image/svg+xml177XI/2/2020INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICANATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGYhomepage: http://www.iansa.euCocklebur (Xanthium strumariumL.) in the Archaeological Chronicle of UkraineSergiy Gorbanenkoa*aThe Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Heroiv Stalingrada 12 ave., 04210, Kyiv, Ukraine1. IntroductionScientists who study the distribution of plants in time and space usually encounter difculties related to the insufcient content of existing information databases on this subject. Such an invasive plant as the common cocklebur (Xanthium strumariumL.) is no exception. It is an annual late weed growing in felds, pastures, gardens, ravines and near dwellings, mainly on sandy soils. It is now widespread throughout Ukraine (Veselovskii, Lysenko and Manko, 1988, p.60).For a long time, the question of the appearance of cocklebur in the territory of modern Ukraine was unsettled. Thus, back in the 1980s, V.V. Protopopova only indicated that the routes of its spreading to Europe were apparently related to nomadic tribes, such as the Goths, Huns, Pechenegs, Polovtsians (Cumans), Tatars, etc.Based on the archaeological sources available at that time, the researcher indicated the period of its appearance in Europe as the Medieval period (Protopopova, 1989, pp.78–80). Given the lack of evidence, this assumption, although likely, is less important than determining the route of its entry: namely, following the ways of the nomads from Central Asia.Recently, an article with an analysis of palaeoethnobotanical materials from the Lutomiersk-Koziówki settlement near Łódź (Central Poland) has been published (Mueller-Bieniek et al., 2015, pp.280–281). We will give more detailed attention to the section of this article relating to cocklebur (X. strumariumL.) since the authors’ fairly comprehensive review and analysis deprive us of the need to conduct such an inspection on our own. The main theses are as follows. 1) Since pollen can be transported over long distances together with the wind, it is important to fnd macro-residues of cocklebur. 2) In the settlement of Lutomiersk-Koziówki, the oldest fnds of macro-residues of cocklebur in Europe have been discovered: the archaeological period is the Late Bronze Age (HaB1–HaB2). The date by radiocarbon analysis is 2745 ± 30 BP, therefore after calibration this is 912–841 BC cal with a probability of 68.2 % (975–818 BC has a probability of 95.4 %). 3) In Europe, the oldest fnds of macro-residues are known in the Volume XI ● Issue 2/2020 ● Pages 177–182*Corresponding author. E-mail: gorbanenko@gmail.comARTICLE INFOArticle history:Received: 9thMay 2020Accepted: 29thSeptember 2020DOI: Europecommon cockleburXanthium strumariumL.ScythiansSlavsABSTRACTThis article collects and organizes data on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumariumL.) fnds from archaeological sites in modern Ukraine. The frst fnd comes from charred macro-residues discovered in the middle of the 20thcentury in the hillfort of Bilsk. Two more fnds are represented by imprints on clay products. They were discovered as a result of a purposeful inspection of ceramics; these fnds come from Scythian sites. The last fnd comes from an Ancient Rus site: a signifcant amount of charred material was found there.The territory of modern Ukraine is situated at the crossroads of Eurasian land routes and waterways. The fndings presented are important for restoring the history of the appearance of the cocklebur in Europe.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 177–182Sergiy Gorbanenko: Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) in the Archaeological Chronicle of Ukraine178settlements of the Late Bronze Age and mainly of the Early Iron Age; however, the greatest number of such fnds relates to the Middle Ages. 4) A cocklebur is an archaeophyte that has come to Europe from the East. 5) The authors have made an overview of the cocklebur plant in antiquity in Europe and concluded that it was just the species X. strumariumL. (Mueller-Bieniek et al., 2015, pp.280–281).2. Materials and methodsThe study was carried out in several stages. During palaeoethnobotanical studies of imprints on clay products, two imprints from two sites of Scythian times were found. According to the results of the study of charred macro-residues from the ancient Rus hillfort, several dozen whole and fragmented burnt fruits were identifed. Acquaintance with academic literature led to an understanding of a certain uniqueness with such fnds. A study of the special literature on the palaeoethnobotany of Ukrainian archaeological sites allowed only one more case of the fnding of a fragment of a charred fruit in an early Iron Age site to be detected.Thus, the material was obtained in two ways: taking imprints from clay products in two cases, and the accidental detection of charred macro-residues in two cases. Three out of the four cases have occurred in recent years.Below is a catalogue of the fnds of common cocklebur in the archaeological sites of Ukraine. The material is given in chronological order from the earliest fnd. The sites, where cocklebur was found are represented in the map (Figure 1)1.1The numbering in the catalog and on the map is the same.3. Results3.1 Bilske hillfort (Poltava Region)Western fortifcation, ash heap 19. The research was carried out in 1967–1968 by a Scythian-Slavic archaeological expedition of A.M. Gorky Kharkiv State University (now V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University) led by B.A. Shramko. The material was archaeologically dated back to the second half of the seventh century BC (Shramko, 1971; Šramko, 1973, pp.154–157). Accumulations of charred palaeoethnobotanical material in pits 1 and 3 were found; it was an accidental fnd. A fragment of the cocklebur fruit was found in the sample from pit 3 (No 508/19-68). The identifcation was made by the staf of the All-Union Institute of Plant Breeding: М.М. Yakubtsiner, R.Kh. Makasheva, М.V. Lukianova, V.N. Lysova, R.A. Udachina (Šramko 1973, pp.54–157).3.2 Tsyrkuny hillfort (Kharkiv Region)Early Iron Age. The study was undertaken by the Tsyrkuny archaeological expedition of Kharkiv Historical Museum under the direction of K.Yu. Peliashenko in the period 2007–2017. The material was archaeologically dated from the end of the ffth to the fourth century BC (e.g.Peliashenko, 2017). Clay products from the excavations were inspected and one imprint on the fragment of a pot was found. Another indentation nearby is somewhat reminiscent of an identifed imprint. However, it is unclear and has no characteristic depressions from the spines (Figure 2:1). Identifcation was made by S.A. Gorbanenko (Gorbanenko, 2019, p.364). The collection is stored in the depository of the Museum of Archeology of V.N. Karazin KhNU and in the M.F. Sumtsov Kharkiv Historical Museum.