Back from burn out: are experimentally charred grapevine pips too distorted to be characterized using morphometrics?

  • L. Bouby
  • V. Bonhomme
  • S. Ivorra
  • T. Pastor
  • N. Rovira
  • M. Tillier
  • C. Pagnoux
  • J. F. Terral
Original Paper
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

This article examines the impact of charring on the possibility to characterize grape pips, at compartment (wild versus domesticated) and cultivar level, using morphometrics. Two morphometric methods have been used, one based on linear measurements (traditional morphometrics) and one on elliptic Fourier transforms (EFT; morphogeometrics). Charring experiments were performed using a laboratory muffle furnace and various charring conditions. Despite the strong impact of heating, results showed that wild and domesticated Vitis seeds can be reliably discriminated using both traditional morphometrics and morphogeometrics, even when charring has been done at high temperature (450 °C). The characterization of charred pips at cultivar level using EFT is very powerful when the seeds are charred at 250 °C, but the risk of misclassification is, as expected, higher at 450 °C. Results suggest that the characterization at cultivar level should only be attempted with large assemblages of well preserved archaeological pips, and only after a first classification at compartment level. Our approach was applied on a case study of two assemblages of waterlogged and well preserved charred pips from the archaeological site of Lattara. The results are consistent both between the two morphometric methods and between waterlogged and charred remains.

Keywords

Morphogeometrics Taphonomy Vitis vinifera Domestication Roman period Agrobiodiversity 

References

  1. Alonso N, Rovira N (2010) Consommation et traitement des produits végétaux à Lattara entre −475 et −350. Lattara 21:329–386Google Scholar
  2. Alonso N, Rovira N (2014) Stockage de céréales et consommation de végétaux divers attestés dans les maisons du quartier étrusque de Lattara (Lattes, Hérault) au début du Ve siècle av. n. è. Lattara 22:183–200Google Scholar
  3. Bonhomme V, Picq S, Gaucherel C, Claude J (2014) Momocs: outline analysis using R. J Stat Softw 56:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouby L, Figueiral I, Bouchette A, Rovira N, Ivorra S, Lacombe T, Pastor T, Picq S, Marinval P, Terral J-T (2013) Bioarchaeological insights into the process of domestication of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) during Roman times in southern France. PLoS One 8(5):e63195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braadbaart F, Bakels CC, Boon JJ, van Bergen PF (2005) Heating experiments under anoxic conditions on varieties of wheat. Archaeometry 47(1):103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braadbaart F, Boon JJ, Veld H, David P, van Bergen PF (2004) Laboratory simulations of the transformation of peas as a result of heat treatment: changes of the physical and chemical properties. J Archaeol Sci 31:821–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braadbaart F, Wright P (2007) Changes in mass and dimensions of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) achenes and seeds due to carbonization. Econ Bot 61(2):137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxó I Capdevila R (1996) Evidence for vines and ancient cultivation from an urban area, lattes (Hérault), southern France. Antiquity 70:393–407Google Scholar
  9. Buxó R (2005) Etude carpologique des puits de Lattes. Evaluation et comparaison avec l’habitat. Lattara 18:199–219Google Scholar
  10. Charles M, Forster E, Wallace M, Jones G (2015) “Nor ever lightning char thy grain”: establishing archaeologically relevant charring conditions and their effect on glume wheat grain morphology. STAR 1(1): STAR20152054892315Y.0000000008Google Scholar
  11. Figueiral I, Bouby L, Buffat L, Petitot H, Terral J-F (2010) Archaeobotany, vine growing and wine producing in Roman southern France: Le Gasquinoy (Béziers, Hérault). J Archaeol Sci 37(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiorentino G, Ferrio JP, Bogaard A, Araus JL, Riehl S (2015) Stable isotopes in archaeobotanical research. Veg Hist Archaeobotany 24:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janin T, Py M (eds) (2008) Lattara (Lattes, Hérault) : nouveaux acquis, nouvelles questions sur une ville portuaire protohistorique et romaine. Gallia 65:5–230Google Scholar
  14. Kislev ME (1988) Fruit remains. In: Rothenberg B (ed) The Egyptian mining temple at Timna. University College, Institute of Archaeology, London, pp. 236–243Google Scholar
  15. Kuhl FFP, Giardina CCR (1982) Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput Graph image Process 18:236–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lebeaupin D (2014) Introduction. Lattara 22:5–11Google Scholar
  17. Levadoux L (1956) Les populations sauvages et cultivées de Vitis vinifera L. Annales de l’Amélioration des Plantes 6(1):59–117Google Scholar
  18. Logothetis B (1970) The development of the vine and of viticulture in Greece based on archaeological findings in the area (in Greek with English summary). Epistimoniki Epetiris tis Geoponikis kai Dasologikis Sholis 13:167–249Google Scholar
  19. Mangafa M, Kotsakis K (1996) A new method for the identification of wild and cultivated charred grape seeds. J Archaeol Sci 23:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mc Govern PE, Luley BP, Rovira N, Mirzoian A, Callahan MP, Smith KE, Hall GR, Davidson T, Henkin JM (2013) Beginning of viniculture in France. PNAS 110(25):10147–10152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mosimann JE, James FC (1979) New statistical methods for allometry with application to Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 33:444–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orrù M, Grillo O, Lovicu G, Venora G, Bacchetta G (2012) Morphological characterisation of Vitis vinifera L. Seeds by image analysis and comparison with archaeological remains. Veg Hist Archaeobotany 22(3):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pagnoux C, Bouby L, Ivorra S, Petit C, Valamoti SM, Pastor T, Picq S, Terral J-F (2015) Inferring the agrobiodiversity of Vitis vinifera L. (grapevine) in ancient Greece by comparative shape analysis of archaeological and modern seeds. Veg Hist Archaeobotany 24:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Py M (2009) Lattara, Lattes, Hérault. Comptoir gaulois méditerranéen entre Etrusques. Grecs et Romains, Errance, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Py M, Buxó I Capdevila R (2001) La viticulture en Gaule à l’âge du Fer. Gallia 58:29–43Google Scholar
  26. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2016
  27. Renfrew JM (1973) Palaeoethnobotany. The prehistoric food plants of the near east and Europe. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Renfrew JM (1995) Palaeoethnobotanical finds of Vitis from Greece. In: McGovern PE (ed) The origins and ancient history of wine. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, pp. 255–267Google Scholar
  29. Rivera Nuñez D, Walker MJ (1989) A review of palaeobotanical findings of early Vitis in the Mediterranean and of the origins of cultivated grape-vines, with special reference to new pointers to prehistoric exploitation in the western Mediterranean. Rev Palaeobot Palynol 61:205–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schiemann E (1953) Vitis in Neolithicum der Mark Brandenburg. Der Zuchter 23(10/11):318–327Google Scholar
  31. Smith H, Jones G (1990) Experiments on the effects of charring on cultivated grape seeds. J Archaeol Sci 17:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stummer A (1911) Zur Urgeschichte der Rebe und des Weinbaues. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 61:283–296Google Scholar
  33. Terral JF, Tabard E, Bouby L, Ivorra S, Pastor T, Figueiral I, Picq S, Chevance J-B, Jung C, Fabre L, Tardy C, Compan M, Bacilieri R, Lacombe T, This P (2010) Evolution and history of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) under domestication: new morphometric perspectives to understand seed domestication syndrome and reveal origins of ancient European cultivars. Ann Bot 105:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Terral J-F, Bouby L (2013) Domestication de la vigne (Vitis vinifera L.) et origines de cépages en France : apport de l’archéobiologie. Food & History 11(2):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ucchesu M, Orrù M, Grillo O, Venora G, Usai A, Serreli PF, Bacchetta G (2015) Earliest evidence of a primitive cultivar of Vitis vinifera L. During the bronze age in Sardinia (Italy). Veg Hist Archaeobotany 24(5):587–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ucchesu M, Orrù M, Grillo O, Venora G, Paglietti G, Ardu A, et al. (2016) Predictive method for correct identification of archaeological charred grape seeds: support for advances in knowledge of grape domestication process. PLoS ONE 11(2):e0149814. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149814
  37. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vora Di A, Castelletti L (1995) Indagine preliminare sull’archeologia della vite (Vitis vinifera L.) in base ai caratteri diagnostici del vinacciolo. Revista Archeologica dell’Antica Provincia e Diocesi di Como 176:333–358Google Scholar
  39. Wright P (2003) Preservation or destruction of plant remains by carbonization? J Archaeol Sci 30:577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zohary D (1995) The domestication of the grapevine Vitis vinifera L. In the near east. In: McGovern PE (ed) The origins and ancient history of wine. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, pp. 23–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Bouby
    • 1
  • V. Bonhomme
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Ivorra
    • 1
  • T. Pastor
    • 1
  • N. Rovira
    • 3
  • M. Tillier
    • 1
    • 3
  • C. Pagnoux
    • 1
  • J. F. Terral
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution (ISEM, UMR 5554), CNRS, IRD, CIRADUniversité de MontpellierMontpellier, cedex 05France
  2. 2.School of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes (ASM, UMR 5140), CNRSUniversité Paul Valery, Ministère de la Culture et de la CommunicationLattesFrance

Personalised recommendations