4.5 Article

Preservation of fungi in archaeological charcoal

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 2106-2116

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.02.007

Keywords

Wood charcoal; Fungal attack; Biodeterioration; Deadwood collection; Anthracology; Archaeobotany

Funding

  1. University of Valencia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the analysis of wood charcoal remains from archaeological sites, it is common to find different microorganisms and different forms of degradation present in the plant tissue. However, one may encounter difficulties when attempting to identify these microorganisms and determine when their attack occurred. This paper focuses on preservation aspects related to the microorganisms in wood and demonstrates the structural changes that take place in different types of decayed wood after it was converted into charcoal. The study seeks to determine whether the microbial attack found in archaeological woods took place before the burning of the wood or after. Burning experiments were conducted using wood that had been decayed by various types of fungi including white-rot, brown-rot, and soft-rot. The laboratory burnt wood samples showed decay patterns that were comparable to those observed in archaeological charcoal samples, indicating that signs of fungal infestation and features of decay can be preserved after burning with micromorphological details of mycelium and cell wall attack evident. This indication may provide important information related to the gathering of deadwood as fuelwood. In addition, examples of decayed wood preserved in archaeological charcoal assemblages are described. Their relationship to the archaeological context and environmental conditions may suggest different interpretative models concerning wood management strategies applied by past Societies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available