Comparable quantification methodologies in archaeobotany – a work-in-progress and debate

Abstract

The way archaeobotanists name and quantify seed fragments is a determinant step not only in the interpretation of a given macrobotanical assemblage, but also in the degree of comparability across different sites. However, seed terminology and quantification have yet not been standardised among scholars but rely on the various geographical and laboratory traditions, as well as specific research needs and circumstances. This has created two major biases: first, the main focus has been put on plants of economic importance, specially Near Eastern and European cereals (barley, wheat, rye and oats); and second, while there has been notable discussion about quantification methods such as ubiquities, densities, proportions, or more complex multivariate statistics, there is often little explicit discussion of the actual first counting stage (i.e. how one goes from things under a microscope to things in raw data or how the Minimum Number of Individuals -MNI- is calculated). In the case of South Asian archaeobotany, the economic role of other cereal species (e.g. millets, rice) and non-cereal crops (e.g. pulses, oilseeds), as well as the usually high fragmentation state in which macrobotanical remains are found, lead us to reflect on the need to establish a more accurate and comparable quantification methodology in the region. We believe that applying this to all seed fragments will also be an important tool to better understand the role of wild taxa (e.g. fruits) in ancient diets and improve the potential contribution of weeds to disentangle past agricultural systems. In this paper, we propose a new work-in-progress terminology and counting method which, far from concluded, is intended to be a starting point for future fruitful debate and development.