Plant Use in the Mesolithic and its Role in the Transition to Farming

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence for plant use in Mesolithic Europe and to summarize its implications. In order to do so, four sources of data are examined: macrobotanical remains, palynological data, artefactual evidence, and the human biological record.A prelimary survey of palaeobotanical evidence for plant use in the Mesolithic indicates that the evidence is far more extensive than expected hitherto and that accumulations of plant food, especially of nuts, point to their regular and extensive use. In those areas such as Britain, where a large number of fine-resolution palynological studies have been carried out, the incidence of clearance and burning phases seems to be too high to be explained by acts of nature alone. A good case can be made for deliberate forest clearance and the maintenance of a more open landscape by Late Mesolithic groups as part of a promotional strategy to increase the productivity of nut and fruit trees and shrubs, wetland plants, and possibly native grasses.Artefactual evidence points to a widespread distribution of soil-working tools (hoes and antler mattocks), especially in temperate Europe, and to a greater than expected presence of reaping and grinding equipment, lending conditional support for the existence of a specialized plant processing tool kit for digging, reaping, and plant processing.Palaeopathological evidence indicates the existence of a dietary pattern in the west Mediterranean making extensive use of starchy and carbohydrate foods which resulted in a high caries rate among the Mesolithic population of that area.In discussing the signiftcanse of these four lines of evidence, it is argued that, by the Late Mesolithic, the patterns of plant use support the notion of wild plant food husbandry instead of the incidental and opportunistic use of plants for food which has implicitly been accepted as a norm for the Mesolithic in Europe. Three geographical areas can be identified with their specific pattern of plant use: temperate Europe, Mediterranean Europe, and the south-eastern Balkans/Pontic Steppe. The patterns of plant use suggested in this paper emphasize the additive nature of the adoption of the agro-pastoral Neolithic farming practices in Europe.

Neolithisation in Polish Territories: Different Patterns, Different Perspectives, and Marek Zvelebil’s Ideas

“…A thesis can thus be formulated concerning the cultural uniformity of prehistoric and historic hunter-gatherers (Zvelebil 2003a;2006, 185). Several studies (Zvelebil 1981;1994;1995a;2003b) demonstrate that Mesolithic groups were capable of efficient and flexible adaptation to a particular type of environment. They functioned this way for a relatively long time, also in confrontation with the Neolithic (Zvelebil 1981;2004a, 52;.…”

TA 30 - Archaeological Science Under a Microscope : Studies in Residue and Ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy

“…Clarke (1976) anticipated the importance of plant use in the Mesolithic many years ago and subsequent research has confirmed his hypothesis (e.g. Mason 2000; Mithen et al 2001;Zvelebil 1994). While macrobotanical remains were found at the long-term occupation site of Pod zubem, the application of microscopic residue analysis has yielded additional evidence for plant processing.…”

“…Root and tuber remains include arrowhead, knotweed (Calowanie, Poland: Kubiak-Martens 1996), cattail, wild beet, bulrush, wood fern (NP3 and S51, Northern Netherlands: Perry 1999), wild garlic, pignut (Halsskov, Denmark: Kubiak-Martens 2002), and non-specific vegetative storage tissue (Roc del Migdia, Catolonia: Holden et al 1995). Hazelnuts are quite common at many Mesolithic sites (see Regnell et al 1995;Zvelebil 1994; among others), although it is difficult to estimate exactly how important they were in the Mesolithic diet (Mithen et al 2001).…”

Multi-profile fine-resolution palynological and micro-charcoal analyses at Esklets, North York Moors, UK, with special reference to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

“…6,000 cal BP in the two Esklets cores is similar to typical Late Mesolithic impacts (Simmons 1996;Innes et al 2013) in that fire was clearly employed to open the woodland and promoted the growth of hazel and heather. However, although models of pioneer Neolithic forest farming remain contentious (Ghilardi and O'Connell 2013), the records of cereal-type pollen suggest small-scale cultivation within woodlands (Göransson 1982;Edwards 1993;Moore 1996), in which case the rod and scraper typology of the flint site may be associated with harvesting rather than hunting implements (Zvelebil 1994). Whether such cultivation was carried out by terminal-Mesolithic people, or by initial-Neolithic people adapting an ancient tool form to new functions, remains unclear.…”