Print

Print
Hi Allan
Might the textiles have been in close proximity to a metal object (possibly silver) and been preserved by the corrosion products?
 I have seen this with textiles and wood in grave contexts associated with iron (red/brown colouration) and copper alloy (green).
Kath Hunter 
----- 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.