I'd like to jump in here and hope for more responses to the carbonization vs. charring by fire.
I am working on a site in western New York State where several of the features contain large numbers of charred hickory nut shell fragments, possibly nutmeats and husks. Did they carbonize under storage conditions? Or were the shells and husks fed into the hearth fire to eliminate the waste products of processing the nuts? There are very few pieces of actual wood charcoal in some of these features which is truly the reverse of any other site I have analyzed in 25 years. One feature contains only charred (what I believe to be ) husk material. There are also some charred acorn shells, some with the nut meats. Remnants of grass nodes are present in several of the features. Are there any publications which address the fire charred versus storage carbonization of nuts? I don't think its an urban myth, Allan.
I have been experimenting with burning nut shells, with and without nut meats and either they don't burn or completely disintegrate!
Are the blackened nut shells, husks, nut meats, and grass nodes reflecting storage conditions in grass lined pits?

Tonya-have you had experience with nutshell dominated features?
Lucinda McWeeney
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Allan Hall
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:32 PM
Subject: Charring versus carbonisation

Could someone jog my memory concerning the debunking of the dichotomy between carbonised (turned to carbon but not burnt) and charred plant remains? Jessen and Helbaek in their monograph on British/Irish cereals from 1944 allude to the carbonisation explanation by early archaeologists who found blackened cereals in Egyptian tombs and thought they must have been turned to carbon simply by being 'buried' for a long time, and they refer to workers such as Percival who "even maintains that the carbonisation has generally taken place in the last-named way, rejecting the idea that the carbonisation of cereals occurred through the action of fire".
 
But I am sure there is some literature challenging what is surely an 'urban myth' in archaeology. Can anyone shed any light? I ask, because a senior colleague (not in this Department, I hasten to say) clearly still thinks that carbonisation without charring is a real phenomenon - citing the example of black, apparently charred, textile remains from Saxon graves in contexts where exposure to fire is not considered likely. If not charred, how are these remains preserved?
 
Allan
--
Dr Allan Hall, English Heritage Senior Research Fellow, Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King's Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK
+44 1904 434950 (fax 433902)
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/Hall.htm
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.