AR01042_WODAN_Final_Report_10.pdf - The Heritage Council
AR01042_WODAN_Final_Report_10.pdf - The Heritage Council
AR01042_WODAN_Final_Report_10.pdf - The Heritage Council
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Ulmus sp.<br />
Unidentified Angiosperm<br />
Bark<br />
Calluna sp.<br />
Ilex aquifolium<br />
Sambucus sp.<br />
Taxus baccata<br />
Betula sp.<br />
Alnus sp. 3%<br />
5%<br />
Prunus spinosa<br />
5%<br />
Salix sp.<br />
6%<br />
Maloideae<br />
9%<br />
Fraxinus sp.<br />
10%<br />
Corylus sp.<br />
30%<br />
Tulsk charcoal fragment counts<br />
Quercus sp.<br />
29%<br />
Figure 5 Fragment count of charcoal from Tulsk<br />
<strong>The</strong> vast majority of samples taken were from the medieval layers (early to late medieval) as<br />
these were the ones encountered most frequently on site. To date there is little prehistoric data<br />
from Tulsk within the <strong>WODAN</strong> database and due to the nature of the archaeological remains<br />
what prehistoric charcoal there will be is in limited quantities to the point of being statistically<br />
invalid.<br />
An interesting facet of the Tulsk data is that the charcoal from the processing residue and that<br />
from the floated material were analysed separately. An example within the database can be found<br />
with sample 3590. This was sampled from context 3152, a later medieval ditch fill from the<br />
internal ditch 4317 in area 3C. <strong>The</strong> flot was relatively small while the retent was 1.5l in volume<br />
from a 10l soil sample.<br />
24