Initial tests on the three-dimensional movement of starch in sediments

Abstract

Archaeological studies of microbotanical remains must consider taphonomic factors likely to have affected a recovered assemblage. One of the most fundamental taphonomic considerations is the movement of objects within a soil profile under the influence of groundwater. To this end, this study reports on initial tests involving the movement of starch granules in three dimensions within a constructed sand matrix. The results indicate that both lateral and upward as well as significant downward movement occurs under the influence of groundwater, with movement rates of up to 4mm/ dayforsomestarchgranulesgreaterthan10µminsize.

Taphonomy of Plant Micro-remains in Environmental Archaeology

“…Experimental studies aimed at quantifying the water-borne movement of starch grains in sediment columns (Therin 1998;Haslam 2009) have shown that, even in relatively porous sands and under tropical rainfall conditions, few granules of any size move. Furthermore, while small particles (<5 mm) are more likely to move overall, large particles tend to move further once mobile, presumably because of their greater density.…”

Evaluating the usefulness of phytoliths and starch grains found on survey artifacts

“…In 1998 (Therin, 1998), Therin demonstrated that starch grains would remain in situ despite vertical movement of water through the soil column. More recent work by Haslam (2009) has revealed that starch grains do move to a limited degree within a sandy soil matrix.…”

More than what we eat: Investigating an alternative pathway for intact starch granules in dental calculus using Experimental Archaeology

“…Starch granules found in dental calculus are usually thought to be direct evidence of plants being consumed deliberately for dietary purposes ( Copeland and Hardy, 2018 ). By comparison, archaeobotanical remains from archaeological contexts such as soil ( Hart, 2011 ; Haslam, 2009 ; Lucarini et al, 2016 ) and artefacts (e.g.stone tools) ( Field et al, 2009 ; Lucarini et al, 2016 ; García-Granero, 2020 ; Hamon et al, 2021 ; Zanina et al, 2021 ) provide indirect evidence of plant remains in the diet. Dental calculus is also more ubiquitous than other forms of direct evidence for diet such as coprolites and gut samples ( Leonard et al, 2015 ).…”