image/svg+xml
95
VI/1/2015
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Thematic review
Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the
Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
Michaela Divišová
a*
, Petr Šída
a,b
a
Laboratory of Archaeobotany and Palaeoecology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Branišovská 31,
370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
b
Department of Archaeology, University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Arts, University of West Bohemia in Plzeň, Sedláčkova 15, 306 14 Plzeň, Czech Republic
1. An outline of the history of research into hunter-
gatherer archaeobotany with an emphasis on the
European Mesolithic
The importance of plants in the diet of the modern hunter-
gatherer has already been stressed by Lee (1968) on the
basis of data from the
Ethnographic atlas
(Murdock 1967).
However, archaeologically, most studies dealing with foods
have long put an emphasis on animal remains – bones – most
likely due to their visibility in the archaeological record
and also to the research methods applied. Moreover, when
dealing with plants, investigations of domesticated and
cultivated plants (or their immediate wild relatives) have long
prevailed in archaeobotanical studies (Hather, Mason eds.
2002). As a result, the role of plants has been systematically
underestimated (Zvelebil 1994; Hather, Mason eds. 2002).
From a European perspective a crucial turning point
occurred in 1994, when M. Zvelebil published a key study
concerning the use of plants in the Mesolithic. In this
study, he built on Clarke’s model (1976), in which Clarke
emphasizes the wide availability of potential plant foods
in temperate and Mediterranean Europe. Zvelebil (1994),
however, reviewed the temporal evidence and brought
together information on fnds of edible plant remains from 74
northern European sites. He revealed that at 40 sites only the
remains of
Corylus
sp
.
were reported; additionally, 24 sites
had only two species, commonly
Corylus
sp. and
Quercus
sp.
or
Trapa natans
. Taxa such as
Prunus
sp.,
Chenopodium
sp.,
Nuphar lutea
,
Nymphaea alba
,
Rubus idaeus
,
Polygonum
sp.,
Crataegus
sp.,
Rumex
sp.,
Filipendula
sp.
Malus
sp., or
Pyrus
sp. had also been occasionally reported. Apart from
plant macroremains, Zvelebil also discussed other lines of
evidence of plant use, such as pollen data, artefactual, and
palaeopathological evidence. He concluded that, based on
these four lines of evidence, patterns of plant use in the
Mesolithic should be considered in terms of wild plant food
Volume VI ● Issue 1/2015 ● Pages 95–106
*Corresponding author. E-mail: MDivisova@seznam.cz
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 29
th
December 2014
Accepted: 1
st
August 2015
Keywords:
hunter-gatherers
archaeobotany
Mesolithic
plant use
Czech Republic
ABSTRACT
The present work attempts to provide an understanding of the issue of Mesolithic archaeobotany,
especially in terms of plant use, woodland clearance, and a discussion concerning Mesolithic
agriculture. Plant use patterns in hunter-gatherers are also presented and discussed. Special attention is
paid to taxa occurring within archaeological context at Mesolithic sites in Europe, particularly in the
Czech Republic, along with ethnobotanical evidence for their use.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
96
husbandry instead of the incidental and opportunistic use of
plants for food.
Since then, rather individual reports by a few authors
instead of a systematic study of the issue can be observed
(
e.g.
Holden
et al.
1995; Regnell
et al.
1995; Kubiak-Martens
1996; 1999; Knörzer
et al.
1999; Perry 1999; Mason, Hather
2000; Robinson 2000; Rösch 2000). An exception is the
edited volume
Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany. Perspectives
from the northern temperate zone
(Hather, Mason eds.
2002), which represents a signifcant milestone in hunter-
gatherer archaeobotany. Within this volume, a number of
investigations of European sites were undertaken (
e.g.
Mason
et al.
2002; Perry 2002; Robinson, Harild 2002; Zapata
et al.
2002). Several tentative conclusions were drawn from
this project. Firstly, the number of small seeds and fruits
recovered is extremely low, which can be assigned to poor
preservation, implying that focusing only on fruits and seeds
may not be suffcient when dealing with pre-agricultural
societies. Secondly, most importantly, the identifcation
of parenchyma turns out to be of crucial importance when
studying past hunter-gatherers, since underground storage
organs such as rhizomes, roots, and tubers are expected to
play an important role in relation to seeds and fruits and,
furthermore, are frequently present at investigated sites.
However, the identifcation of parenchymatous tissues is
fraught with many practical problems, particularly the need
to examine the remains by scanning electron microscopy
(SEM). Further, larger seeds and fruits such as
Corylus
sp.,
Trapa natans
,
Quercus
sp.,
Prunus
sp. or
Crataegus
sp. are
often present and identifed. With respect to methodology, a
need for a holistic approach, incorporating various disciplines
such as experimental archaeology, ethnobotany, and also
broader archaeobotanical analyses, including anthracology
and palynology, are stressed (Mason
et al.
2002). Also, proper
sampling and recovery techniques should be applied to obtain
satisfactory refection on the issue. The authors further noted
that the application of such an holistic approach is relatively
time-consuming and its time-effectiveness often questionable,
which may also be refected in the state of the research.
Since then, several works presenting new data deserve to
be mentioned here (Kubiak-Martens 2002; Aura
et al.
2005;
Out 2008a). However, another work well worth considering
in the history of research into hunter-gatherer archaeobotany
is the dissertation of W. Out,
Sowing the seed? Human
impact and plant subsistence in Dutch wetlands during
the Late Mesolithic and Early and Middle Neolithic
(5500–3400 cal BC)
; this
brought substantial evidence on
natural vegetation, human impact, plant use and cultivation
processes in the Dutch wetlands during the Mesolithic and
Neolithic, hence, contributing to an understanding of the
transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture on the
basis of archaeobotanical research (Out 2009). In terms of
further research development, some studies concerning
archaeobotany at European Mesolithic sites should be
mentioned (Filipović
et al.
2010; Holst 2010; Regnell 2011;
Out 2012; Bishop
et al.
2013; 2015; Deforce
et al.
2013;
Marinova
et al.
2013; Out, Verhoeven 2014).
Another point to be made is that, apart from being food
items, the evidence for the wider human use of plants, such
as for structures and as artefacts, should be emphasised.
Such uses include for housing and thatching, as vessels and
objects of art, sources of fbres for cordage and textiles,
dyeing, tanning, and medicinal and psychoactive agents,
etc.
(Hather, Mason 2002). This issue has been tackled by a
number of authors such as Burov (1998), Hurcombe (2000;
2007), Mason
et al.
(2002), Zapata
et al.
(2002), Hardy
(2007; 2008), and Wood (2011) from the perspective of
ethnographic, archaeobotanical, and experimental evidence.
To summarize, according to above-mentioned studies,
several patterns can be observed. Firstly, plant macroremains
bring substantial evidence about only a few intentionally-used
species. Secondly, a clear pattern arises concerning hazelnuts
as the most important plant food resource (
e.g.
Holst 2010;
Regnell 2011); however, their role may be overestimated,
particularly in relation to other resources such as roots and
tubers (Mason
et al.
2002). This relates to another important
issue concerning foods such as roots, inner bark, stems,
leaves, or other vegetative parts of plants; their presence
in the assemblage suggests they were available. However,
there is a need to identify them and integrate the results from
all categories of evidence, since a number of studies have
proved that these remains may be identifed by scanning
electron microscopy (
e.g.
Hather 1991; 1993; 2000; Holden
et al.
1995; Kubiak-Martens 1996; 1999; 2002; 2008; Perry
1999). Therefore, a modifcation of the methodological
practices common on agrarian sites is needed. Lastly, it
should be noted that most of the published information on
plant use in the Mesolithic lacks critical evaluation, since the
presence of taxa cannot be uncritically associated with their
utilisation.
2. Plant use patterns in hunter-gatherers
Another issue deserving attention is the intensity of plant use
in the Mesolithic. As already mentioned, the great scarcity
of archaeobotanical data makes it diffcult to estimate the
contribution of plants to the Mesolithic diet. The extent and
signifcance of Mesolithic plant use has been suggested to
vary between 5% and 80%, with 15 – 20% being the most
commonly proposed estimate by several scholars (
e.g.
Clarke 1976; Jochim 1976; Price 1978; see Zvelebil 1994
for further details). These represent very approximate
estimations and considerable variation, likely in the case of
individual European regions, should be taken into account,
as also the dependence on the availability of fatty aquatic
resources, fat content of terrestrial mammals, birds, fsh, and
the overall seasonality. Added to the above, it is important
to bear in mind that the human intolerance of a lean-meat-
based diet indicates that at least 50% of human energy needs
had to come from fat or plant foods (Speth
et al.
1991),
since lean meat can compose no more than 35% of dietary
energy (Hardy 2010). When focusing on central European
inland Mesolithic communities with rare or no fatty aquatic
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
97
resources, the contribution of plants in satisfying human
energy needs and protein requirements varying between 30%
and 40% has been proposed, depending on the fat content
of the available terrestrial mammals, game birds, and fsh
(Zvelebil 1994, 58).
Moreover, these data can be compared with ethnographic
accounts, since the diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers
may represent a reference to past pre-agricultural dietary
practices. Subsistence data on a worldwide hunter-gatherer
diet based on an ethnographic atlas (Gray 1999) have been
analysed and the following trends have been recognised
(Cordain
et al.
2000). The authors reported that, when it
was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers gained between
45–65% of energy from animal foods. Most (73%) hunter-
gatherer societies derived between 56% and 65% of their
subsistence from animal foods, whereas 14% of these
communities consumed more than 50% of wild plant foods
(Cordain
et al.
2000). Another noticeable fact, considering
the ethnographic evidence, is the diversity within known
hunter-gatherer diets. According to Kelly’s ethnographic
atlas (1995), diets whose gathered component (including
small mammals and fsh) varies from 0% to 85%, include a
hunted portion varying from 10% to 90% and a fsh element
from 0% to 80%.
Taken together, these observations suggest that the plant
component in the hunter-gatherer diet is not negligible.
On the other hand, one should be cautious, since, as
already mentioned above, food resources vary by latitude,
environment, and season. Thus, one must guard against
overgeneralization and drawing precise analogies between
modern-day and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, particularly
due to the fact that the diets of many modern hunter-
gatherer communities contain substantial portions of
domesticated resources having different concentrations of
fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, fbre, minerals,
etc.
(Jenike
2001, 208).
In addition, the ethnographic record also indicates that
not all available resources were utilised. This is clearly
apparent in the example of the Kalahari !Kung, who
consider 85 plant species edible; however, more than half of
the entire plant diet is formed by a single plant species, the
mongongo (
Schinziophyton rautanenii
) (Lee 1968; 1973).
Also, other factors affecting food choice should be taken into
consideration. Apart from availability mentioned above, one
should bear in mind that social factors, fashion, affuence,
price, religion, tradition, cultural patterns,
etc.
, could all
have played an important role in food choice (Fisher, Bender
1970, 6–7).
Furthermore, ethnographic accounts have repeatedly
shown the wide range of behaviour and the fexibility of
hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer diversity in habitat,
technology, diet, physical attributes, reproductive histories,
technology, languages, social organisation, issues of local
response to environmental constraints,
etc.
, has been well
reported among present and past hunter-gatherers (Panter-
Brick
et al.
2001). Thus the danger of misinterpretation and
overgeneralization must be emphasised.
To summarize, current fnds need to be critically re-
evaluated since many of them lack information concerning
their particular archaeological context – and the presence of
potential useful plants at the site itself cannot be considered
as convincing evidence for their utilisation. Unfortunately,
this is often disregarded in publications dealing with hunter-
gatherer archaeobotany. Evidence of food plants can then
be provided by plant remains found in human intestines or
human coprolites. Strong indication for plant foods may be
represented, for instance, by plant residues in storage pits or
vessels, which are regrettably exceptional in the Mesolithic
context. On the other hand, criteria to prove human transport
and manipulation of plants suggested by Dietsch (1996)
should be taken into consideration. According to Dietsch
(1996), the following fve main criteria may be observed to
enable the detection of wild plants manipulated by humans:
1. Ecology, which can be used to identify the presence of
taxa outside their natural environment.
2. Number of plant remains, since overrepresentation of
some taxa may refect gathering.
3. Carbonization, which may indicate human processing
activities.
4. Fragmentation, also suggesting possible plant
processing practices.
5. Spatial distribution, as location in archaeological
structures may refect anthropogenic manipulation.
3. Human impact on the vegetation: woodland clearance
Apart from the evidence available from plant macroremains,
pollen studies play an important role in understanding the
human impact on vegetation in the Mesolithic. During this
period, hunter-gatherers started to be less mobile due to
environmental changes and consequently affected their local
environments around camp sites more intensively (Kuneš
et al.
2008). In particular, the phenomenon of woodland
clearance belongs to one of the most discussed issues
concerning Mesolithic societies.
Although, traditionally, Mesolithic communities were not
expected to clear forests (see Vera 2000), these disturbance
phases visible in pollen diagrams, for example, in Britain (
e.g.
Simmons 1996; Innes
et al.
2003), Germany (Bos, Urz 2003),
and recently also the Czech Republic (Nováková
et al.
2008;
Pokorný
et al.
2008; 2010), are associated with evidence of
regular and recurrent burning and clearance activity delaying
forest regeneration (Jacobi
et al.
1976; Mellars 1976). Such
burning of the vegetation is documented not only by the
permanent presence of microcharcoal in pollen records, but
also the increased incidence of certain anthropogenic pollen
indicators. These are plants that prefer open habitats, such
as
Thalictrum
,
Rumex
,
Melampyrum
,
Plantago lanceolata
,
Poaceae, and those that expand to fre-affected areas, including
Pteridium aquilinum
, or
Calluna vulgaris
(Simmons 1996;
Pokorný 1999; Kuneš
et al.
2008; Pokorný
et al.
2008).
Such evidence also supports the suggestion that Mesolithic
people deliberately manipulated their environment as a part
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
98
of an organized land-use strategy (Zvelebil 1994). However,
these disturbances can also be interpreted in terms of natural
processes such as lightning strikes, storms, windthrows,
etc.
,
that would leave an identical signal in the palaeoecological
record to that of anthropogenic clearance (Simmons 1996;
Brown 1997). In addition to that already mentioned, it
has been proposed that only the presence of cereal pollen
can indicate without doubt the anthropogenic origins of
disturbances (Simmons, Innes 1987), but this would consider
only forest clearances associated with cereal cultivation
(Zvelebil 1994). Despite all of this, Mesolithic sites are
almost everywhere in the world accompanied by large
amounts of microcharcoal, which is found in sedimentary
records. This plays into the idea of burning forests as the
usual way of dealing with nature (Sádlo
et al.
2008) and a
continuous presence of microscopic charcoal in sediments is
now also considered as a reliable indicator of human activity
during the pre-agricultural Holocene (Pokorný 1999).
Moreover, it is generally accepted that woodland
clearances, irrespective of their causation, were utilized by
Mesolithic populations for food procurement. However the
clearances were created, they had an economic use. Plant and
animal productivity could be almost doubled by a strategy of
controlled burning (Mellars 1976). Forest clearance would
have led to particular advantages for the propagation of
edible plants and clearings also serve to facilitate hunting
as well as the mobility of human populations (Jacobi
et al.
1976; Mellars 1976; Zvelebil 1994; Mason 2000).
One should also take into account the fact that discussion
concerning Mesolithic societies is seriously lacking
(Davies
et al.
2005). However, ecological relationships
may have been a key factor in the development of social
relationships in the Mesolithic and it is important not to
separate the economic from the cultural, particularly in
terms of understanding human interaction with woodlands
in the Mesolithic (Moore 2003). Nonetheless, environment
and the trees within it should be considered as more than
mere background to human activity. In this regard, it is
important to distinguish between two possible modes of
human-environment relationships. The frst can be described
as a benefcent human-environment relationship, where
human and non-humans infuence one another in a mutually
benefcial way. This is in contrast, however, to another mode
of human-environment relationship, a concept of wilderness
where fear is a primary motivator determining behaviour and
the surroundings are more often seen as malevolent rather
than benevolent (Evans
et al.
1999; Warren 2003; Davies
et al.
2005).
With respect to anthropological and ethnographic evidence,
Davies
et al.
(2005) suggest that Mesolithic populations
may have more likely been driven by anxiety and fear of
their surroundings, rather than be familiar with it. Thus,
considering woodlands as being marked by paths (Tilley
1994, 202; Warren 2003), one of the primary motivators in
establishing paths may have been a fear of actual harm from
wildlife, or spirits, or of getting lost in surroundings where
the horizon is seldom visible. Consequently, woodland
clearings could have resulted from such fears and can be
explained as a purely social phenomenon.
4. Mesolithic agriculture?
There has also been a discussion of the accumulating
archaeobotanical evidence pointing to agricultural activity
being in central and northern Europe well before the onset of
the Neolithic (Innes
et al.
2003; Klassen 2004; Poska, Saarse
2006; Behre 2007; Tinner
et al.
2007). The palynological
evidence is based on the consistent presence of Cerealia pollen
within sediments that provide high temporal resolution and
precision for the period of interest. The presence of pollen
of Cerealia during the Mesolithic period also correlates with
the pollen of semi-cultural plants or weeds, such as
Plantago
lanceolata
that is considered to be one of the most reliable
indicators of agriculture (Tinner
et al.
2007; see Behre 2007
for further discussion). Given that the evidence for cereal
cultivation during the Mesolithic is provided, for instance,
from Switzerland, Austria, France, Estonia, British Isles
(Innes
et al.
2003; Poska, Saarse 2006; Tinner
et al.
2007),
etc.
, some scholars (
e.g.
Tinner
et al.
2007) consider the
occurrence of pollen indicative of agriculture activities
during the Late Mesolithic as a widespread phenomenon in
Europe.
However, the topic remains at the centre of controversial
debate mainly because there are no well-dated macroremains
of crop plants of pre-Neolithic age (Behre 2007); this may be
due to there being no Upper Mesolithic sites in and around
central Europe known, which have good conditions for the
preservation of botanical remains (Jacomet, Kreuz 1999).
Mesolithic agriculture, as it is assumed, is based solely on
the occurrence of single Cerealia or Cereal-type pollen in the
respective levels of pollen diagrams (Behre 2007; Tinner
et al.
2007). Firstly, single pollen grains of Cerealia-type which
have been interpreted as indicators of earliest agriculture,
however, may not really derive from cereals, because cereal
pollen can be morphologically similar to that of wild grasses
and is not always distinguishable (Dumayne-Peaty 2001,
381). Another issue is the spontaneous polyploidization
of wild grasses, which leads to the development of large
pollen grains, contributing to the diffculties of identifying
cereals (Behre 2007; Pokorný
et al.
2008). In addition to
misidentifcation, there are also problems of contamination
or the possible long-distance transport of Cereal-type wild
grass pollen grains from the Near East and the eastern
Mediterranean that cannot be distinguished from cereals
(Behre 2007). Another explanation of the appearance of
pre-Neolithic cereal-type pollen would be the cultivation of
indigenous wild grasses (Zvelebil 1994).
One of the most common arguments for ruling out
Mesolithic agriculture is that crops cannot be produced
without permanent settlement activity protecting the felds
against herbivores (Behre 2007). However, protection can be
provided by simple fence constructions made from prickly
shrubs (Pokorný, Sádlo 2008). Moreover, the evidence
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
99
suggests that possible cereal production during the Mesolithic
was of low-intensity and the purpose for this could have
been the planting of cereals for prestige reasons (Mithen
1996; Tinner
et al.
2007). Although this may represent an
economically-useful activity, one should take into account
that growing sedentarism, associated with the adoption of
agriculture, gave rise to epidemics and health problems and
should not be perceived unambiguously (Tringham 2000;
Bánffy 2005; Beneš 2013). On the other hand, very little is
known about the social organisation and beliefs of Mesolithic
communities in central Europe, particularly in contrast to the
south-east European Neolithic and the issue concerning the
origins of agriculture, where the cult and ritual life has been
well documented in the archaeological record (Hodder 1990;
Bánffy 2005).
5. Selected plants occurring in the Mesolithic context:
perspectives from archaeobotany and ethnobotany
The plant macroremains of the following taxa are recorded
as occurring at European Mesolithic sites based on the
above-mentioned studies. Special attention is also paid
to taxa recovered from sites in the Czech Republic. Here,
ethnobotanical information on these plants is also provided.
It should be kept in mind that these are not all the taxa
identifed within the Mesolithic context, but rather those taxa
that occur at several sites or within a context suggesting their
manipulation by humans are presented and discussed.
5.1 Seeds, fruits and nuts
5.1.1 Corylus avellana
Hazelnut shells represent very abundant macroremains at
most sites. Very likely, hazelnuts functioned as staple food,
since their energetic value is very high, containing more
than 60% fat, 15% protein and nearly 17% carbohydrate,
in addition to a large amount of unsaturated fatty acids,
minerals and vitamins (Holst 2010). However, they are
easily recognisable in contrast to other sources, particularly
underground storage organs in the archaeological record;
their role, therefore, may be overestimated (Mason
et al.
2002). Their frequent occurrence may also be connected
with their roasting, which facilitates hazelnut cracking and
grinding, destroys contaminants, induces a nutty favour and
digestion and, last but not least, enables their synchronous
harvest (Mithen
et al.
2001; Mears, Hillman 2007; Holst
2010).
Large amounts of hazelnut shells are known, for
instance, from the sites of Duvensee, Germany (Holst
2010) or Staosnaig, Scotland (Mithen
et al.
2001). In
the Czech Republic, fnds of hazelnut shells are reported
from Okrouhlík, Dolský Mlýn, Máselník, Pod Zubem,
Pod Křídlem, Arba, Sojčí Převis, Jezevčí Převis, Kristova
Jeskyně, Schwarzenberg Lake, Údolí Samoty, Dvojitá Brána
u Rohlin, (Opravil 2003; Pokorný 2003; Komárková 2005;
Pokorný
et al.
2008; Žáčková 2008; Svoboda
et al.
2013;
Divišová 2014).
5.1.2 Quercus sp.
Acorns are nutritionally comparable to cereals, being
largely a source of carbohydrates, fats and fbres. Acorn
also contains proteins, amino acids and vitamins, mostly A
and C. Apart from acorns for food, oaks were exploited for
numerous other purposes, including construction material,
charcoal production, frewood, production of rope, and the
extraction of tannin (Rosenberg 2008, 169).
With respect to the Mesolithic period, S. L. R. Mason
(2000) considered the possible role played by fre and
challenged the traditional view that fre might have been
used mainly to improve hunting (Mason 2000, 139–140).
Instead, she focuses on the manner in which burning
contributes to acorn gathering and posits that burning reduces
competition for nutrients,
etc.
, from other species, and in so
doing concentrates available resources to the acorn crop. In
addition, removing ground cover facilitates the gathering of
acorns.
Finds of acorns are reported from a number of sites such
as Tybind Vig and Halsskov, Denmark (Kubiak-Martens
1999; Robinson, Harild 2002) or Roc del Migdia, Catalonia
(Holden
et al.
1995).
5.1.3 Trapa natans
Fruits of
Trapa natans
are rich in starch (50%), protein (10%)
and fat. They can be eaten raw, as well as boiled or roasted.
They can also be preserved for several weeks, when roasted.
As in the case of hazelnuts, roasting makes them easier to
open, ground to four and a better favour is also induced
(Renfrew 1973; Karg 2006). Remains of
T. natans
have been
found, for instance, at sites in the Dutch central river area
(Out 2009). In the Czech Republic, fruits of
T. natans
have
been found at the site of Schwarzenberg Lake (Pokorný
et al.
2008; 2010).
5.1.4 Cornus mas
Bushes of
Cornus mas
bear edible fruits, which are widely
used as food and medicine, since they contain a large amount
of vitamin C (Klimenko 2004; Łuczaj 2012). Interestingly,
fnds of
C. mas
stones in deposits related to burial infll are
reported from the site of Vlasac, Serbia (Filipović
et al.
2010
).
5.1.5 Cornus sanguinea
Although the edibility of fruits of
C. sanguinea
is discussed
(Dietsch 1996; Out 2009), they are known to be eaten from
the ethnobotanical record (
e.g.
Dénes
et al.
2012). The fruits
are slightly toxic, but their palatability and edibility increase
after preparation. Moreover, selective use of
C. sanguinea
for Mesolithic and Neolithic fsh traps has been observed in
the Netherlands (Out 2008b). There are fnds of stones of
C.
sanbuinea
at several sites in the Netherlands (Out 2009) as
well as in Denmark (Kubiak-Martens 1999).
5.1.6 Rubus sp.
Fruits of
Rubus
taxa represent a food resource often
referred to as unsuitable for storage (Out 2009). On the
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
100
other hand, recent hunter-gatherers have been reported
to store them over the winter (Mears, Hillman 2007).
Also, these taxa may be consumed directly without any
preparation and evidence of their consumption may
thus be underrepresented (Out 2009). Ethnobotanically,
the utilization of
Rubus
fruits, leaves, roots, as well
as whole plants, mostly for food and medicine, may be
traced (Moerman 1998, 492–494; Mears, Hillman 2007).
Fruits or
Rubus
taxa have been found at several sites, for
example,
R. idaeus
from the site of Halsskov, Denmark
can be mentioned (Robinson, Harild 2002). In the Czech
Republic,
R. idaeus
and
R. saxatilis
have been retrieved
from Jezevčí převis and Schwarzenberg lake (Pokorný
2003; Žáčková 2008; Pokorný
et al.
2010).
5.1.7 Sambucus sp.
Sambucus nigra
represents one of the most versatile plants
used for food, medicine, crafts and games, as well as for
ornamental purposes. In addition, almost every part of the
plant, including the bark, roots, leaves, fowers, and fruit, has
some uses. Finds of
Sambucus ebulus/nigra
are known, for
instance, from Vlasac, Serbia (Filipović
et al.
2010). In the
Czech Republic, seeds of
Sambucus nigra
were recovered
from Jezevčí převis (Pokorný 2003).
In contrast to
Sambucus nigra, S. racemosa
requires
processing to render it edible, since the fruit and its seeds are
somewhat toxic. However,
S. racemosa
represents a widely-
used food, as well documented through the ethnobotanical
record, representing a particularly good source of vitamin
C, copper and fbre. Due to its toxicity, the berries are nearly
always described as being cooked prior to consumption.
Native American groups on the southern Northwest Coast
cooked red elderberry fruit through steaming on rocks, pit-
baking, and boiling. Interestingly, there are no clear reports
that seeds were removed during the cooking or drying phases
of processing. Seeds were generally removed while the fruit
was being consumed. Red elderberry appears to have been a
readily and commonly stored fruit on the Northwest Coast,
also being described as an important winter food (Moerman
1998, 513–514; Losey
et al.
2003). In the Czech Republic,
Sambucus racemosa
was recorded at the site of Dvojitá
brána u Rohlin (Divišová 2014).
5.1.8 Chenopodium album
Chenopodium album
has edible foliage as well as easily
gatherable seeds, which can be harvested in great quantity.
Its extensive use for food as well as medicine is widely
known. The green leaves and stems are eaten raw, boiled or
dried for future use. The seeds are most commonly used for
porridge or ground into four, subsequently used for making
bread (
e.g.
Moerman 1998, 154–155; Mears, Hillman 2007).
Seeds of
C. album
are commonly found at Mesolithic
sites. For example, Halsskov and Tybrind Vig, Denmark
(Kubiak-Martens 1999; Robinson, Harild 2002) or German
Rhineland (Knörzer
et al.
1999) can be mentioned. In the
Czech Republic, the presence
C. album
has been recorded at
Jezevčí převis (Pokorný 2003).
5.1.9 Rosa sp.
The fruits of
Rosa
sp. are edible, characterized by a uniquely
high concentration of vitamin C. On the other hand, it is
interesting to note that although the fesh is of good taste, the
seeds and hairs need to be rinsed away as they cause choking
and irritation of the throat (Mears, Hillman 2007). Fruits of
Rosa
sp. have been found for instance at the Danish site of
Tybrind Vig (Kubiak-Martens 1999) or at Dutch wetland
sites (Out 2009).
5.1.10 Malus sylvestris
Malus sylvestris
bears good tasting fruits, although their
vitamin content is relatively poor. However, the energetic
value of dried apples is considerable, since they contain 62%
carbohydrate (Renfrew 1973; Out 2009). Fruit fragments
and seeds of
M. sylvestris
have been recovered from several
sites,
e.g.
Tybrind Vig, Denmark (Kubiak-Martens 1999).
5.2 Green vegetables
Many taxa found at Mesolithic sites represent plants which
could have been used as green vegetables, although one
should bear in mind that this is extremely diffcult to prove.
Among these potentially edible taxa, namely
Chenopodium
album
(see above),
Urtica dioica
,
Phragmites australis
,
Rumex crispus
,
Rumex
sp.,
Atriplex
sp.,
Stellaria media
,
Polygonum
sp.,
Potentilla anserine
,
etc.
, can be considered.
5.3 Roots/tubers/rhizomes
As already mentioned, underground storage organs are
argued to represent an important food resource in European
Mesolithic. Furthermore, many of the following plants
are known for their extremely versatile use. A case study
concerning the use of
Pteridium aquilinum
is presented
below to illustrate this phenomenon. Not only
Pteridium
aquilinum
, but also taxa such as
Ficaria verna
,
Bolboschoenus
maritimus
,
Beta vulgaris
ssp.
maritimus
,
Typha latifolia/
angustifolia
,
Allium
sp.,
Sagittaria sagittifolia
,
Polygonum
sp.,
Phragmites australis
,
Schoenoplectus lacustris
,
Nymphaea alba
,
Nuphar lutea
etc.
should be perceived in
this manner.
5.3.1 Pteridium aquilinum
The bracken has been widely utilized in a variety of ways
by humans in all parts of the world (Rymer 1976). Bracken
has been mainly used as a food. Either the young fronds
(‘fddleheads’) or the rhizomes have been widely used
as food in many areas such as aboriginal Australia, New
Zealand, North America, Britain or Japan. The rhizomes in
particular have considerable stores of starch and have been
the source for a sort of four, which was used as a caloric
staple by hunter-gatherers such as the Maori of New Zealand
(McGlone
et al.
2005) and the indigenous people of Western
Washington (Norton 1979). The ethnographic record even
shows how this fern was collected and prepared as a form of
four and baked or dried into cakes and bread.
The ethnographic record also shows that plant management
by burning was occurring in Western Washington in association
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
101
with bracken, which survives periodic burning well since its
top growth dies down in the autumn and the root system is not
harmed by fres. Moreover, not only does land management by
burning encourage bracken growth, but heating bracken can
also reduce its toxicity (Pohl 1955, Norton 1979).
Apart from the already-mentioned use of bracken as a
food resource, bracken fern has been widely used for other
purposes such as bedding for animals and man, foor cover,
fuel, as an ornamental and ritual plant, as a dying agent,
for roofng, baskets, mulch, or as source of potash for the
glass and soap industry in various parts of the world in
various eras (for further details and literature see Rasmussen
2003). Moreover, in many parts of the world such as Japan,
Korea, China or Brazil, bracken is still used for food, since
the content of ptaquiloside, which causes bracken toxicity,
can be signifcantly reduced by steeping, boiling,
etc.
(
e.g.
Rasmussen 2003).
Furthermore, to fnd out if bracken could have been a
staple food, Ray Mears and Gordon Hillman conducted an
experiment concerning digging up the rhizomes of many
populations of bracken in several parts of the British Isles.
Surprisingly, they failed to fnd any with suffcient stores of
starch to justify the effort expended, which highlights the
importance of detailed local knowledge when foraging for
wild foods (Mears, Hillman 2007).
Turning now to the archaeological record, one should bear
in mind that spores of bracken fern,
Pteridium aquilinum
,
appear in the pollen record in the central European Mesolithic
(
e.g.
Pokorný
et al.
2008). Another striking fact about the
pollen record is that bracken spores seem to be signifcantly
correlated with human activity and disturbances visible in
the pollen record (Pokorný 1999; Kuneš
et al.
2008).
The important question that remains to be answered is
whether bracken fern was utilized by Mesolithic hunter-
gatherers, as implied by a Western Washington analogy.
In this respect, particularly interesting is the case of the
Late Mesolithic Netherlands. L. Kubiak Martens (2008)
conducted an analysis of charred parenchymal tissue from
vegetative parts of plants originating from a large number of
samples which are associated with the Late Mesolithic site of
Hattemerbroek using scanning electron microscope (SEM).
She succeeded in identifying parenchymal tissue of at least
two types of fern – bracken (
Pteridium aquilinum
) and most
likely male fern (
Dryopteris flix-mas
). These were found
along with some other plants such as horsetail (
Equisetum
) or
a rhizome belonging to Cyperaceae. According to the author,
the context they come from suggests that they represent food
waste, but they must have frst become charred, likely during
cooking beforehand elsewhere.
It is clear at this point that the identifcation of charred
fragments of pyrenchymatical tissue from tubers and
rhizomes using SEM is of crucial importance and that
evidence gained by this technique is easily overlooked when
standard methods of plant identifcation are used (Perry
1999; Kubiak-Martens 1999; 2008; Mason
et al.
2002).
However, the identifcation of root food is not a common
part of archaeobotanical research. As already stated, it is
obvious that the analysis of roots and tubers is essential in
the study of plant use in the Mesolithic as well as the hunter-
gatherer economy. Lastly, it is important to note that the case
of bracken fern is only one of many possible plant resources.
5.4 Other uses
Apart from the use of plants for food and medicine, other uses
such as for dyeing, tanning, constructions, vessels or cordage
should also be taken into account. Taxa such as
Phragmites
australis
,
Pteridium aquilinum, Typha angustifolia/latifolia
,
Quercus
sp.,
Cornus sanguinea
,
Urtica dioica
etc.
can all be
mentioned here.
6. Evidence from the Czech Republic
As already noted above, only several Mesolithic sites have
been investigated archaeobotanically in the Czech Republic
(Figure 1). The evidence comes from two key research areas
– the north Bohemian sandstone region and the Třeboň basin
in the southern part of the Czech Republic.
Figure 1.
Location of sites mentioned in the
text projected on a map of the Czech Republic.
1 – Kristova jeskyně, 2 – Jezevčí převis, 3 –
Okrouhlík, 4 – Dvojitá brána, 5 – Pod zubem,
6 – Pod křídlem, 7 – Schwarzenberg Lake.
Map created by M. Pták.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
102
6.1 Sandstone rockshelters of northern Bohemia
The north Bohemian sandstone region (Figure 2) had
represented an area without recognized Late Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic settlements for a long time, the investigation of
the Mesolithic within the region having been neglected in
spite of numerous collections of Mesolithic industry obtained
before the Second World War, which were mistakenly dated
to the Eneolithic due to the research methods of that time.
Nevertheless, according to the current state of research, the
Mesolithic occupation of the area seems to have been much
more intensive (Svoboda 2003; Svoboda
et al.
2007; Šída,
Prostředník 2007), having implications for various issues of
further landscape development.
Turning now to the macroremain evidence, the issue
of plant use in the studied area has only been tackled by
revealing a number of carbonised hazelnut shells in the
Mesolithic layers of several sites (
e.g.
Arba, Sojčí převis),
which were discovered rather accidentally by the naked eye.
Since then, another four sites – Kristova jeskyně (Komárková
2005), Jezevčí převis (Pokorný 2003), Okrouhlík (Hajnalová
in Svoboda
et al.
2007) and Dvojitá brána (Divišová 2014)
have been investigated using fne sieving and fotation of
the sediment. The carbonised plant macroremains from
these sites are associated with the hearths and layers dated
to the Mesolithic period and may thus indicate their human
manipulation. These comprise the remains of
Corylus
avellana
,
Rubus idaeus
,
Rubus
sp.,
Sambucus nigra
,
S. racemosa
,
Chenopodium album
and
Poaceae
.
With respect to functional analyses, some evidence also
comes from the sites of Pod zubem and Pod křídlem, where
analyses of stone tools including microscopic use-wear and
residues analyses were performed – and plant processing
as the primary activity at the short-time site Pod křídlem
was suggested. Alternatively, stone tools recovered from
the long-term site Pod zubem indicate they were used on a
variety of materials. These traces, however, cannot be clearly
associated with food preparation (Hardy, Svoboda 2009).
6.2 Wetlands of the Třeboň basin
The Třeboň basin, specifcally the site of Schwarzenberg Lake
(Figure 3) is one of the best investigated regions in terms of
palynology (Pokorný
et al.
2010). The site was discovered in
the 1970s, when V. Jankovská identifed lacustrine sediments
under a peat layer in the wetland area adjacent to the present-
day fshpond (Jankovská 1980). The uninterrupted sequence
of deposited sediments is unique for its potential based
on conditions suitable for both palaeoenvrionmental and
archaeological research. Therefore, investigations of the
lake have brought important data on vegetation, landscape
development and human occupation since the end of the
Last Glacial Maximum (Pokorný, Jankovská 2000; Pokorný
et al.
2008; 2010). A point deserving attention is the fnding
Figure 3.
A view of the present landscape in the area of the former Schwarzenberg Lake. Photo: P. Šída.
Figure 2.
The North Bohemian pseudokarst landscape. Photo: P. Šída.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
103
of exceptionally intensive settlement in the Early and Middle
Holocene periods, which was frst discovered indirectly
based on the presence of pollen grains of anthropogenic
indicators and large quantities of microscopic charcoal
particles in lacustrine sediments (Pokorný
et al.
2008; 2010).
Mesolithic occupation was confrmed and further studied
by means of archaeological excavation, focused on the wet
shore of the former lake as well as on dry archaeological
situations lying on the sandy peninsula adjacent to the
original shore of the lake. Wetland excavation concentrated
on the least disturbed southern section of the shore. This
excavation fulflled the potential of wet shore sections and
provided the organic strata rich in pollen grains and vegetation
remains including large pieces of fresh wood. Also, fnds
of uncarbonised plant macroremains of
Corylus avellana
,
Rubus idaeus
, and
Rubus saxatilis
within the lake sediments
point to a Mesolithic settlement, likely representing gathered
foodstuff. Moreover, the fnds of
Corylus avellana
and
Trapa
natans
are dated to the very beginning of the Holocene and
could be related to their introduction to the region (Pokorný
et al.
2008; 2010). Unfortunately, the dry situations turned
out to contain a great amount of contamination from
the modern fshpond, refecting depositional and post-
depositional circumstances rather than past human activities
(Divišová 2014).
7. Conclusion
The archaeobotany of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers represents
a seriously understudied research topic. However, some
patterns, including woodland clearance or utilisation of
selected plant taxa, can be observed. The conclusion that
can be drawn at this point is that by the Late Mesolithic, the
patterns of plant use support the notion of controlled, regular,
and intensive use of plant resources on a scale which left
an imprint on the landscape and not just the incidental and
opportunistic use of plants for food.
Some methodological implications can be drawn, of
which the most important seems to be the identifcation of
parenchymatous issue, since there is growing evidence for
the consumption of roots, tubers, bulbs or rhizomes among
past, as well as recent, hunter-gatherer communities.
Focusing on the territory of the Czech Republic itself, a few
studies that have brought extremely scarce archaeobotanical
data in terms of plant remains found in a Mesolithic context
have been made. The presence of
Corylus avellana
,
Trapa
natans
,
Rubus idaeus
,
R. saxatilis
,
Sambucus nigra, S.
racemosa
,
Chenopodium
album
is stressed. However, the
issue of their manipulation or even utilisation by humans
needs to be studied and should be tested in future research.
Finally, the review strongly refects the growing need
for interdisciplinary work to address the issues related to
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. This is required both from the
perspective of the archaeobotany itself, which has to apply
a full range of techniques such as pollen, macroremains,
wood and charcoal, phytolith, and starch analyses, as well
as by means of incorporating various approaches including
the refection of overall archaeological context, analyses of
stable isotopes, use-wear analyses, and last, but not least, the
integration of ethnobotanical and experimental work, which
is also of an crucial importance.
Acknowledgements
The contribution forms part of the research project “Prior
to the Neolithic: Contextual Analysis of Environmental
Dynamics during Early Postglacial Transformation of
Central Europe”, fnanced by the Czech Science Foundation
(13-08169S). The macroremain analysis was supported by
GAJU 116/2013/P – Bioarcheologie jižních Čech (2013–
2015). We would like to thank Sabine Karg and Jaromír
Beneš for their valuable remarks and overall help. We also
greatly appreciate the constructive comments of anonymous
reviewer, who signifcantly helped to improve the manuscript.
References
AURA, J. E., CARRIÓN, Y., ESTRELLES, E., PERÉZ JORDÀ, G. 2005:
Plant economy of hunter-gatherer groups at the end of the last Ice Age:
plant macroremains from the cave of Santa Maira (Alacant, Spain) ca.
12000–9000 B.P.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
14, 542–550.
BÁNFFY,
E. 2005: Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts as refected in ritual fnds.
Documenta Praehistorica
32, 73–86.
BEHRE, K.-E. 2007: Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around
Central Europe?
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
16, 203–219.
BENEŠ
, J. 2013: Počátky zemědělství. MS. Habilitation thesis. Deposited:
Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sceinces
Prague, Praha.
BISHOP, R. R., CHURCH, M. J., ROWLEY-CONWY, P. A. 2013: Seeds,
fruits and nuts in the Scottish Mesolithic.
Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland
143, 9–72.
BISHOP, R. R., CHURCH, M. J., ROWLEY-CONWY, P. A. 2014:
Firewood, food and human niche construction: the potential role of
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in actively structuring Scotland’s woodlands.
Quaternary Science Reviews
108, 51–75.
BOS, J. A. A., URZ, R. 2003: Late glacial and early Holocene environment
in the middle Lahn river valley (Hessen, Central-west Germany) and
the local impact of early Mesolithic people – pollen and macrofossil
evidence.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
12, 19–36.
BROWN, T. 1997
: Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/
Neolithic Britain.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology
16, 133–146.
BUROV, G. M. 1998: The use of vegetable materials in the Mesolithic
of northeast Europe. In: Zvelebil, M., Dennel, R., Domanska, L.
(Eds):
Harvesting the sea, farming the forest
. Sheffeld Archaeological
Monographs, Shefeld, 53–63.
CLARKE, D. 1976: Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In: Sieveking
G. de G., Longworth, I. H., Wilson, K. E. (Eds.):
Problems in economic
and social archaeology
, Duckworth, London, 449–481.
CORDAIN, L., MILLER, J. B., EATON, S. B., MANN, N., HOLT, S. H. A.,
SPETH, J. D. 2000: Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient
energy estimates in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.
American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition
71, 682–692.
DANUYNE-PEATY, L. 2001: Human impact on vegetation. In: Brothwell,
D. R., Pollard, A. M. (Eds.):
Handbook of Archaeological Sciences
.
Wiley, London, 379–392.
DAVIES, P., ROBB, J. G., LADBROOK, D. 2005: Woodland clearance in
the Mesolithic: the social aspects.
Antiquity
79, 280–288.
DEFORCE, K., BASTIAENS, J., VAN NEER, W., ERVYNCK, A.,
LENTACKER, A., SERGANT, J., CROMBÉ, P. 2013: Wood charcoal
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
104
and seeds as indicators for animal husbandry in a wetland site during the
late mesolithic–early neolithic transition period (Swifterbant culture, ca.
4600–4000 BC) in NW Belgium.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
22, 51–60.
DÉNES, A., PAPP, N., BABAI, D., CZÚCZ, B., MOLNÁR,
Z. 2012: Wild
plants used for food by Hungarian ethnic groups living in the Carpathian
Basin.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae
81, 381–396.
DIETSCH, M. F. 1996: Gathered fruits and cultivated plants at Bercy
(Paris), a Neolithic village in a fuvial context.
Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany
5, 89–97.
DIVIŠOVÁ, M. 2014: Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany: Central European
Mesolithic. MS. Master diploma thesis. Deposited: Faculty of Science,
University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice.
EVANS, C., POLLARD, J., KNIGHT, M. 1999: Life in woods: three
throws, “settlement” and forest cognition.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology
18, 241–254.
FILIPOVIĆ, D. Z., ALLUÉ, E. A., BORIĆ, D. R. 2010
: Integrated
carpological and anthracological analyses of plant record from the
Mesolithic site of Vlasac, Serbia.
Journal of the Serbian Archaeological
Society
26, 145–161.
FISHER, P., BENDER, A. 1970:
The Value of Food
. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
GRAY, J. P. 1999: A corrected ethnographic atlas.
World Cultures
10, 24–85.
HARDY, B. L. 2010: Climatic variability and plant food distribution in
Pleistocene Europe: Implications for Neanderthal diet and subsistence.
Quaternary Science Reviews
29, 662–679.
HARDY, K. 2007: Where would we be without string? Ethnographic and
prehistoric evidence for the use, manufacture and role of string in the
Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Northern Europe. In: Beugnier, V.,
Crombé, P. (Eds.):
Plant processing from a prehistoric and ethnographic
perspective. BAR International Series 1718
. John and Erica Hedges Ltd.,
Oxford, 9–22.
HARDY, K. 2008
: Prehistoric string theory. How twisted fbres helped to
shape the world.
Antiquity
82, 271–280.
HARDY, B. L., SVOBODA, J. A. 2009: Mesolithic stone tool function
and site types in Northern Bohemia, Czech Republic. In: Haslam, M.,
Robertson, G., Crowther-Smith, A., Nugent, S., Kirkwood, L. (Eds.):
Archaeological science under a microscope: studies in residue and
ancient DNA analysis in honour of Thomas H. Loy
, ANU E Press,
Canberra, 159–174.
HATHER, J. G., MASON, S. L. R. 2002: Introduction: some issues in the
archaeobotany of hunter-gatherers. In: Hather, J. G., Mason, S. L. R.
(Eds.):
Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany. Perspectives from the northern
temperate zone.
University College London, London, 1–14.
HATHER, J. G., MASON, S. L. R. (Eds.) 2002:
Hunter-gatherer
archaeobotany.
Perspectives from the northern temperate zone
.
University College London, London.
HATHER, J. G. 1991
: The identifcation of charred archaeological remains
of vegetative parenchymous tissue.
Journal of Archaeological Science
18, 661–675.
HATHER, J. G. 1993:
An archaeobotanical guide to root and tuber
identifcation. Volume 1. Europe and South West Asia
. Oxbow books,
Oxford.
HATHER, J. G. 2000:
Archaeological parenchyma
. Archetype Publications,
London.
HODDER, I. 1990:
The domestication of Europe
. Blackwell, Oxford.
HOLDEN, T. G., HATHER, J. G., WATSON, J. P. N. 1995: Mesolithic plant
exploitation at Roc del Migdia, Catalonia.
Journal of Archaeological
Science
22, 769–778.
HOLST, D. 2010: Hazelnut economy of early Holocene hunter-gatherers:
a case study from Mesolithic Duvensee, northern Germany.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
37, 2871–2880.
HURCOMBE, L. 2000: Plants as the raw materials for crafts. In: Fairbairn,
A. S. (Ed.):
Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond
. Oxbow, Oxford,
155–173.
HURCOMBE, L. 2007: Plant processing for cordage and textiles using
serrated fint edges: new
chaînes operatoires
suggested by combining
ethnographic, archaeological and experimental evidence for bast fbre
processing. In: Beugnier, V., Crombé, P. (Eds.):
Plant processing from
a prehistoric and ethnographic perspective. BAR International Series
1718
. John and Erica Hedges Ltd., Oxford, 41–66.
INNES, J. B., BLACKFORD, J. J., DAVEY, P. J. 2003: Dating the introduction
of cereal cultivation to the British Isles. Early palaeoecological evidence
from the Isle of Man.
Journal of Quaternary Science
18, 603–613.
JACOBI, R. M., TALLIS, J. M., MELLARS, P. 1976: The south Pennine
Mesolithic and the ecological record
. Journal of Archaeological Science
3, 307–320.
JACOMET, S., KREUZ, A. 1999:
Archäobotanik. Aufgaben, Methoden und
Ergebnisse vegetations- und agrargeschichtlicher Forschungen
. Ulmer,
Stuttgart.
JANKOVSKÁ, V. 1980:
Paläobotanische Rekonstruktion der
Vegetationsentwicklung im Becken Třeboňská pánev während des
Spätglazials und Holozäns
. Vegetace ČSSR A11. Academia, Praha.
JENIKE, M. R. 2001: Nutritional ecology: diet, physical activity and
body size. In: Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R. H., Rowley-Conwy, P.
(Eds.):
Hunter-gatherers. An interdisciplinary perspective
. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 205–238.
JOCHIM, M. 1976:
Hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement
. Academic
Press, London.
KARG, S. 2006: The water chestnut (
Trapa natans
L.) as a food resource
during the 4th to 1st millennia BC at Lake Federsee, Bad Buchau
(southern Germany).
Environmental Archaeology
11, 125–130.
KELLY, R. L. 1995:
The foraging spectrum: diversity in hunter-gatherer
lifeways
. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
KLASSEN, L. 2004:
Jade und Kupfer: Untersuchungen zum
Neolithisierungsprozess im westlicheno Ostseeraum unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500–3500 BC
.
Jutland Archaeological Society publications 47. Aarhus University Press,
Aarhus.
KLIMENKO, S. 2004: The Cornelian cherry (
Cornus mas
L.): collection,
preservation, and utilization of genetic resources.
Journal of Fruit and
Ornamental Plant Research
12, 93–98.
KNÖRZER, K.-H., GERLACH, R., MEURERS-BALKE, J., KALIS,
A. J., TEGTMEIER, U., BECKER, W. D., JÜRGENS, A. 1999:
PfanzenSpuren. Archäobotanik im Rheinland. Agrarlandschaft und
Nutzpfanzen in Wandel der Zeiten
. Rheinland-Verlag, Köln.
KOMÁRKOVÁ, V. 2005: A report on plant macroremains from
Kristova jeskyně. MS. Deposited: Laboratory of Archaeobotany and
Palaeoecology, Faculty of Science, České Budějovice.
KUBIAK-MARTENS, L. 1996: Evidence for possible use of plant foods in
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic diet from the site of Całowanie in the central
part of the Polish Plain.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
5, 33–38.
KUBIAK-MARTENS, L. 1999: The plant food component of the diet at
the Late Mesolithic (Ertebølle) settlement at Tybrind Vig, Denmark.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
8, 117–127.
KUBIAK-MARTENS, L. 2002: New evidence for the use of root foods
in pre-agrarian subsistence recovered from the late Mesolithic site at
Halsskov, Denmark.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
11, 23–31.
KUBIAK-MARTENS, L. 2008: Voedseleconomie: parenchym en
andere plantaardige macroresten (Hanzelijn Oude Land – Knooppunt
Hattemerbroek).
BIAXiaal
386.
KUNEŠ, P., POKORNÝ, P., ŠÍDA, P. 2008: Detection of the impact of
early Holocene hunter-gatherers on vegetation in the Czech Republic,
using multivariate analysis of pollen data.
Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany
17, 269–287.
LEE, R. B. 1968: What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on
scarce resources. In: Lee, R. B., DeVore, I. (Eds.):
Man the hunter
.
Aldine, Chicago, 30–48.
LEE, R. B. 1973: Mongongo: the ethnography of a major wild food resource.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition
2, 307–321.
LOSEY, R. J., STENHOLM, N., WHEREAT-PHILLIPS, P.,
VALLIANATOS, H. 2003: Exploring the use of red elderberry (
Sambucus
racemosa
) fruit on the southern Northwest Coast of North America.
Journal of Archaeological Science
30, 695–707.
ŁUCZAJ, Ł. 2012
: Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants of Slovakia.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum
Poloniae
81, 271–281.
MARINOVA, E., FILIPOVIC, D., OBRADOVIĆ, D., ALLUÉ, E. 2013:
Wild plant resources and land use in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic
south-east Europe: Archaeobotanical evidence from the Danube
catchment of Bulgaria and Serbia.
Offa
69.
MASON, S. L. R., HATHER, J. G., HILLMAN, G. C. 2002: The
archaeobotany of European huter-gatherers: some preliminary
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
105
investigations. In: Hather, J. G., Mason, S. L. R. (Eds.):
Hunter-
gatherer archaeobotany. Perspectives from the northern temperate zone
.
University College London, London, 188–196.
MASON, S. L. R., HATHER, J. G. 2000: Parenchymatous plant remains.
In: Mithen, S. (Ed.):
Hunter–Gatherer Landscape Archaeology: The
Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988–1998. Volume 2
. McDonald
Institute, Cambridge, 415–425.
MASON, S. R. L. 2000: Fire and Mesolithic subsistence – managing oaks
for acorns in northwest Europe?
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology
164, 139–150.
MCGLONE, M. S., WILMSHURST, J. M., LEACH, H. M. 2005: An
ecological and historical review of bracken (
Pteridium esculentum
) in
New Zealand, and its cultural signifcance.
New Zealand Journal of
Ecology
29, 165–184.
MEARS, R., HILLMAN, G. C. 2007:
Wild foods
. Hodder & Stoughton,
London.
MELLARS, P. 1976: Fire ecology, animal populations and man: a study
of some ecological relationships in prehistory.
Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society
42, 15–45.
MITHEN, S., FINLAY, N., CARRUTHERS, W., CARTER, S., ASHMORE,
P. 2001: Plant Use in the Mesolithic: Evidence from Staosnaig, Isle of
Colonsay, Scotland.
Journal of Archaeological Science
28, 223–234.
MITHEN, S. 1996:
The prehistory of the mind
.
A search for the origins of
art, religion and science.
Thames and Hudson, London.
MOERMAN, D. E. 1998:
Native American Ethnobotany
. Timber Press,
Portland Oregon.
MOORE, J. 2003
: Enculturation through fre: beyond hazelnuts and into the
forest. In: Larson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Loeffer, Åkerlund, D.
(Eds.):
Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the sixth international
conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000
. Oxbow books,
Oxford, 139–144.
MURDOCK, G. P. 1967
:
Ethnographic atlas
. University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh.
NORTON, H. H. 1979: Evidence for bracken fern as a food for aboriginal
peoples of Western Washington.
Economic Botany
33, 384–396.
NOVÁKOVÁ, K., NOVÁK, J., ŠAFRÁNKOVÁ, J. 2008: Paleoekologický
výzkum Velanské cesty u Českých Velenic: zachycení lidské činnosti.
In: Beneš, J., Pokorný, P. (Eds.):
Bioarcheologie v České republice
.
University of South Bohemia – Institute of Archaeology of the Academy
of Sciences of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice – Praha 99–114.
OPRAVIL, E. 2003: Rostlinné makrozbytky. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.):
Mezolit
severních Čech. Komplexní výzkum skalních převisů na Českolipsku
a Děčínsku, 1978–2003
. Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, 38–42.
OUT, W. A., VERHOEVEN, K. 2014: Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic
human impact at Dutch wetland sites: the case study of Hardinxveld-
Giessendam De Bruin.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
23, 41–56.
OUT, W. A. 2008a: Gathered food plants at Dutch Mesolithic and Neolithic
wetland sites. In: Baker, S., Allen, M., Middle, M., Poole, K. (Eds.):
Food
and drink in archaeology
I. Prospect Books, Nottingham, 84–95.
OUT, W. A. 2008b: Selective use of
Cornus sanguinea
L. (red dogwood)
for Neolithic fsh traps in the Netherlands.
Environmental Archaeology
13, 1–10.
OUT, W. A. 2009:
Sowing the seed? Human impact and plant subsistence
in Dutch wetlands during the Late Mesolithic and Early and Middle
Neolithic (5500–3400 cal BC).
Leiden University Press, Leiden.
OUT, W. A. 2012: What’s in a hearth? Seeds and fruits from the Neolithic
fshing and fowling camp at Bergschenhoek, The Netherlands, in a wider
context.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
21, 201–214.
PANTER-BRICK, C., LAYTON, R. H., ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2001:
Lines of enquiry. In: Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R. H., Rowley-Conwy,
P. (Eds.):
Hunter-gatherers. An interdisciplinary perspective
. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1–11.
PERRY, D. 1999: Vegetative tissues from Mesolithic sites in the Northern
Netherlands.
Current Anthropology
40, 231–237.
PERRY, D. 2002: Preliminary results of an archaeobotanical analysis
of Mesolithic sites in the Veenkoloniën, Province of Groningen, the
Netherlands. In: Hather, J. G., Mason, S. L. R. (Eds.):
Hunter-gatherer
archaeobotany. Perspectives from the northern temperate zone
.
University College London, London, 108–116.
POHL, R. W. 1955: Toxicity of ferns and equisetum.
American Fern
Journal
45, 95–97.
POKORNÝ, P. 1999: Vliv mezolitických populací na krajinu a vegetaci:
nové nálezy ze staršího holocénu Třeboňské pánve.
Zprávy ČAS
38,
21–22.
POKORNÝ, P. 2003: Rostlinné makrozbytky. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.):
Mezolit
severních Čech. Komplexní výzkum skalních převisů na Českolipsku
a Děčínsku, 1978–2003
. Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, 272–273.
POKORNÝ, P., JANKOVSKÁ, V. 2000: Long-term vegetation dynamics
and the inflling process of a former lake (Švarcenberk, Czech Republic).
Folia Geobotanica
35, 433–457.
POKORNÝ, P., SÁDLO, J. 2008
: Kolapsy v českém pravěku. In: Bárta, M.,
Pokorný, P. (Eds.):
Něco překrásného se končí
. Dokořán, Praha, 89–105.
POKORNÝ, P., ŠÍDA, P., CHVOJKA, O., ŽÁČKOVÁ, P., KUNEŠ, P.,
SVĚTLÍK, I., VESELÝ, J. 2010
: Palaeoenvironmental research of the
Schwarzenberg Lake, southern Bohemia, and exploratory excavations
of this key Mesolithic archaeological area.
Památky archeologické
101,
5–38.
POKORNÝ, P., ŠÍDA, P., KUNEŠ, P, CHVOJKA, O. 2008: Mezolitické
osídlení bývalého jezera Švarcenberk (jižní Čechy) v kontextu vývoje
přírodního prostředí. In: Beneš, J., Pokorný, P. (Eds.):
Bioarcheologie v
České republice
. University of South Bohemia – Institute of Archaeology
of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice –
Praha, 145–176.
POSKA, A., SAARSE, L. 2006: New evidence of possible crop introduction
to north-eastern Europe during the Stone Age. Cerealia pollen fnds in
connection with the Akali Neolithic settlement, East Estonia.
Vegetation
History and Archaeobotany
15, 169–179.
PRICE, D. 1978: The Mesolithic of western Europe.
Journal of World
Prehistory
1, 225–305.
RASMUSSEN, L. R. 2003:
Ptaquiloside – an environmental hazard?
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University of Denmark,
Frederiksberg.
REGNELL, M., GAILLARD, M.-J., BARTHOLIN, T. S., KARSTEN, P.
1995: Reconstruction of environment and history of plant use during the
Late Mesolithic (Ertebølle culture) at the inland settlement of Bökeberg
III, southern Sweden.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
4, 67–91.
REGNELL, M. 2012: Plant subsistence and environment at the Mesolithic
site Tågerup, southern Sweden: new insights on the “Nut Age”.
Vegetation
History and Archaeobotany
21, 1–16.
RENFREW, C. 1973:
Palaeoethnobotany. The prehistoric food plants of the
Near East and Europe
. Columbia University Press, New York.
ROBINSON, D. E., HARILD, J. A. 2002: Archaeobotany of an early
Ertebølle (Late Mesolithic) site at Halsskov, Zealand, Denmark. In:
Hather, J. G., Mason, S. L. R. (Eds.):
Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany.
Perspectives from the northern temperate zone.
University College
London, London, 84–95.
ROBINSON, M. A. 2000: Further considerations of Neolithic charred
cereals, fruits and nuts. In: Fairbairn, A. S. (Ed.):
Plants in Neolithic
Britain and beyond,. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5
. Oxbow
Books, Oxford, 85–90.
RÖSCH, M. 2000
: Pfanzenreste. In: Kieselbach, C.-J., Kind, J., Miller, A.
M., Richter, D. (Eds.):
Siebenlinden 2. Ein mesolithischer Fundplatz bei
Rottenburg am Neckar, Kreis Tübingen. Materialhefte zur Archaologie in
Baden-Württemberg 51
. Konrad Theiss, Stuttgart, 59–63.
ROSENBERG, D. 2008: The possible use of acorns in past economies of
the Southern Levant: A staple food or a negligible food source?
Levant
40, 167–175.
RYMER, L. 1976: The history and ethnobotany of bracken.
Botanical
Journal of the Linnean Society
73, 151–176.
SÁDLO, J., POKORNÝ, P., HÁJEK, P., DRESLEROVÁ, D., CÍLEK, V.
2008
: Krajina a revoluce. Významné přelomy ve vývoji kulturní krajiny
českých zemí
. Malá skála, Praha.
SIMMONS, I. G. 1996:
The environmental impact of later Mesolithic
cultures. The creation of Moorland landscape in England and Wales
.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
SIMMONS, I. G., INNES, J. B. 1987: Mid-holocene adaptations and
later Mesolithic forest disturbance in Northern England.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
14, 385–394.
SPETH, J. D., WIDDOWSON, E. M., OFTEDAL, O. T., FOLEY, R. A.,
VAN SOEST, P. 1991: Protein selection and avoidance strategies of
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106
Michaela Divišová, Petr Šída: Plant Use in the Mesolithic Period. Archaeobotanical Data from the Czech Republic in a European Context – a Review
106
contemporary and ancestral foragers: unresolved issues.
Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London
B34, 265–270.
SVOBODA, J. A., HAJNALOVÁ, M., HORÁČEK, I., NOVÁK, M.,
PŘICHYSTAL, A., ŠAJNEROVÁ, A., YAROSHEVICH, A. 2007
:
Mesolithic settlement and activities in rockshelters of the Kamenice river
canyon, Czech Republic.
Eurasian Prehistory
5, 95–127.
SVOBODA, J. A., NOVÁK, J., NOVÁK, M., SÁZELOVÁ, S., DEMEK, J.,
HLADILOVÁ, Š., PEŠA, V. 2013
: Palaeolithic/Mesolithic stratigraphic
sequences at Údolí samoty and Janova zátoka rock shelters (Northern
Bohemia).
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
43, 469–707.
TILLEY, C. 1994:
A phenomenology of landscape. Places, paths and
monuments
. Berg Publishers, Oxford.
TINNER, W., NIELSEN, E. H., LOTTER, A. F. 2007: Mesolithic agriculture
in Switzerland? A critical review of the evidence.
Quaternary Science
Reviews
26, 1416–1431.
TRINGHAM, R. 2000: Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture
in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. In: Price, T. D. (Ed.):
Europe’s frst
farmers
. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 19–56.
VERA, F. W. M. 2000:
Grazing ecology and forest history
. CABI
Publishing, Wallingford.
WARREN, G. 2003: Life in the trees: Mesolithic people and the woods of
Ireland.
Archaeology Ireland
17, 20–23.
WOOD, J. 2011: Daily practices of prehistoric Europe during the
Mesolithic/Neolithic transition. In: Gheorghiu, D. (Ed.):
Experiments
with past materialities, BAR International Series 2302
. Hadrian Books,
Oxford, 9–17.
ŽÁČKOVÁ, P. 2008: Rekonstrukce paleoekologických poměrů při
zazemňování jezer metodou analýzy rostlinných makrozbytků. MS.
Master diploma thesis. Deposited: Faculty of Science, Charles University
in Prague, Praha.
ZAPATA, L., CAVA, A., IRIARTE, M. J., BARAYBAR, J. P., DE LA RUA,
C. 2002: Mesolithic plant use in the western Pyrenees: implications for
vegetation change, use of wood and human diet. In: Hather, J. G., Mason,
S. L. R. (Eds.):
Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany. Perspectives from the
northern temperate zone.
University College London, London, 96–107.
ZVELEBIL, M. 1994: Plant use in the Mesolithic and its role in the
transition to farming.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
60, 35–74.