Haslam, M. (2006). Potential misidentification of in situ archaeological tool-residues:. J Archaeol Sci 33 (1). Vol 33(1), pp. 114-121.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Potential misidentification of in situ archaeological tool-residues: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Subtitle The sub title of the publication or report |
starch and conidia | ||
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
J Archaeol Sci 33 (1) | ||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Journal of Archaeological Science | ||
Volume Volume number and part |
33 (1) | ||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
114 - 121 | ||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
The ADS have no files for download on this page but further information is available online, normally as an electronic version maintained by the Publisher, or held in a larger collection such as an ADS Archive. Please refer to the DOI or URI listed in the Relations section of this record to locate the information you require. In the case of non-ADS resources, please be aware that we cannot advise further on availability. | ||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | ||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
Microscopic identification of organic residues in situ on the surface of archaeological artefacts is an established procedure. Where soil components morphologically similar to use-residue types exist within the soil, however, there remains the possibility that these components may be misidentified as authentic residues. The present study investigates common soil components known as conidia, fungal spores which may be mistaken for starch grains. Conidia may exhibit the rotating extinction cross under cross-polarised light commonly diagnostic of starch, and may be morphologically indistinguishable from small starch grains, particularly at the limits of microscope resolution. Conidia were observed on stone and ceramic archaeological artefacts from Honduras, Palau and New Caledonia, as well as experimental artefacts from Papua New Guinea. The findings act as a caution that in situ analysis of residues, and especially of those less than 5 µm in size, may be subject to misidentification. | ||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2006 | ||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
|
||
Relations Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report |
|
||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
12 May 2006 |
