Trends in cereal cultivation in the Czech Republic from the Neolithic to the Migration period (5500 b.c.–a.d. 580)

An Investigation of Dental Health in the Migration Period: A Case Study from Prague-Zličín, Czech Republic

“…Seeds of lentil (Lens culinaris) and pea (Pisum sativum, Vicia/Pisum) were also discovered (see Šálková et al 2016 -this IANSA issue). This is in accordance with other macro-remain research performed at other Czech settlement features, which have confirmed T. aestivum/turgidum, Hordeum and T. dicoccum as the most important cereals in the rare finds pertaining to the Migration Period (Dreslerová, Kočár 2013). As confirmed by osteoarchaeological analysis at Prague-Zličín, the main source of meat was domestic animals (cattle -21.0%, pig -16.5%, sheep/goat -0.3%), supplemented by the hunting of wild fauna (Nohálová et al 2016 -this IANSA issue;note: 56.4% of all animal bones were identified as rodents).…”

Prehistoric human impact in the mountains of Bohemia. Do pollen and archaeological data support the traditional scenario of a prehistoric “wilderness”?

“…The Hordeum type has a continuous curve, but this taxon must be interpreted with caution, since the Hordeum pollen type contains not only planted Hordeum vulgare but also wild grasses, for instance Glyceria, and some wild species of Hordeum, Agropyron and Bromus (Beug, 2004). Macrofossil analyses from the Czech Republic showed that Hordeum vulgare was a common crop during the La Tène period (Dreslerová and Kočár, 2013). Nevertheless, the evidence of cereal fields in the pollen data should be based more on the presence of the Triticum type and Secale cereale.…”

Buccal Dental Microwear of a Barbarian Population from Prague-Zličín – a Study of the Migration Period in the Czech Republic

“…As confirmed by the osteoarchaeology analysis, the main source of meat was accounted for by domestic animals (cattle 21.0%, pig 16.5%, sheep/goat 0.3%), which was supplemented by hunting wild fauna (Nohálová et al 2016 -this IANSA issue). On the one side, the results of both these analyses seem to provide the expected data (see Dreslerová, Kočár 2013); on the other, it is necessary to take into account that these results might be somewhat skewed or distorted. The whole area of the burial ground was full of burrows as evidenced by the extremely high proportion of rodent bones (56.4%) (Nohálová et al 2016 -this IANSA issue); rodents had been living and tunnelling there for centuries and thus disturbing the original distribution of plant macro-remains by moving plant seeds into different archaeological layers (see C 14 data, in Šálková et al 2016 -this IANSA issue).…”