M. Járó - L. Költő szerk.: Archaeometrical research in Hungary (Budapest, 1988)

Analysis - TAKÁCS István: Collecting biological finds by water-sieving from the well of a mediaeval village

Separation of the material began in the Museum. This part of the work is very tedious and slow. First, larger pieces of bone and seeds, visible with the naked eye, were picked out. Then, sorting of the material was continued under a low magnification microscope. Complete sorting and quantitative analysis of the material will take along time. This discussion is thus limited to the presentation of gross tendencies in the large body of data. The measurements of some typical finds are listed in Table 2 as well as the width to length ratios of these objects. As may clearly be seen in the figures of this table, water-sieving is not only important in recovering botanical and microfaunal finds: it is also an indispensable tool in finding a greater number of small archaeological artifacts. From a qualitative point of view it is similarly important to use multiple watersieving because of the great variety of forms (Fig. 1). Although some of these pieces may be found at a larger mesh size on the basis of their biggest dimension, their other dimensions may not be sufficiently large to prevent them from falling through a screen of the same mesh size as their biggest dimension. The greatest problem is caused by the execution of water-sieving. Theoretically, this work could be carried out in the institution which is in charge of the rest of the analyses. Under laboratory conditions, however, usually small samples can be watersieved. Transportation of large amounts of sediments is costly, and it is unlikely that tight excavation budgets could allocate enough money for this purpose. Additionally, in museums, where subsequent water-sieving would take place, the disposal of backdirt is an acute problem: most drainage systems are not designed to let through quantities of mud, and frequent clogging is inevitable. These technical difficulties practically exclude the possibility of water-sieving within museums or at least limit it to the examination of insignificantly small samples. On site water-sieving is a much more attractive solution. In this case the deposition of backdirt presents no problem. The only critical parameter is the volume of water available locally. Another question is the capacity of labour that may be expended for this purpose. Large scale water-sieving may require one or two full time employees. Experience shows that of the workers hired at a usual excavation in Hungary, students are the most appropriate for this work: while water-sieving does not require hard physical work, concentration and good eyes are a definite advantage. On the other hand, on major excavations one should remember that working constantly in cold water is not among the most popular of occupations so that there should be on-going rotation of the people involved in water-sieving. On site water-sieving should be aimed at obtaining a residue which includes a variety of small finds. Further separation of this material and classification, e.g. by species, should be carried out by the specialists. Finally, let us see an example of labour requirement in water-sieving (Table 3). These values should only be regarded as approximative. It is clear, however, that full time specialists cannot devote all of their time to the manual part of on site watersieving. Some of the individuals hired for the excavation, however, could be fully engaged in water-sieving. The crew described in the table worked together for some 15 days during the excavation. This example is also, in a sense,exceptional. The opportunity for simultaneous and intensive involvement of multiple specialists on a site is quite unusual.