DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WRITTEN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD: THE CASE OF PLANT MICRO REMAINS RECOVERED AT A NORTHWESTERN ARGENTINEAN PIPE

CAPPARELLI, AYLEN, POCHETTINO, M. LELIA, ANDREONI, DIEGO E ITURRIZA, R. DARÍO

Istambul

Congreso; IVth International Congress of Ethnobotany; 2005

Yedítepe University, Turkey

There are two main objectives of this paper. The first one is to identify fragmented and carbonised material stuck to the inner part of the tube of a pipe from the site La Puntilla in Catamarca Province. This pipe is characteristic of the Lower Formative Period (650 BC – 500 AD) of Northwestern Argentina. Two requirements are essential in the identification of this kind of material: 1-knowledge of those plants traditionally recorded (in documentary evidence) to have been used in such artifacts, and 2- an appropriate methodology for the identification of those residues that lack external morphology sufficient to allow them to be macroscopically referred to a specific plant. By means of a wide range of chemical treatments, several plant structures were distinguished from this pipe such as: papillae with thick walls, interlaced vegetal and animal fibres, crystals, trichomes of different morphology and function, different kind of epidermis and starch grains. These structures were thought to belong to fragmented and carbonised leaves and ground seeds of E. coca, leaves of Nicotiana sp., leaves of possibly Aloysia citriodora and Ilex sp., as yet unidentified glandular trichomes. Almost no evidence of smoking plants are mentioned in written evidence from the Argentinean NW, contrasting with the archaeological record. Just a few species are mentioned from the neighbouring Chaco region, mainly belonging to the genus Nicotiana. Therefore, our second objective is to discuss the differences that appear between archaeological and written record. Key words: Northwestern Argentina, archaeological pipes, biodynamic plants, archaeobotany, written record