Methodological problems in the analysis of fossil non-artifactual wood assemblages from archaeological sites

Abstract

The analysis of fossil wood fragments is often undertaken in relation to the archaeological excavation of a site. However, such analysis does not yet appear to have the strong methodological foundation that the investigation of many other classes of palaeoenvironmental evidence (e.g. seeds and pollen) have. Consequently, it is difficult to evaluate the value of fossil wood analysis at an archaeological site. Using data regarding non-artifactual wood assemblages at one site in southern Scotland, the relative merits of possible analysis are described and discussed. The results from such analyses tend to fall into two broad groups: (I) those of relatively high reliability, and (2) those of relatively low reliability. The results in the former group are often based on moderately secure methodology and tend to provide relatively non-interpretative information (e.g. species lists). On the other hand, those in the latter group are more often based on insecure interpretive methodology and provide relatively more stimulating information, such as evidence for prehistoric woodland management. There are many reasons for this situation, and these are discussed. In conclusion, it is argued that to increase the reliability of results in the second group (in particular), a full understanding of the taphonomy of non-artifactual fossil wood assemblages is needed, and that once this is available attention can then be paid, as elsewhere in environmental archaeology, to the problems of providing statistically valid samples for analysis.