Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Plant Sci.
Sec. Plant Systematics and Evolution
Volume 15 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1482790
This article is part of the Research Topic Multi- And Super-Disciplinary Approaches to Plant Si and Phytolith Research View all articles

Phytolith assemblages from palm leaves and palm-leaf manuscripts: what is the difference and what it could mean?

Provisionally accepted
  • 1 Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures, Cluster of Excellence ‘Understanding Written Artefacts', University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
  • 2 Institute for Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Institute for Chemistry, Grindelallee 117, 20146 Hamburg, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
  • 3 Department of History and Cultures, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  • 4 Institute for Wood Science, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    We studied freshly collected, dried and herbarized leaf fragments of two palms, namely Borassus flabellifer L. and Corypha umbraculifera L., most commonly used for palm-leaf manuscript (PLM) production in South (S) and Southeast Asia (SE) in order to reveal differences in their phytolith assemblages. For each of the two palms, 25 leaf samples were taken from the two Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Dried leaf material was obtained from the fresh one by drying the leaves in air. Herbarium samples were obtained from two independent herbaria, specimen origin comprises S and SE Asia with the main focus on South India and Sri Lanka. Additionally, 25 manuscripts made of Borassus flabellifer leaves and 25 manuscripts made of Corypha umbraculifera leaves were investigated for phytoliths. All manuscripts are preliminary dated back to between the 16th and the beginning of the 20th century CE; most of them assumedly were produced in S India (Tamil Nadu and Kerala), Sri Lanka, Burma or Indonesia. Phytolith assemblages significantly differed between fresh, dry and herbarized palm leaves in comparison to PLM material, both qualitatively and quantitatively (mean r2 = - 0.61 ± 9.3 for Borassus samples and r2 = - 0.75 ± 5.3 for Corypha samples, at p < 0.001). Fifty-three phytolith types described for PLM material were not observed in any of the fresh, dry or herbarized palm-leaf samples. Geographical analysis of PLM-specific phytoliths suggests that the combination of those phytoliths could be region-related. In this paper, we prove that the methods of palaeoecological reconstructions based on detailed microscopy of the PLMs surface and phytolith analysis applied in combination with methods of mathematical and computer data analysis can contribute to answer the questions posed by material codicology by revealing lost manuscript production recipes and by studying manuscript provenance in terms of the geographical origin of the artefacts. Our approach can potentially open a new perspective for palaeoecological studies expanding their traditional scope and making them applicable to a new research field.

    Keywords: Phytoliths, Arecaceae, Palaeoecology, material codicology, Palm-leaf manuscripts

    Received: 18 Aug 2024; Accepted: 03 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Poliakova, Ciotti, Helman-Wazny and Fromm. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Anastasia Poliakova, Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures, Cluster of Excellence ‘Understanding Written Artefacts', University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.