10.01.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!