Plants and Technology: Current and Future Directions

Abstract

Archaeologists in the Midcontinent have long been interested in the relationships between people and plants. Research on this subject is well represented in the ethnobotany papers frequently given at the annual meetings of the Midwest Archaeological Conference and published in MCJA. In fact, MCJA publishes a higher percentage of paleoethnicbotanical papers than any other major American archaeological journal (Archer and Hastorf 2000:34). The papers on plants and technology compiled for the present issue by Katie Parker and Mary Simon build on this tradition. They present significant new data, apply useful new methods, and challenge some long-held assumptions. They also demonstrate the value of conducting research with existing collections as well as newly excavated material. As Parker and Simon note, these articles represent only part of the 2006 Midwest Conference symposium “Plants and Technology.” I want to acknowledge and thank the organizers and the authors in the present collection for the opportunity to comment on the papers. I also want to recognize the other authors and papers from the MAC session: Connie Arzigian (2006), Leslie Bush (2006), Leighann Calentine (2006), Dee Ann Wymer (2006), and Sarah Wisseman (2006). I have learned a great deal from all of the papers, not just those in the present collection, and I hope all will be published soon, as Wisseman’s was. People have always relied on plants. As a result, anthropologists have always been interested in how people collected or produced them and then processed, stored, prepared, shared, served, consumed, and disposed of plants for food, drink, medicine, condiments, and other purposes. Plants also served a myriad of purposes ranging from weaponry to building material to containers. The incorporation of plant, animal, and inorganic material into such complex artifacts as textiles in even “primitive” nonindustrial societies supplies anthropologists interested in material culture with a rich variety of analytical and interpretive opportunities. Archaeologists often are ambivalent about fully integrating ethnobot