Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean

190 / Newsom
standards are critical, just as sufficient and adequate comparative collections and
other supporting data (published identification keys, floras, anatomical and morphological
treatments, etc.) are required to conduct mainstream analyses of plant
remains of any type.
With this in mind, recent efforts with starch and other microremains data sets
have made it possible to specify an early presence for manioc, if not virtually all
of the root crops listed in ethnohistoric documents, as well as maize. This is an
exciting new development in Caribbean paleoethnobotany. However, it is essential
that those working with starch and phytoliths, and this is true also of seed
and pollen analysis, continue to build on the background database, the comparative
universe. Direct morphological matching— that is, assigning identifications of
taxa primarily on the basis of perceptible morphological characteristics— presents
a number of challenges and potential pitfalls that are not unique to archaeobotany.
5
Interpretation is typically by comparison with living species; however, it is neither
an easy nor simple matter to distinguish between homologous and homoplastic
(having the same form but unrelated taxonomically) forms, that is, to discern
whether shared characteristics represent true relatedness (i.e., a correct identification)
or are superficially similar (i.e., similar form, but an incorrect assignment). 6
When the comparative universe is small and limited, the full range of intraspecific
and interspecific variability is unknown, not to mention variation associated
with ontogeny and growth conditions (particularly considering the inherent
genetic plasticity of many taxa under a range of selection pressures, that is,
some polyploid taxa have multiple independent origins, culminating in ecologically
distinct races and species; see, for example, Levin 2001), which in fact represent
another set of problems and potential pitfalls to correct assignments. In
reality, the potential to mis- assign an archaeological taxon is quite large, particularly
given that we are dealing with degraded (decay), altered ( cooking/ heating/
shredding, carbonization, mineralization), typically fragmentary plant organs and
tissues or simply the mineral inclusions originally contained within tissues (e.g.,
starch, crystals, cystoliths, opal phytoliths). Archaeological remains of all types
inherently present considerable and serious potential to faithfully but incorrectly
assign taxa, to match them based on comparison with the observed structure of
modern representatives that appear to be the same when in fact they may not be.
This is a problem that is heightened when there are few ancient specimens (e.g.,
see Smith 2006), few comparative specimens, and/ or few replicate specimens to
account for genetic, ecological, and functional variation within each candidate
taxon. In other words, things can look quite similar and appear to be a really great
match, unless and until a broader range of inherent variation, of within— and
between— species diversity, is encountered, at which time it may be realized that
a particular morphology is less diagnostic, less specific to a given taxon than once
You are reading copyrighted material published by the University of Alabama Press.
Any posting, copying, or distributing of this work beyond fair use as defined under U.S. Copyright law is illegal and
injures the author and publisher. For permission to reuse this work, contact the University of Alabama Press.