lenticular, bell, elliptical, or oval, with surface features such as fissures, margins, lamellae, or hila (Messner 2011). Like macrobotanical and zooarchaeological analysis, the identification of these diagnostic features is aided through the use of a comparative collection, reference manuals, or online reference websites, and the constraints of these different tools for macrobotanical analysis are the same for microbotanical analysis. For commonly utilized reference manuals and online databases for microbotanical analysis, please see the For Further Information section below.

Paleoethnobotanical Data

After paleoethnobotanical data are quantified (counted and/or weighed), additional statistical methods can be employed to examine patterns within the data (Marston 2014). The simplest way to report botanical data is through absolute counts, which are the raw counts for each individual taxon identified. Other descriptive statistics frequently used are:

1. Density calculations: Seed or charcoal counts/weights are compared against the volume of the original soil sample taken in the field to provide comparability between all samples taken at a site.
2. Proportions/percentages: These calculations are used to standardize the count of one taxon versus another category of taxon. For example, a comparison of the ratio between maize kernels and maize cupules at a site can tell you where ancient people were processing dried maize (high cupule ratio) versus using the kernels for cooking (high kernel ratio).
3. Ubiquity: Presence/absence data are used to calculate the percentage of samples in which a given taxon appears. For example, if you have 10 samples and maize is found in 6 of them, the ubiquity value of maize is 0.60 and tells us maize is present in 60% of samples.

Other types of statistics in paleoethnobotanical reports often include Z-scores (data are transformed into standard deviations around a population mean), diversity indices (calculated based on the relative values of taxa to indicate homogeneity or heterogeneity of a sample), and more complicated multivariate calculations such as cluster analysis, principal components analysis, and correspondence analysis (see Smith 2014 for a discussion and examples of multivariate statistics in paleoethnobotany). Once calculated, these statistics can be presented in a number of ways to highlight patterns or trends revealed by your analyses.

Ancient Foodways: What Can Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany Reveal?

Faunal and floral remains from archaeological sites can provide a wealth of information on past human behavior and environmental interaction. Some of the more common areas of study are addressed here, but on-going research is discovering ever more applications for zooarchaeological and paleoethnobotanical data.

Dietary Patterns

Zooarchaeological and paleoethnobotanical material provide direct evidence for prehistoric and historic diet. The faunal and floral remains recovered do not reflect all of the food refuse discarded in the past, but they do provide a robust sample of what people were eating. This information provides important insight on how animals and plants were processed for consumption, and how human dietary strategies changed over time. Not all faunal and floral remains recovered, however, represent food refuse; this is addressed in detail below.

Floral remains recovered demonstrate what sorts of wild plants were gathered, what domesticated crops were grown, and how important various taxa were to the site inhabitants. Similarly, the faunal remains recognized reveal what wild animals were procured, what domesticated animals were utilized by the site inhabitants, and the importance of different animals to the inhabitants. The proportional amounts of animal and plant remains illustrates their relative significance in the diet. By examining assemblages from different sites and different time periods, it is possible to see how dietary strategies varied between regions and changed over time.

In addition, recognizing patterns in what people were eating and how they were processing those types of foods can inform archaeologists about cuisine and the foodways (culture surrounding food) at archaeological sites. Combining dietary analysis with ceramic and lithic use-wear analyses, for example, enables archaeologists to employ multiple lines of evidence towards a more complete understanding of food consumption as well as the social ramifications of dining, feasting, and gender roles (e.g., Kooiman 2018; Twiss 2012). 

Foraging Strategies

The types of animals and plants recovered at an archaeological site can provide insight on the hunting and foraging practices employed by the site inhabitants. Certain faunal and floral species are available or abundant only at certain times of the year, and human foragers will often optimize their efforts by focusing on these taxa only when they are likely to yield high returns. For example, nut trees such as oaks only produce ripe acorns in the fall, so foraging groups might schedule their seasonal travels so that they are close to oak forests during the autumn months. Likewise, these same mobile foragers might plan to camp near large lakes or rivers in the spring, when spawning fish are in the shallows and more easily caught. By recognizing the time of year when different taxa are available, archaeologists can often determine the seasonality (season of occupation) for a site.

The relative abundance of different animal and plant remains also reflects foraging behavior. Some hunter-gatherer groups focus their efforts on a select range of large animals (e.g., big-game hunters), although most employ a broad-based subsistence strategy in which they procure a wide array of animals and plants to fulfill their dietary needs. Other groups may adjust their foraging strategies on a seasonal basis in order to take advantage of available, abundant resources. Agricultural communities, for example, put considerable effort into farming during the spring planting and fall harvest seasons, but during the other seasons supplement their diets through hunting, fishing, and foraging.

Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction

Different types of plants prefer different environmental conditions, so the presence, absence, disappearance, or appearance of plant species through time at a single site may indicate changes in environment such as drought, desertification, increased precipitation, or changing temperatures. These changes in local habitat can also be indicative of human actions that impact the environment such as overgrazing, tree harvesting, agriculture, environmental management, and many others (e.g., Asouti and Austin 2005). One method of recognizing these changes is through analysis of pollen cores, which can reveal distinct changes in environmental conditions over long periods of time (See Special Topics: Pollen Coring and Environmental Interactions, below.)

Similar information can be derived from analysis of the different types of faunal represented at a site. Depending on the sensitivity of the taxa, it is possible to reconstruct what a habitat was like during the period a site was occupied. Many animal species flourish only within restricted habitats, and these taxa can be particularly useful when examining environmental changes over time.

Plant and Animal Domestication

Tracking changes in seed size (from smaller to larger) across time is one indication that a plant may be undergoing domestication. The recovery of non-local plants in archaeological contexts, such as maize in Eastern North America (e.g., Larson et al. 2014), can be evidence of domestication (as well as interregional exchange, as discussed below). Similar changes are often seen among domesticated animals, which typically exhibit physical traits that reflect breeding efforts to increase meat production or reduce aggression. It can take many generations for these changes to manifest themselves skeletally, but they can be recognized in the archaeological record over time.

Butchery Practices

Close examination of animal bones may reveal evidence of butchery, such as cut and chop marks, but the bones themselves also provide insight on how carcasses are butchered and processed. First, the location and types of marks identified are direct evidence of the specific manner in which animal carcasses were reduced in size and portioned for further processing. Butchery marks are commonly found near limb joints and muscle attachment points, which reflects the removal of meat-rich limb portions. Other types of cuts, such as those found in areas with little muscle, may represent cuts associated with hide or pelt removal.

The bones themselves—and the absence of some bones—are likewise indicative of choices made during the butchering process. If an animal is killed at a great distance from the habitation site, for instance, hunters may choose to leave low-value lower limb or cranial portions at the kill site. As a result, lower leg and skull bones may be under-represented in the zooarchaeological record of the habitation, but much more common at kill locations. A large percentage of high-value bones (those supporting large amounts of meat, or choice cuts) in an assemblage may indicate the differential distribution of meat resources, possibly reflecting tribute, feasting, or allocation of foodstuffs based on status. Finally, heavily fragmented appendicular bones can also be indicative of marrow extraction and bone grease manufacture.

Trade and Resource Movement

The recovery of faunal or floral remains from species not typically found in an area can provide evidence of trade, population mobility, and similar movement of people and resources. For example, marine whelk shells and shark teeth are occasionally found at prehistoric sites across the Eastern United States, far inland from coastal areas. These items were likely transported, either directly or indirectly, by traders and travelers moving between these areas. The recovery of tropical plant species in temperate zones (e.g., maize, as noted above) reflects not only interregional trade but evidence of domestication as well. Exotic items were undoubtedly highly valued and served to encourage further contact and commerce. It is likely that many other goods, most of them perishable and not recognized in the archaeological record, were also exchanged between neighboring groups.

Non-dietary Use of Faunal and Floral Material

The non-dietary use of faunal and floral resources is often overlooked, with most research focused on dietary strategies and paleo-environmental reconstructions. A wide range of non-dietary uses are recognized (e.g., Russell 2012), many more than can be addressed in this chapter. A sample of these uses is presented here.

Plant resources were widely used for non-dietary purposes but are often difficult to identify because they typically do not preserve well in the archaeological record. Wood was used extensively for construction projects, tools, bowls, utensils, weapons, canoes, and numerous other items in addition to being burned for fuel. Grass, reeds, plant fiber, and pine needles were used to create cordage, woven basketry, mats, and rugs (e.g., Nichols et al. 2000). Storage containers were manufactured from dried gourds such as Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd).

The ritual and medicinal use of plants was similarly significant. Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), peyote (Lophophora williamsii), ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis caapi), and other mind-altering substances such as opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) are derived from plants. Various forms of alcohol likewise come from plant products and have mind-altering effects. These items were widely employed by shamans, healers, and the ruling elite in a variety of ceremonial and ritual activities (e.g., Morehart et al. 2005; Pauketat et al. 2002).

Many faunal remains similarly represent resources employed in non-dietary roles. Certain items, such as animal hides, sinew, and feathers (for arrow and spear fletching) were likely used for clothing, shoes, and other items but rarely preserve archaeologically. Bone, antler, shell, and other faunal material were fashioned into a variety of items including perforating implements (awls, needles, pins, chisels), flintknapping tools (flakers, billets), weaving and hide-processing tools (shuttles, hide scrapers, beamers), gardening instruments (scapula hoes, digging sticks, antler rakes), gaming pieces (dice, gaming sticks), hunting items (spear points, fish hooks, harpoon heads), and decorations/ornaments (hairpins, beads, combs, pendants). Mussel shell was carved into beads, buttons, gorgets, spoons, and scoops; large marine whelks were transformed into bowls and containers. Turtle shells were similarly made into bowls and rattles.

Faunal remains, both modified and unmodified, were also important as ritual and ceremonial paraphernalia. Small carnivore jaws were often cut and polished, and perhaps functioned as items of sympathetic magic. Bone and shell effigies have also been recovered and may have been used in a similar fashion. Numerous other examples exist, but at times it is difficult to determine the exact function of these items. Bone, antler, shell, and other faunal material modified into wide array of tools, ornaments, decorations, and ritual items.

Summary and Case Studies

Zooarchaeological and paleoethnobotanical remains can provide considerable insight on past human behavior at prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Much of this information relates to dietary strategies and paleoenvironmental reconstruction, but faunal and floral remains provide significant information on the non-dietary uses of these resources as well. To fully understand how zooarchaeological and paleoethnobotanical data are employed in archaeological research, two case studies are provided.

Note: This chapter is adapted from a beta version of Traces.

Steven Kuehn is a zooarchaeologist with the Illinois State Archaeological Survey, a division of the Prairie Research Institute of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has more than 30 years of professional experience as an archaeologist, working primarily in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes region. Steven has analyzed zooarchaeological remains from Paleoindian through Historic Euroamerican sites in the Midwest, Great Plains, Southeastern United States, and Alaska. Some of his recent research focuses on Paleoindian subsistence behavior, Archaic bison hunting in Minnesota, and the archaeology of domestic dogs in the Midwest. In his free time, Steven enjoys reading, hiking, and playing board games with his family. Steven also writes short stories and mystery fiction, including novels in his Jacob Caine Archaeology Mystery series.

Rebecca Albert earned her M.A. in archaeology at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2021. She was previously the assistant coordinator for the Central Coast Information Center, one of nine archaeological and built environment data clearinghouses in the California Historic Resources Information System. Her undergraduate and graduate research focused on microbotanical analysis of carbonized residues from the Upper Great Lakes to gain a deeper understanding of the history of plant domestication in North America, and how these plants may have informed prehistoric foodways. In her free time, Rebecca enjoys quilting, cooking, and playing with her cat, Juliet.

Emily Johnson is a paleoethnobotanist pursuing her Ph.D. in Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She has conducted excavations and/or analyses of archaeological sites in Turkey, Israel, Guatemala, Mexico, and throughout the United States. Her current research is focused on investigating the timing, spread, and development of the nixtamalization process throughout ancient Mesoamerica. When not reading about all things corn, Emily enjoys crafting and playing with her cat, Scout.

Part of this chapter is from Traces by Whatcom Community College and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Further Exploration

Microbotanical reference manuals:

PhytCore DB (phytcore.org) — free with registration online database of photomicrographs of phytoliths, searchable by shape, type of sample, site, etc.

Starch Grain Database (clarissacagnato.weebly.com/starch-grain-database.html) – free online database of starch grains collected from modern samples

Cooked Starch Database (figshare.com/Cooked_Starch_Database/3734335) – free image database of starches from plants that have been cooking various ways. From Henry, Hudson, and Piperno, 2009.

References

Albert, Rebecca K., Susan M. Kooiman, Caitlin C. Clark, and William A. Lovis (2018) “Earliest Microbotanical Evidence for Maize in the Northern Lake Michigan Basin.” American Antiquity 83(2): 345-355.

Alenius, Teija, Teemu Mökkönen, and Antti Lahelma (2012) “Early Farming in the Northern Boreal Zone: Reassessing the History of Land Use in Southeastern Finland through High-Resolution Pollen Analysis.” Geoarchaeology 28(1): 1-24.

Asouti, Eleni, and Phil Austin (2005) Reconstructing Woodland Vegetation and Its Exploitation by Past Societies, Based on the Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Wood Charcoal Macro-Remains. Environmental Archaeology 10: 1–18.

Baker, John, and Don Brothwell (1980) Animal Diseases in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York.

Bartosiewicz, László (2013) Shuffling Nags, Lame Ducks: The Archaeology of Animal Disease. Oxbow Books, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Binford, Lewis R. (1981) Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Dappert-Coonrod, Claire P., and Steven R. Kuehn (2017) “A Boarder, a Widow, and a Tenant Sit Down for Dinner: Foodway Comparisons in the Goose Hill Neighborhood, East St. Louis, Illinois.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 42(1): 4-36.

Grayson, Donald K. (1984) Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Guedes, Jade D’Alpoim, and Robert Spengler (2014) “Sampling Strategies in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis.” In Methods and Theory in Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina Warinner, pp. 77-94. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Kooiman, Susan M. (2018) A Mutliproxy Analysis of Culinary, Technological, and Environmental Interactions in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Larson, Greger, Dolores R. Piperno, Robin G. Allaby, Michael D. Purugganan, Leif Andersson, Manuel Arroyo-Kalin, Loukas Barton, Cynthia Climer Vigueira, Tim Denham, Keith Dobney, Andrew N. Doust, Paul Gepts, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Kristen J. Gremillion, Leilani Lucas, Lewis Lukens, Fiona B. Marshall, Kenneth M. Olsen, J. Chris Pires, Peter J. Richerson, Rafael Rubio de Casas, Oris I. Sanjur, Mark G. Thomas, and Dorian Q. Fuller (2014) “Current Perspectives and the Future of Domestication Studies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(17): 6139–46.

Lyman, R. Lee (1994) Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Lyman, R. Lee (2008) Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

MacDonald, Glen M., and Kevin J. Edwards (1991) “Holocene Palynology: Principles, Population and Community Ecology, Palaeoclimatology.” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 15(3): 261-289.

Madella, Marco, Anne Alexandre, and Terry Ball (2005) “International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0.” Annals of Botany 96(2): 253-60.

Marston, John M. (2014) “Ratios and Simple Statistics in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis: Data Exploration and Hypothesis Testing.” In Methods and Theory in Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina Warinner, pp. 163-179. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Martin, Alexander C., and William D. Barkley (2004). Seed Identification Manual. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey.

Messner, Timothy C. (2011). Acorns and Bitter Roots: Starch Grain Research in the Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Morehart, Christopher T., David L. Lentz, and Keith M. Prufer (2005) “Wood of the Gods: The Ritual Use of Pine (Pinus spp.) by the Ancient Lowland Maya.” Latin American Antiquity 16(3): 255–274.

Morell-Hart, Shanti, Rosemary A. Joyce, and John S. Henderson (2014) “Multi-Proxy Analysis of Plant Use at Formative Period Los Naranjos, Honduras.” Latin American Antiquity 25(1): 65–81.

Nichols, Deborah L., Mary Jane McLaughlin, and Maura Benton (2000) “Production Intensification and Regional Specialization: Maguey Fibers and Textiles in the Aztec City-State of Otumba.” Ancient Mesoamerica 11(2): 267–291.

O’Connor, Terry (2000) The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill, United Kingdom.

Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia S. Kelly., Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, and Eve Hargrave (2002) “The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia.” American Antiquity 67(2): 257–279.

Pearsall, Deborah M. (2015). Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, 3rd edition. Routledge, England, United Kingdom.

Piperno, D. R. (2006). Phytoliths: A comprehensive guide for archaeologists and paleoecologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing (1999) Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Russell, Nerissa (2012) Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Schoch, Werner H., Barbara Pawlik, and Fritz H. Schweingruber (1988). Botanical macro-remains. Haupt, Switzerland.

Twiss, Katheryn (2012) “The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity.” Journal of Archaeological Research 20(4): 357–395.

White, Chantel E., and China P. Shelton (2014) “Recovering Macrobotanical Remains: Current Methods and Techniques.” In Methods and Theory in Paleoethnobotany, edited by John M. Marston, Jade D’Alpoim Guedes, and Christina Warinner, pp. 95-114. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.