Session 2

Method development within archaeobotany

Evaluators: Alex Weide, Amy Bogaard, Jennifer Bates, Welmoed Out

Archaeobotany, on the cross-roads of biology and archaeology, is an important tool to reconstruct the relationship between people and plants in the past. The field makes use of a wide range of methods and proxies, of which some have been used since the start of archaeobotany, while others are relatively recent. Fine-tuning of existing practices is an ongoing process, while new techniques additionally allow for development of innovative methods.

This session aims to gather contributions about methodological aspects of archaeobotany, also based on experimental work, for example studies on modern plants to develop identification criteria, the development and testing of new lab protocols and the development of new proxies to understand ecological and/or socio-economic aspects of the past. The development of such methods pushes forward the state of the art of archaeobotany and ultimately improves our understanding of people in the past.

Session 4

Exploring the archaeobotany of food

Evaluators: Amaia Arranz-Otaegui, Federica Riso, Lucy Kubiak-Martens, Tania Valamoti

Food holds a significant position in human societies, as it connects people within and across cultures and generations. Food also lies at the center of every household, and while we have extended knowledge about food plants that were used in the past, we have considerably less understanding of how these were processed, transformed into meals, and consumed.

Archaeological food remains, either found encrusted on the surface of ceramic vessels (food crusts), absorbed in the pottery walls, or as isolated, irregularly shaped charred amorphous objects (representing bread or porridge if we are lucky!), or even found in a digested form as human fecal remains (coprolites), all provide excellent sources of information about past dietary habits, food preparation, and consumption.

The study of archaeological food remains, however, is a complex matter, and a single research method is never sufficient to fully understand cooking practices in archaeological records. This session aims to integrate various methodological approaches in studying archaeological food remains, including highly sensitive microscopy (SEM in particular), molecular analyses, microfossil analysis with damage patterns due to processing (starch granules and phytoliths, in particular), and most recent techniques such as proteomics and aDNA analysis. Through the meticulous and innovative lens of sensory archaeology, this session will also delve into the realms of food taste, flavours, and fragrances.

We welcome contributions that explore archaeological finds related to food remains, food processing, and consumption practices, in both prehistoric and historic Europe and beyond. We particularly value methodological approaches grounded in Archaeological Sciences such as high-power microscopy and SEM, physicochemical and biological methods as well as ethnographic and experimental observations.

Session 6

Plant management, plant cultivation & resilience

Evaluators: Amy Bogaard, Aylen Capparelli, Karolis Minkevicius, Wiebke Kirleis

A simple dichotomy between gathering from the wild and agricultural systems are insufficient to explain the diversity in past plant management systems all around the world. Plant management systems are understood as the complex assemblage of human-plant interactions of a society, by means of which environmental and phenotypic/genotypic plant manipulation is carried out. They may include management in the natural distribution sites of the species or in modified environmental places; of plants with different growing habits (i.e. trees, shrubs, herbs); and may involve specific technology.

Human practices may include selective gathering, eradication, tolerance, protection, cultivation, pruning, pollarding, among others. Plant management systems intend to adjust ecosystems to human necessities; usually lead to changes at different organization -ecosystem, community, population and individual- levels in a specific time-location; and give place to sociocultural/biocultural systems. They are fundamental to resilience in past societies, in the sense they were capable of giving responses to diverse environmental and socio-cultural changes.

Papers about the different manners plant-management systems were developed by societies in different places and chronologies, as well as different methodological and interdisciplinary approaches in exploring them, are especially welcome in this session.

Session 7

Archaeobotany beyond binary oppositions:

Traditional Ecological Knowledge & fresh ways of understanding past plant-people interaction

Evaluators: Anna Florin, Aylen Capparelli, Margareta Tengberg, Tania Valamoti

Archaeobotany developed historically with a strong focus on the history of agriculture and the neolithization process, especially around cereal-based vegetal economies. Although these are important questions archaeologically, they have created binary interpretative frameworks (wild vs domesticated; gathering vs agriculture; fields vs forests; nature vs culture; etc.) that tend to be used as universal and unquestioned ways to understand the history of human-plants interactions, across the globe and the deep human past.

It is time for archaeobotany to question these modern western legacies and look at other worldviews that can be used to more appropriately tell the complex stories of continuously evolving relationships between people and plants. This is even more important when working in regions of the world where local (Indigenous, Creole) people are practicing and transmitting Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and when archaeobotanists are working with them on their history.

TEK can be understood as the on-going, experience-based, accumulation of knowledge, practice and spiritual worldviews about the relationships between living beings in a specific ecosystem, acquired by people often -but not necessarily- over long term, direct contact with the environment, handed down through generations, and used for life-sustaining ways.

Historical changes and continuities in TEK, especially in relation to plants and landscapes, can be investigated through archaeobotanical analysis when integrated within local TEK systems. Such research allows for the possibility of developing more holistic understandings of the past, and of combatting lingering Enlightenment-era evolutionist perspectives. Integrating TEK into multivocal and inter/multidisciplinary archaeobotanical research through local community collaboration also has the possibility to empower such communities in the conservation of their cultural heritage, and its practice into the future. In this session we welcome collaborative research which links TEK and archaeobotany, goes beyond binary culture-nature oppositions, and/or works with specific communities to aid ongoing local/Indigenous stewardship.

Session 9

The archaeobotany of settlements and urban landscapes

Evaluators: Charlotte Diffey, Ferran Antolín, Karolis Minkevicius, Mac Marston

Plant remains from settlement contexts offer valuable insights into the life cycles of archaeological sites, functional organization of space the daily activities of past populations, and specific events. Agglomerated long-lived settlements inform us about continuities and changes over space and time, hence indicating resilience strategies, individual as well as collective processes, and methods of social disaggregation. Moreover, the integration of geographically dispersed datasets from rural settlements provides information on the production and supply chains of agricultural surplus, as well as inter- and intra-regional economic interactions. Preservation is usually one of the limitations in archaeobotanical research of urban spaces, both in the sense of the quality of the preservation of plant remains but also of which settlement phases are represented in built landscapes (often only having the latest episodes intact).

Short-term farmsteads often offer invaluable insights into economic activities within the rural landscape, whereas tell sites have proven to be excellent case studies for domestic plant use, especially over the long term. In particular, the rebuilding of houses in earthen architecture over multiple phases not only allows good preservation of archaeobotanical materials but also long sequences that can be compared between them. The development of Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dating is also making it possible to narrow down the time frame represented by those samples. We invite contributions focusing on high-resolution diachronic approaches to understand the development, interactions, economic and spatial organization of settlements. We particularly welcome the integration of diverse datasets, along with a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches, in this session.

Session 11

The movement of plants

Evaluators: Dorian Fuller, Leonor Peña-Chocarro, Margareta Tengberg, Roman Hovsepyan

Human practices have been responsible for moving plants, across continents and between continents, often expanding the habitats and biogeographies of not just crops but many “wild taxa” as well. Traditional plant geographies have categorized such plants on the basis of inferred chronology, such as archaeophytes, neophytes, and invasive species, but is the most useful framework? To what extent is this supported by empirical evidence from archaeobotany or needs to be reconceived? What are the cultural processes, intentional translocation or unintentional transfer of weeds, and how are these related to processes of migration, trade and anthropogenic habitat modification? To what extent did humans facilitate transfer between similar habitats or expand adaptation of formerly more limited wild species. New taxa, often “obligate weeds”, may evolved only in the context of anthropogenic habitats, often cultivation of particular crops, creating new taxa with expansive geographies. What evolutionary processes underpinned this (e.g. crop mimicry, polyploidization)?

In this session we seek contributions that trace the movement of plants across geographic zones, both economic plants (crops) and non-economic plants (weeds). Studies may focus on particular taxa and processes, cultural or evolutionary, that made those translocations possible. Or studies may consider regional floristic patterns, that reassess of the movement of plants and how this is best understood over time in relation to cultural chronology and factor such as climate. Other studies might reassess phases of translocation (e.g. Bronze Age “globalization”, Romanization, the “Islamic Agricultural revolution”, etc.). But studies will share an interest in how archaeobotany is better documenting and helping to rethink processes by which human-mediated transfer of plant species contributing to shaping flora.

Session 12

General session

Evaluators: Charlotte Diffey, Jennifer Bates, Roisin O’Droma, Roman Hovsepyan

Any topics that are not covered by the sessions above, can be submitted to the general session.