Abstract
The archaeobotanical record of Britain in the Roman period is reviewed. The data are plotted against area of the country, phase of occupation, type of site, and mode of preservation. Lacunae in the dataset are identified and research priorities formulated. More data are needed, especially from South-Western and North-Western England, Wales and Scotland, from major towns (especially from waterlogged deposits), from rural sites with waterlogged preservation (all parts of the country), and from burials and temple/shrine sites. Matters of concern are the identification of a downward trend in the average number of samples analysed from the 1990s onwards, and poor access to unpublished archaeobotanical reports (grey literature). Possible solutions to redress these are offered.
Highlights
A rchaeobotany is concerned with the study of plant remains recovered from excavations
Rchaeobotany is concerned with the study of plant remains recovered from excavations. These remains are used to reconstruct past agricultural systems, environments and human activity, and in particular to assess the degree of dietary breadth and variability in social access to specific foods
The Roman period in Britain represents a crucial phase in the development of both agriculture and diet, as it was during this time that some 50 or more new foods became established,1 diversifying both the British diet and the British farming system
Summary
In this paper we refer to ‘places’, ‘sites’, ‘records’, and ‘occurrences’. ‘Places’ are geographical locations of past activity, e.g. London. A ‘place’ may have more than one ‘site’, e.g. Baltic House, Fennings Wharf, and Hooper Street are all ‘sites’ in London. The site at Baltic House in London was classified as ‘town major’, and produced archaeobotanical data from Early, Middle, and Late Roman deposits; this represents three ‘records’. Number of records with archaeobotanical data for britain in the roman period, by site type and phase of occupation. 2. Relative proportion of records with archaeobotanical data by phase of occupation and site type. 3), but there are very few records for South-Western and NorthWestern parts of England, for Wales, and for Scotland north of the Antonine Wall This is all the more apparent when the data are divided by site type and phase of occupation (figs 4, 5, 6, and 8). Table 2. number of records with archaeobotanical data for the major town sites
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
