Relevant evidence

Inferences on the nature of agricultural practice rely primarily on the bioarchaeological record - broadly comprising organic remains recovered from archaeological contexts - that can be interpreted as evidence of plant and/or animal production and consumption practices.

The remains of seed crops, most widely preserved by charring, are often associated in archaeological deposits with the seeds of arable weeds. Weeds are generally an unwanted component of crop fields consisting of species that mimic the crop's growth habit or that can exploit the arable habitat oppor­tunistically. Though certain weed species may also be collected in their own right as edible greens, flavourings, and so on, they compete with crops for space, light, and nutrients, and a major aspect of farming is therefore to reduce weed growth at certain points in the growing season, most intensively by hand-weeding or digging them out. As a diverse group of species, weeds have a range of ecological potentials and requirements; for example, some are large, leafy plants that can outshade competitors and dominate fertile situations, while others are small, slower-growing plants adapted to relatively unproductive conditions. Though hand-weeding or hoeing/digging will reduce weed density and especially remove early-growing species, some form of weed flora often survives to the harvest stage, when farmers cut or strip off the seed-bearing parts of crops and (to varying degrees, depending on harvesting method) collect in weeds as well. Where weed seeds occur with crop remains archaeologically, there is an opportunity to infer the specific combination of ecological conditions under which the crop was grown.

The weed-based approach to the inference of crop-growing conditions is relevant to seed crops such as wheat and rice but is of limited usefulness for maize cultivation in the Americas, or for crops grown for their vegetative parts (roots, leaves, etc.), since the harvesting techniques involved are not conducive to the collection of weeds. Other archaeobotanical approaches to the inference of crop husbandry practice include morphological analysis of phytoliths and stable isotope analysis of crop remains. Analysis of phytoliths (the silica casts of cells that form in certain parts of, especially, monocotyle- donous plants such as grasses and sedges), for example, can yield information on habitat moisture, since high humidity allows the formation of long ‘chains' of silicified cells. Stable isotope analysis of crop material enables inferences about certain aspects of the crop-growing environment, including crop water status (through stable carbon isotope values).

Material culture in the form of ‘built' cultivation features, such as field boundaries, raised beds, and rice paddy systems, also provides key insight. Though far less frequently preserved than the remains of crops and associated weeds, such fragments of the arable landscape can provide unique evidence of its scale and spatial configuration (e.g.

Turning to faunal evidence for the nature of herding practice, the age/sex structure of livestock assemblages (bones and teeth) has implications for culling practices and management goals. Like the approaches to reconstruct­ing crop-growing conditions, these inferences rely on modern comparative studies and uniformitarian assumptions (see Outram, Chapter 6). Other data relevant to animal husbandry practice include evidence for animal housing/ penning, such as shed deciduous teeth and stabling deposits. Metrical and/or DNA evidence for interbreeding or lack thereof between domesticated and wild populations of the same species has implications for how closely animals were herded/controlled. Stable isotope analysis of bone collagen and tooth enamel affords direct insight into animal (as well as human) diet and/or mobility.

Inferences on forms of community rely on archaeological evidence of collective action and/or markers of shared identity. Farming practice itself implies ‘communities of practice' variously associated with clearance, culti­vation, processing, and consumption. Domestic architecture and its asso­ciated features and occupation deposits reflect the activities and diversity of co-residential groups. Spatial relationships among residential units and uses of external areas are suggestive of social relationships between neighbouring households. Non-domestic built features such as enclosures or ‘public' build­ings imply supra-household co-operative effort. Similarities and differences in material culture among households and settlements may highlight social groupings that transcend residential boundaries. Mortuary practices offer another archaeological opportunity to investigate social relationships that may involve intra- or extramural burial, individual or collective interment, or curation/circulation of human remains.