In my experience small wood fires carefully managed in a hearth (such as would be used for indoor cooking) need leave no charcoal at all, even very fine, if you are being frugal (or careful) and cover the fire with its own ash when you have finished with it. We do this in our grate (admitted raised and not a fire directly on a stone or earth platform but I imagine the result would be similar). The result is a pale
grey very slightly crispy mass, sometimes initially with some structure resembling the bits of wood which were burned, presumably tenuously held together by fusing minerals left from the wood. Societies with a fuel shortage may thus very rarely have been left with more than the most minute trace of charcoal, especially if they (as we do) put any residual charcoal back into the new fire when it was being lit.
Harry Kenward.
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Susan et al:
>
> Good point. I spent some time with the Seri Indians of Northwest Mexico on the Gulf of California. One of the fuels they frequently use is ironwood (Olneya sp.) which burns slow and hot. I was always amazed at the very small amount of ash left after an ironwood fire burned down. No charcoal at all, and very, very little ash. So yes, I think even the type of wood available affects the appearence of firepits.
>
> Rich
--
Harry Kenward, Director, Environmental Archaeology Unit, Department of Biology,
University of York, PO Box 373, York YO10 5YW UK. (Tel. 01904 433848/49;
Fax: 01904 433850; email [log in to unmask])
|