diet and subsistence at the late neolithic tell sites of sopot, slav;a … · 2019. 5. 2. · sopot...

326

Documenta Praehistorica XLIV (2017)

Introduction

Agriculture is intrinsically linked with Neolithic so-ciety, as this was the period when domesticatedplants and animals were first introduced, gradual-ly changing the way people lived throughout Eu-rope (see Özdogan 2014 for recent summary). Byliving in permanent settlements new ways of socialorganisation would have emerged and developed,including activities linked with crop agriculture, sto-rage and food preparation.

Tells first appeared in the Balkans by the lateNeolithic (c. 5200–4000 cal BC) alongside typicalhorizontal settlements common in the earlyNeolithic (c. 6000–5300 cal BC). Since the 1950s,tell sites in northern Serbia such as Seleva≠(Tringham, Krsti≤ 1990; McLaren, Hubbard1990), Divostin (McPherron, Srejovi≤ 1988),Gomolava (Jovanovi≤ 1988; Van Zeist 2003),Vin≠a (Chapman 1981; Filipovi≤, Tasi≤ 2012) and

Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sitesof Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia

Kelly Reed1, Maja Krznaric {krivanko2 and Marija Mihaljevic 3

1 University of Warwick, Coventry, [email protected]

2 Gradski Muzej Vinkovci, Vinkovci, HR3 Gradski Muzej Nova Gradi[ka, Nova Gradi[ka, HR

ABSTRACT – This paper presents archaeobotanical data from three late Neolithic Sopot Culture (c.5200–4000 cal BC) tell sites, Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏, located in eastern Croatia. Tell settlementsare well suited for exploring aspects of diet and subsistence, as they present a concentrated area withsuccessive generations building upon previous occupation levels. The plant remains from the threestudy sites suggest a crop-based diet of mainly einkorn, emmer, barley, lentil and pea, as well as evi-dence of crop-processing activities. This diet was also probably supplemented by wild fruit from thelocal environment, such as cornelian cherry, chinese lantern and blackberry.

IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo arheobotani≠ne podatke iz treh poznoneolitskih najdi∏≠ sopot-ske kulture (ok. 5200 do 4000 pr. n. ∏t.), in sicer na najdi∏≠ih Sopot, Slav≠a in Ravnja∏, ki so naselbi-ne tipa tell na vzhodu Hrva∏ke. Naselbine tipa tell so primerne za preu≠evanje razli≠nih aspektovprehrane in sredstev za pre∫ivetje, saj predstavljajo zgo∏≠ena obmo≠ja, kjer so naslednje generacijegradile neposredno na predhodne poselitvene plasti. Rastlinski ostanki in dokazi o aktivnostih, po-vezanih s predelavo polj∏≠in, ka∫ejo na vseh treh najdi∏≠ih na prehrano, ki je temeljila na polj∏≠inahkot so enozrnica, dvozrnica, je≠men, le≠a in grah. Prehrano so verjetno dopolnjevale ∏e divje rastli-ne iz lokalnega okolja kot so rumeni dren, navadno vol≠je jabolko in navadna robida.

KEY WORDS – crop agriculture; archaeobotany; crop processing; charred macro-remains

KLJU∞NE BESEDE – poljedeljstvo; arheobotanika; predelava polj∏≠in; zogleneli makro ostanki rastlin

Prehrana in pre/ivetje na poznoneolitskih najdi[;ihSopot, Slav;a in Ravnja[ na vzhodu Hrva[ke

DOI> 10.4312\dp.44.19

Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia

327

cum) have been identified. From the remainingsites, the plant remains suggest that glume wheats,emmer and einkorn, barley (Hordeum vulgare), len-til (Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum) and flax(Linum usitatissimum) were all commonly grown(Reed 2015). This paper presents the archaeobota-nical results from the late Neolithic tell sites at Sopot,Slav≠a and Ravnja∏, exploring activities linked withcrop agriculture, storage and food preparation at thesettlements.

The Late Neolithic in eastern Croatia

The Sopot Culture developed on the foundations ofthe late Star≠evo Culture. It has been suggested thatthe central area of the classic Sopot Culture is locat-ed in the region of eastern Slavonia, between theDrava, Sava and Danube rivers (Markovi≤ 1994.82).Settlements were often raised on natural elevationson the banks of rivers and streams, such as Sopot,Vinkovci, Privlaka, Orolik, Gabo∏, Marinci, or onswampy, flood plains, close to extinct streams, suchas at Stari Mikanovci, Otok, Komletinci, Retkovci(Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2012.37). The Sopot culturealso expanded into Hungarian Transdanubia (Bánffyet al. 2016.290) and northern Bosnia between theVrbas and Tinja rivers (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979.334). Acharacteristic feature of this culture is black polishedbiconical and S-profiled vessels, but ceramics weregenerally undecorated, with only a small percentage

being decorated with shallowcarvings and tally ornamenta-tion.

Archaeologists divide the Sopotculture into three phases; early(I), middle (II) and late (III). Al-though, Dimitrijevi≤ (1968) sub-divided the oldest phase into2 stages (I-A, I-B), while newerinvestigations at the epony-mous site of Sopot distinguishII-A and II-B stages (Krznari≤πkrivanko 2002), as well as afinal horizon of the early Eneo-lithic (phase IV – the Se≠e typeof the Sopot Culture) (Mihalje-vi≤ 2013), parallel with the Len-gyel III and Tiszapolgar cul-tures (Markovi≤ 1985). Recentcarbon-14 dating of Sopot Cul-ture sites date Phase I-B to a pe-riod between 5480 and 5070

Opovo (Tringham et al. 1985; 1992; Borojevi≤2006), and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as Oko-li∏te (Müller et al. 2013), have provided archaeobo-tanical datasets that can be used to examine agricul-tural practices in the region. This is crucial if we areto understand the development of societies duringthe Neolithic. Unfortunately, the preservation andthe absence of sufficient numbers of weed seeds andchaff remains has posed many problems in the inter-pretation of past human activities at these sites, e.g.,crop processing and crop husbandry regimes (seeHillman 1981; Jones 1984; Van der Veen 1992; Bo-gaard 2004), and so many questions remain.

Tell settlements are very useful for exploring aspectsof diet and subsistence, as they present a concen-trated area with successive generations building onprevious occupation levels. However, in Croatia, fewtell sites have been excavated and even fewer haveconducted archaeobotanical recovery programmes.To date, only five other late Neolithic settlementshave yielded archaeobotanical remains from easternCroatia: Bapska-Gradac (Buri≤ 2007.45–46), Otok(Obeli≤ et al. 2002), Ivandvor-Gaj, Toma∏anci-Pala≠aand Brezovljani (Reed 2015). Both Otok and Bapska-Gradac are tell sites; however, the only published re-mains from Otok consisted of a single grain of breadwheat (Triticum aestivum) 14C dated to 4620–4350cal BC; while the archaeobotanical results from Bap-ska are not yet forthcoming, both emmer (Triti-cum dicoccum) and einkorn (Triticum monococ-

Fig. 1. The Late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a.

Kelly Reed, Maja Krznaric {krivanko and Marija Mihaljevic

328

cal BC, Phase II-A between 5030 and 4770 cal BCand Phase II-B between 4800 and 4250 cal BC (Obe-li≤ et al. 2004.Tab. 3). The earliest series of dates forPhase IV is between 4340 and 3790 cal BC (Krzna-ri≤ πkrivanko 2009; Mihaljevi≤ 2013).

Site descriptions

SopotSopot is situated 3km south-west of Vinkovci, on theright bank of the River Bosut (Fig. 1). The tell site iselliptical, measuring 113 x 98m, and is 3m deep.Sopot was first identified by J. Brun∏mid in 1902(Brun∏mid 1902.121) and later excavated by M.Klajn in the late 1930s (Klajn 1961.22). In 1967,Stojan Dimitrijevi≤ led archaeological test-pit exca-vations at Sopot and took the site of Sopot as theeponym for this cultural phenomenon (Dimitrijevi≤1979.264). The most recent systematic excavationsat Sopot were conducted between 1996 and 2008by Vinkovci Municipal Museum. A total of 376m2

was excavated from a section 37m long transectingthe settlement, beginning in the south-west corner(Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2000; 2003; 2011).

Three phases of Late Neolithic Sopot culture havebeen identified at the site, as well as an early Neo-lithic Star≠evo settlement 14C dated to 6060–5890cal BC (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2011). Two fortified di-tches are evident (Fig. 2); an older one of 100 x 80mdates to the early Sopot settlement, which was laterfilled and replaced by a ditch surrounding an areaof 120 x 100m (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2003; Mu∏i≠ et

al. 2011.85). The oldest house, excavated above thefirst ditch and dating to 5050–4780 cal BC (Obeli≤et al. 2004.252–253), was rectangular, with an areaof 6.70 x 4m, and had evidence of internal room di-visions (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2003; 2006). The young-est house, 14C dated to 4340 and 3997 cal BC (Obe-li≤ et al. 2004.249) is a typical Neolithic rectangularhouse, measuring 6 x 4m (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 1998.31). Pottery analyses date this phase to the CopperAge, Sopot IV (Balen 2005; Krznari≤ πkrivanko,Balen 2006), and at this time numerous canals ap-peared (c. 4250 and 4030 cal BC), which destroyedsome of the earlier house floors (Krznari≤ πkrivan-ko 2009). Building cycles at the site were often cha-racterised by the burning of an old house, which wasthen covered with a layer of soil before a new housewas constructed. Excavations have shown that mosthouses were built in the same place as older ones,with small horizontal shifts.

Slav≠aThe prehistoric site of Slav≠a is located approx.1.5km north of the centre of Nova Gradi∏ka. The siteis a fort type, on a flat plateau at the point wherethe southern slopes of Psunj exceed the PosavinaPlain. At an elevation of 240.61m, it offers a strate-gic position commanding the surrounding area (Fig.3). The site was first identified in 1907 by the con-servator ∑uro Szabo. Systematic archaeological ex-cavations by the Department of Archeology, Filozof-ski fakultet Zagreb (Vrdoljak, Mihaljevi≤ 1999) start-ed in 1997, and were taken over in 1999 by the Mu-nicipal Museum of Nova Gradi∏ka until 2013 (Miha-

ljevi≤ 2000; 2004; 2005; 2006; 2007;2008; 2009).

The site is a multilayered prehistoricsettlement with Sopot and Brezov-ljani type Sopot culture occupation,illustrating the transition from thelate Neolithic to the early Eneolithic(Sopot IV), Lasinja, Kostolac and Vu-≠edol culture (Skelec 1997). Surveyshave revealed segments of the set-tlement with sectional pit objects,some of which are living, working,storage and waste pits and defensiveditches. Finds include pottery, loomweights, whorls for fishing nets, andstone and chipped artefacts (πo∏i≤,Karavani≤ 2004). Zooarchaeologicalanalyses showed a predominance ofcow, sheep/goat and pig remains,with little evidence of hunting (Mi-

Fig. 2. Detailed magnetic survey of Sopot, including the positionof the 1996–2008 excavation trenches in the bottom left of the set-tlement. Courtesy of Vinkovci Municipal Museum.


329

culini≤, Mihaljevi≤ 2003). Recent 14C dates of theSopot levels include 5210–4950 cal BC, from a pitwith no ceramics, and 4960–4340 cal BC, as well as4250–4030 cal BC associated with Sopot IV (Miha-ljevi≤ 2013).

Ravnja∏Ravnja∏ is located on the upper slopes of the Po∫e-ga hill, north-west of the village of Nova Kapela. Ex-cavations by Nova Gradi∏ka Municipal Museum werecarried out between 2006 and 2008, revealing aphase II Sopot Culture tell settlement (Mihaljevi≤2006; 2007; 2008). A series of pit objects and a house(SJ022) were discovered. The rectangular house wasoriented north-south, consisting of two rooms con-taining a large amount of burnt material and largequantities of household items, including millstones,pottery and lithics. In addition, a fireplace of bakedclay was discovered at the entrance to the house.Recent 14C dates indicate a range of 4970 to 4690cal BC (Mihaljevi≤ 2013).

Material and methods

Sampling and recoveryBetween 2006 and 2008, 71 samples were collectedfrom a range of contexts from Sopot culture occupa-tion levels at Ravnja∏. At Slav≠a, 63 samples werecollected from contexts associated with a Sopot cul-ture settlement, although seven of the samples wereidentified as mixed with Lasinja and Kostolac culturematerial. Sample sizes were not recorded, but a mi-nimum of one bucket (approx. 11 litres) of sedimentwas collected where possible for each sample. Thesamples were later processed by bucket flotationusing 1mm and 300μm mesh sizes. At Sopot, 144samples were collected between 1999 and 2008from a range of contexts, including house floors, pits,a ditch and hearths. The samples were processed bymachine flotation, using 1mm and 250μm meshsizes. Volumes were only partially recorded, but 1–2

buckets (up to approx. 20 litres) per sample werecollected where possible.

Sorting and species identificationThe flot remains were 100% sorted, except for twoat Slav≠a (Tab. 1 is available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.19), and their charcoal vol-umes were recorded. Carbonised plant taxa wereidentified with a low power (7–40x) binocular mi-croscope and comparisons made from modern refe-rence collections at the Institute of Archaeology, UCLand the School of Archaeology & Ancient History,University of Leicester.

Identifying the cereal remains at the sites was par-ticularly difficult in some instances due to poor pre-servation and overlaps in morphology. A few pos-sible rye grains (cf. Secale cereale) and spelt glumebases (Triticum spelta) had already been identifiedat Sopot, but they were fragmentary and inconclu-sive, so they have now been reclassified as cereal in-det and Triticum sp. In addition, grains of broom-corn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail mil-let (Setaria italica), were also misidentified at allthree sites, mainly due to poor preservation and si-milarities in morphology between foxtail millet andbarnyard millet (Echinochloa crus-galli), which bothhave a scutellum extending over approx. two thirdsof the grain length. Here the grains had a wider em-bryo, a flatter apex and an ovoid hilum more com-monly seen in barnyard millet (Fig. 4i).

Of particular note in the assemblages was the iden-tification of two-grained einkorn at Sopot, and boththe grain and chaff of the ‘new type’ glume wheat atall three sites (Jones et al. 2000; Kohler-Schneider2003; Kenéz et al. 2014). Two-grained einkorn wasidentified based on the observations of Helmut Kroll(1992) and Angela Kreuz and Nicole Boenke (2002).The one grain was slightly smaller and narrower inshape compared to emmer, with a flat ventral surface

and a distinctive ventral compres-sion near the pointed apex (Fig. 4c).

The identification of the ‘new type’of glume wheat grains and glumebases was based on observationsmade by Glynis Jones et al. (2000)and Marianne Kohler-Schneider(2003). The grains were distinctlymore slender than the emmer grains,and in the lateral view were distinct-ly ‘flat’, with a more rounded apexand narrower embryo. The dorsalFig. 3. The prehistoric site of Slav≠a (photo by Marija Mihaljevi≤).


330

view was also generally more straight and parallelcompared to the emmer grains, which were widerabove the embryo (Fig. 4a). Identification of theglume bases were seen from a narrower and deepattachment scar, with a prominent primary keel pro-jecting vertically when viewed from the abaxial face,like einkorn. The secondary keel was also prominent,as in einkorn, but sharply angled, unlike einkorn, inwhich it is rounded, with a clearly defined vein run-ning along the keel, unlike either emmer or einkorn.These glume bases were also particularly distinctfrom those of emmer and einkorn, as they seemedmore robust (Fig. 4f, g).

Many of the samples were collected from the samecontext, so the samples from the same trench, stra-tigraphic unit (SJ) and square were combined(Tabs. 1–3 are available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.19). All grains were counted as one,even if only a fragment was present. Glume basefragments were counted as one unless clearly rep-resenting part of another glume base, while wholespikelet forks were counted as two glume bases. Thefruit and weed seeds were counted as one, evenwhen only a fragment was found, except where largeseeds were broken and clearly represented the sameparts of the same seed (e.g., Cornus mas).

Site formation and the interpretation of theplant remains

In order to understand the archaeobotanical results,it is important to explore the formation processes atthe site, so as to identify any possible bias in the sam-ples that may influence interpretations. The plantremains at Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏ were preserv-ed through carbonisation or charring, which resultsfrom organic material being exposed to heat eitheraccidentally or deliberately, such as cooking, burn-ing rubbish or fuel (Hillman 1984; Miller, Smart1984; Charles 1998; Valamoti, Charles 2005; Vander Veen 2007). Thus, the charred remains repre-sent only a small and biased sample of the edibleplants probably utilised by the late Neolithic settle-ments. These ‘missing foods’ mean that our abilityto establish the composition and overall contribu-tion of plants to the diet is inherently biased towardscharred remains that come into contact with firemore frequently and survive the charring process(Dennell 1972; Hillman 1981; Jones 1981; Board-man, Jones 1990; Van der Veen 2007).

The deposition of these remains within the archaeo-logical record also needs to be considered, and the

groups proposed by Richard N. L. B. Hubbard andAlan J. Clapham (1992) provide a simple way toclassify samples: Class A, where remains have beenburnt and recovered in-situ; Class B, where remainsderive from a single burning event, but were moved(secondary deposition); and Class C, where the as-semblage derives from different charring events thatwere subsequently deposited within the same con-text. In addition, seed density can be used to reflectthe rate of deposition. For example, a low density ofplant remains could indicate the slow accumulationof charred items that originated from different burn-ing events, unassociated with the feature in whichthey are finally deposited (Miksicek 1987; Jones1991). Charred plant remains can also survive forlong periods, and archaeobotanical evidence hasshown cases of older plant remains being redeposit-ed within younger contexts (e.g., Pelling et al. 2015).

Preservation was generally poor at the study sites,with many of the plant remains being identifiedthrough gross morphology only. In total, the threesites contained over 9000 unidentifiable plant frag-ments and over 1100 unidentifiable cereal frag-ments. Charcoal density per litre was also generallylow, with a mean density of 0.20cm3 at Sopot,0.24cm3 at Ravnja∏ and 1cm3 at Slav≠a. The meanseed density per litre was also generally low at So-pot and Ravnja∏, 1.1 and 2.8 seeds per litre. How-ever, at Slav≠a the mean seed density was 15 seedsper litre. This was due to extremely high numbers ofglume wheat glume bases in a number of the sam-ples (see below for further details). The low densi-ty of plant remains within the contexts suggest aslow accumulation deriving from different charringevents, while the high densities seen at Slav≠a maysuggest plant remains deposited from a single burn-ing event (e.g., SJ123 and SJ7). Only the hearthsshowed evidence of in-situ burning; however, mul-tiple burning episodes would have occurred withinthese contexts. Thus, the samples from all three sitesprobably result from Class C remains, where the as-semblages derived from different charring eventswere later deposited within the same context.

In addition, the overall assemblage from the threesites shows that samples from house floors or occu-pational levels have a higher percentage of grainand fruit remains, while those samples recoveredfrom pit, ditch or other external settlement featuresare more likely to contain chaff remains (Fig. 5).Thus, the high percentage of cereal grains and fruitswithin house and hearth features may suggest thepreparation of food for human consumption. While,


331

Fig. 4. Carbonised seeds from the study sites: a1–a2 ‘New type’ glume wheat; b naked wheat (Triticumaestivum/durum); c Two-grained einkorn (Triticum monococcum); d Lentil (Lens culinaris); e Barley ra-chis (Hordeum vulgare); f ‘New type’ glume wheat glume base; g Emmer glume base (Triticum dicoccum);h Chinese lantern (Physalis alkekengi); i Barnyard millet (Echinochloa crus-galli); j Hedge bedstraw (Ga-lium sp. mollugo). Scale bar: 1mm.

the high chaff content (mainly glume wheat glumebases) within pits and ditches may result from thedeposition of crop processing waste (see below formore details).

Crop husbandry: Which crops were grown

Only five types of cereal grain and chaff were identi-fied from the three sites: barley, emmer, einkorn,‘new type’ glume wheat and naked wheat. Of thesefive, emmer and einkorn dominate the samples bothin quantity (Fig. 6) and the frequency with which theyare found in the different contexts. This is similar toremains found at Neolithic sites in Albania (Xhuveli,Schultze-Motel 1995), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Ren-frew 1979; Ku≠an 2009), northern Italy (Rottoli, Ca-stiglioni 2009), Serbia (Filipovi≤, Obradovi≤ 2013for summary) and Slovenia (Tolar et al. 2011).

It is particularly interesting to note the large quan-tities of glume bases recovered, amounting to nearly6000 from the three sites, compared to only around1200 grains, and what this may say about subsis-tence practices at the sites. For example, since the1970s, researchers have determined that carbonisedplant remains are more likely to result from foodproduction and crop processing rather than fromfood consumption, and therefore provide a recordof the crop husbandry and processing methods em-ployed (Knörzer1971; Dennell 1972; 1974; 1976;Hillman 1984; Jones 1984).

Predictive models have since been created to identi-fy which stage of the crop processing sequence an

archaeobotanical assemblage represents. This is basedon the assumption that each stage produces a char-acteristically different ratio of cereal, chaff and weedswithin the sample (Hillman 1984; Jones 1984; Vander Veen 1992; Van der Veen, Jones 2006). Eachstage produces two assemblages: a crop product,which continues through each stage, and a crop by-product or residue, which is removed from the re-maining processes. Simplified, the stages for proces-sing free-threshing cereals (e.g., naked wheat andbarley) are as follows (after Hillman 1984; Van derVeen 1992):

● harvesting: to gather the mature crop from thefield, possibly by uprooting or cutting the grain-bearing part of the plant;

● threshing: to release the grain from the chaff, pos-sibly by beating with a stick or trampling by cat-tle;

● winnowing: to remove the light chaff and weedsfrom the grain, possibly by wind or by shakingin a winnowing basket;

● coarse sieving: to remove larger items such asweed heads, seeds, un-threshed ears and strawwith large meshes;

● fine sieving: to remove the small weed seeds fromthe grain with narrower meshed sieves.

Glume wheats (e.g., einkorn, emmer and ‘new type’glume wheat) on the other hand require further pro-cessing stages to release the grain from the tightglumes. The additional processes involved in the de-husking of glume wheats are as follows (after Hil-lman 1984; Van der Veen 1992):


332

● processing stage Rationale;● parching to dry the grain and render the glumes

brittle;● pounding to release the grain from the glumes,

possibly in a wooden mortar or quern;● second winnowing to remove light chaff and

weeds from the grain;● second coarse sieving to remove the remaining

large items, such as unthreshed ears or chaff andremaining culm nodes and large weeds in heads;

● second fine sieving to remove glume bases and re-maining small weed seeds.

Put simply, this suggests that a sample with high num-bers of cereal grains and not much else, which result-ed from one burning and depositional event, wouldrepresent the end of the crop processing stages whenthe grain is ready for consumption. On the otherhand, a sample with a high number of glume bases,also resulting from one burning and depositionalevent, probably represents crop processing waste(i.e. where the chaff is removed from the grain).

Examining the study sites, it is clear that many ofthe samples with low densities resulted from a rangeof different charring events. However, the high den-sities seen at Slav≠a in stratigraphic units 123 and 7and the fact that over 75% of the samples weremade up of glume wheat glume bases may suggestevidence of crop processing waste (see also Reed2015) dumped after being carbonised elsewhere.Some suggest that the daily processing of storedglume wheats occurred within the household, wherethe waste (cereal chaff) was then swept into firesand carbonised (cf. Hillman 1984; Gregg 1989; Meu-rers-Balke, Lüning 1992; Bogaard 2004.68; Kreuz2012). The waste from these fires could have thenbeen deposited outside the houses in pits or ditchesaround the settlement, so SJ123 and SJ7 may indi-cate the secondary or tertiary deposition of discard-ed wheat chaff. If this is the case, then it is likely thatthe recovery of both einkorn and emmer in the sam-ples represent individual crop remains, rather thancrops being grown together (Jones, Halstead 1995),especially as recent research suggests that emmerand einkorn ripen at different times if sown simulta-neously (Kreuz, Schäfer 2011). Furthermore, archa-eological finds of querns and flint sickle blades alsoattest to crop processing activities at the sites.The recovery of less than ten barley rachis at Slav≠aand Sopot and the absence of barley at Ravnja∏ maysuggest that barley was mainly processed away fromthe settlement, or was only a minor crop at the sites.However, cereal rachis is more fragile than glume

bases and may simply have not survived the carbo-nisation process, resulting in its under-representationat the sites (cf. Dennell 1976; Hillman 1981; Board-man, Jones 1990).

The possible cultivation methods (i.e. manuring,weeding or irrigating) of the crops was not examin-ed, due to the low numbers of weed seeds recoveredfrom the study sites, as well as the limited identifica-tion of seeds to species level (see Bogaard 2004;Kreuz, Schäfer 2011 for examples of examining cul-tivation methods of crops at Neolithic sites in cen-tral Europe).

Other cropsLentil (Lens culinaris) was the most common pulsecrop present at Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏. Pea (Pi-sum sativum) was also recovered from Ravnja∏ andSopot, as well as small quantities of grass pea (Lathy-rus sativus) from Sopot, and bitter vetch (Vicia er-vilia) from Ravnja∏. Pulse preservation through car-bonisation can be under-represented in the archaeo-logical record, but these four species are found con-

Fig. 5. Percentage of seeds in each plant categoryper context group for all three sites.

Fig. 6. Number of grain and glume bases per spe-cies at each site (where 1:1 barley rachis/grain; 2:1einkorn glume base/grain; 1:1 emmer and ‘newtype’ glume wheat:grain).


333

tinuously from the early Neolithic onwards in Cen-tral and Southeast Europe (Zohary et al. 2012.75).Therefore, it is likely that lentil was commonly grownat the study sites, with the addition of pea at Ravnja∏and Sopot.

Small quantities of flax seeds were identified fromSopot and Slav≠a. As one of the founder crops, flaxis found throughout Southeast and Central Europefrom the Early Neolithic onwards and is tradition-ally used for its oil (linseed) and/or fibres (Zoharyet al. 2012.101). The high oil content in flax seedscan make them more susceptible to burning and lesslikely to be preserved compared to other seeds (Wil-son 1984) and so their presence even in small num-bers could suggest flax cultivation for oil and/orfibre. This is further supported by the recovery offlax textile fragments from the contemporary lateNeolithic site at Opovo in Serbia (4700–4500 cal BC)(Borojevi≤ 2006; Tringham et al. 1992).

Crop storage at the tell sites

Year-round occupation of a site almost certainly re-quired some kind of storage facilities for food andfodder. Storage is therefore a mechanism to bufferagainst seasonal and/or long-term variability in thefood supply (Halstead, O’Shea 1989). Similarly, thelarger the settlement, the more reliance would beplaced on stored cereals and pulse crops (Halstead1996.304). The location and size of storage facilitiescan reveal household behaviours, e.g., domesticstorage for domestic use, external storage for com-munal use or excess goods for exchange. Therefore,the location of storage inside or outside the houseor choosing communal storage is also related to thesocial and economic organisation of the site as awhole (Halstead 1999). However, direct evidencefor storage practices by prehistoric farmers is ra-rely seen, due to the poor preservation of organicmaterial and the fact that stored food, unless acci-dentally burnt in a catastrophic event, would havebeen consumed. Further problems arise when stor-age facilities are re-used for other purposes, such asrepositories for domestic refuse or human burials.Therefore, the identification of prehistoric storagefacilities is usually based on indirect evidence fromarchitectural remains.

From the study sites in Croatia, few houses showevidence of internal storage pits; however, at lateNeolithic Sopot, the well-preserved remains of house23 revealed large vessels (‘buda’ type), that couldhave been used for crop storage (Krznari≤ πkrivan-

ko 2003). This is comparable to the neighbouringVin≠a culture settlements which also contained largeimmobile and slightly smaller mobile storage ves-sels within many of the houses (Stevanovi≤ 1997).External pits close to the houses at the study siteshave also been excavated, and many contained lowquantities of plant remains, although the remainsdo not necessarily indicate storage, as they may havebeen deposited as waste. Nevertheless, it is probablethat both internal and external crop storage waspracticed at the Neolithic sites to support the year-round occupation of them.

Other sources of food

In addition to cultivated crops, a number of other edi-ble species were recovered, which would indicate thecontinued exploitation of the local environment. Thisincludes cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) and Chineselantern (Physalis alkekengi) at Slav≠a and Sopot,and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) at Ravnja∏ andSlav≠a. Of particular note at Sopot was a relativelylarge deposit of over 100 seeds of Chinese lanternfound in the floor of one of the houses, which maysuggest its deliberate collection by the household.It is difficult to assess the role of wild plants in pre-historic farming communities, but it is likely thatthey played an important role in subsistence (Col-lege, Conolly 2014), complementing not only humandiet, but also contributing to many other aspects ofhuman life, being used as building materials, medi-cines, dyes, fuel, animal fodder, crafts or rituals. Edi-ble species found at the study sites may have includ-ed the seeds of fat hen (Chenopodium album) andthe leaves of nettles (Urtica dioca). However, thesmall number of seeds found makes any further in-terpretation difficult. In addition, many of the weedsrecovered from the study sites are commonly foundas weeds in cultivated crops. For example, Bandke-ramik weed species found regularly in samples asso-ciated with manured crops include Bromus secali-nus, Chenopodium album, Galium aparine, Gali-um Spurium, and Polygonum convolvulus (Kruez,Schäfer 2011). A number of these genus and speciesare also found at the study sites, making it likelythat many of the wild species are in fact weeds fromthe crops rather than collected wild foods.

Conclusion

Archaeobotanical remains collected from the lateNeolithic tell sites at Slav≠a, Ravnja∏ and Sopot in-dicate a crop-based diet of mainly einkorn, emmer,barley, lentil and pea. The plant- based diet of the


334

settlements also included wild fruits such as corne-lian cherry, Chinese lantern and blackberry. How-ever, the charred remains represent only a small andbiased sample of the edible plants probably exploit-ed by the late Neolithic settlements.

An examination of crop-processing activities at thesites suggest that emmer and einkorn grains weresemi-cleaned before reaching the site and then pro-cessed further on a daily basis to remove the chaffand any remaining weed seeds. The early removalof weeds offsite would also have allowed seed cornto be stored relatively clean, which when sown wouldreduce weed growth and maintain economic cropyields (Dennell 1974). The charring of emmer andeinkorn chaff may also indicate the parching of spi-kelets before processing, but could also result fromthe occasional use of processing residue as fuel (Hil-lman 1981; Van der Veen 2007).

The low seed densities at the sites had a distinctimpact on the level of analysis that could be conduct-ed. Thus, further research is needed to build on theseresults and to improve our understanding of agricul-ture and the role agriculture played in underpinningsocial, cultural and economic changes in the late Neo-lithic in eastern Croatia.

This research was partially funded by the Arts andHumanities Research Council in connection withKelly Reeds PhD. In addition, many thanks to SueCollege and Marijke van der Veen for their helpfuladvice while undertaking the PhD and the Depart-ments of Archaeology at University College Londonand the University of Leicester for allowing the use oftheir reference collections.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

References

Balen J. 2005. Sopot. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 1:26–30.

Bánffy E., Osztás A., Oross K., Zalai-Gaál I., Marton T.,Nyerges É. Á., Köhler K., Bayliss A., Hamilton D. and Whit-tle A. 2016. The Alsónyék story: towards the history of apersistent place. Bericht der Römisch-GermanischenKommission 94: 283–318.

Boardman S., Jones G. 1990. Experiments on the effectsof charring on cereal plant components. Journal of Archa-eological Science 17(1): 1–11.

Bogaard A. 2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe:An Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Prac-tices. Routledge. London.

Borojevi≤ K. 2006. Terra and Silva in the Pannonianplain: Opovo agro-gathering in the Late Neolithic. Bri-tish Archaeological Reports IS 1563. Archeopress. Oxford.

Brun∏mid J. 1902. Colonia Aurelia Cibalae, Vinkovci ustaro doba. Vjestnik Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 6:117– 166.

Buri≤ M. 2007. Bapska-Gradac. In A. Blanda (ed.), Hrvat-ski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak, vol. 4. Ministarstvo kulture. Zag-reb: 45–46.

Chapman J. 1981. The Vin≠a Culture of South-East Eu-rope: Studies in Chronology, Economy and Society. Bri-tish Archaeological Reports IS 117. Archeopress. Oxford.

Charles M. 1998. Fodder from dung: the recognition andinterpretation of dung derived plant material from archa-eological sites. Environmental Archaeology 1: 111–122.

Colledge S., Conolly J. 2014. Wild plant use in EuropeanNeolithic subsistence economies: a formal assessment ofpreservation bias in archaeobotanical assemblages and theimplications for understanding changes in plant dietbreadth. Quaternary Science Reviews 101: 193–206.

Dennell R. W. 1972. The interpretation of plant remains:Bulgaria. In E. S. Higgs (ed.), Papers in Economic Prehi-story. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 149–159.

1974. The purity of prehistoric crops. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 40: 132–135.

1976. The economic importance of plant resources re-presented on archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 3: 229–247.

Dimitrijevi≤ S. 1968. Sopotsko-Len∂elska Kultura. Mono-graphiae Archaeologicae I. Zagreb.

∴∴


335

1979. Sjeverna zona [Northern zone]. In A. Benac (ed.),Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba.Akademija nauke i umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Sara-jevo: 229–362.

Filipovi≤ D., Obradovi≤ ∑. 2013. Archaeobotany at Neoli-thic Sites in Serbia: A Critical Overview of the Methodsand Results. In N. Miladinovi≤-Radmilovi≤., S. Vitezovi≤(eds.), Bioarheologija na Balkanu: bilans i perspektive.Srpsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo. Beograd: 25–55.

Filipovi≤ D., Tasi≤ N. N. 2012. Vin≠a-Belo Brdo, a late Neoli-thic site in Serbia: consideration of macro-botanical remainsas indicators of dietary habits. Balcanica XLIII: 7–27.

Gregg S. 1989. Paleo-ethnobotany of the Bandkeramikphases. In C. Kind (ed.), Ulm-Eggingen: Die Ausgrabun-gen 1982 bis 1985 in der bandkeramischen Siedlung undder mittelalterlichen Wüstung. Theiss. Stuttgart: 367–399.

Halstead P. 1996. The development of agriculture andpastoralism in Greece: when, how, who and what. In D.Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture andPastoralism in Eurasia. Routledge. London: 296–309.

Halstead P. 1999. Neighbours from Hell? The householdin Neolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Societyin Greece. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 77–95.

Halstead P., O’Shea J. 1989. Introduction: cultural respon-ses to risk and uncertainty. In P. Halstead., J. O’Shea (eds.),Bad Year Economics: cultural responses to risk and un-certainty. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 1–10.

Hillman G. 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry prac-tices from charred remains of crops. In R. Mercer (ed.),Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh Uni-versity Press. Edinburgh: 123–162.

1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains.The application of ethnographic models from Turkey.In W. Van Zeist., W. A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and an-cient man. Balkema. Rotterdam: 1–41.

Hubbard R. N. L. B., Clapham A. 1992. Quantifying macro-scopic plant remains. Review of Palaeobotany and Paly-nology 73(1–4): 117–132.

Jones G. 1981. Crop processing at Assiros Toumba: a ta-phonomic study. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 15: 105–111.

1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains:ethnographic models from Greece. In W. Van Zeist., W.A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and ancient man. Balkema.Rotterdam: 43–61.

1991. Numerical analysis in archaeobotany. In W. VanZeist., K. Wasylikowa and K-E. Behre (eds.), Progress in

Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Balkema. Rotterdam:63–80.

Jones G., Halstead P. 1995. Maslins, mixtures and mono-crops: on the interpretation of archaeobotanical crop sam-ples of heterogeneous composition. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 22: 103–114.

Jones G., Valamoti S. and Charles M. 2000. Early crop di-versity: a ‘‘new’’ glume wheat from northern Greece.Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9: 133–146.

Jovanovi≤ B. 1988. Gomolava: Naselje Mla∂eg Govozde-nog Doba. Vojvo∂anski muzej. Beograd.

Kenéz A., Pető A. and Gyulai F. 2014. Evidence of ‘newglume wheat’ from the Late Neolithic (Copper Age) ofsouth-eastern Hungary (4th millennium cal BC). Vegeta-tion History and Archaeobotany 23: 551–566.

Klajn M. 1961. Moj amatersko-muzejski rad. Vinkovci.

Knörzer K. H. 1971. Urgeschichtliche Unkräuter im Rhein-land ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der segetalGesellschaften. Vegetatio 23(1–2): 89–111.

Kohler-Schneider M. 2003. Contents of a storage pit fromLate Bronze Age Stillfried, Austria: another record of the“new” glume wheat. Vegetation History and Archaeobo-tany 12(2): 105–111.

Kreuz A. 2012. Die Vertreibung aus dem Paradies? Archä-obiologische Ergebnisse zum Frühneolithikum im westli-chen Mitteleuropa. Bericht der Römisch-GermanischenKommission 91: 23–196.

Kreuz A., Boenke N. 2002. The presence of two-grainedeinkorn at the time of the Bandkeramik culture. Vegeta-tion History and Archaeobotany 11(3): 233–240.

Kreuz A., Schäfer E. 2011. Weed finds as indicators for thecultivation regime of the Early Neolithic Bandkeramikculture? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(5):333–348.

Kroll H. 1992. Einkorn from Feudvar, Vojvodina, II. Whatis the difference between emmer-like two-seeded einkornand emmer? Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology73(1–4): 181–185.

Krznari≤ πkrivanko M. 1998. Druga etapa sustavnog ar-heolo∏kog iskopavanja gradine Sopot. Obavijesti Hrvat-skog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 30(1): 30–34.

2000. ∞etvrta sezona sustavnog istra∫ivanja gradine So-pot. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 32(2):49–53.


336

2002. Peta i ∏esta sezona sustavnog istra∫ivanja gradineSopot (godina 2000. i 2001.). Obavijesti Hrvatskog ar-heolo∏kog dru∏tva 34(2): 36–45.

2003. Neki naseobinski pokazatelji na eponimnom lo-kalitetu sopotske kulture. Opvscvla Archaeologica 27:63–69.

2006. Sopot. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 2: 30–33.

2009. Sopot. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 5: 89–92.

2011. Radiokarbonski datumi uzoraka sa Sopota. In K.Boti≤, S. Kova≠evi≤ and D. Dizdar (eds.), Panonski pra-povijesni osviti: Zbornik radova posve≤enih Korneli-ji Minichreiter uz 65. obljetnicu ∫ivota. Institut za ar-heologiju. Zagreb: 209–226.

2012. Nalazi∏ta sopotske kulture na Vinkova≠kom po-dru≠ju. Acta Musei Cibalensis 5: 11–46.

Krznari≤ πkrivanko M., Balen J. 2006. Osma, deveta I de-seta sezona sustavnog istra∫ivanja gradine Sopot (godina2003., 2004., 2005.). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolo∏kogdru∏tva 38(1): 51–60.

Ku≠an D. 2009. Preliminarni izvje∏taj o ispitivanjima ug-ljenisanih biljnih ostataka na kasnoneolitskom naseljuokoli∏te. In R. Hofmann, Z. Kujund∫ic-Vejzagic, J. Müller,K. Rassmann and N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds.), Rekonstruk-cija procesa naseljavanja u kasnom neolitu na prostorucentralne Bosne. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Her-cegovine u Sarajevu 50/51. Sarajevo: 127–131.

Markovi≤ Z. 1985. Problem ranog eneolita u sjeverozapad-noj Hrvatskoj. Vjesnik Arheolo∏kog muzeja u Zagrebu18: 1–34.

1994. Sjeverna Hrvatska od neolita do bron≠anogdoba. Muzej grada Koprivnice. Koprivnica.

McLaren F. S., Hubbard R. N. L. B. 1990. The archaeobo-tanical remains. In R. Tringham., D. Krsti≤ (eds.), Selevac:a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia. University of Califor-nia. Los Angeles: 247–254.

McPherron A., Srejovi≤ A. (eds.) 1988. Divostin and theNeolithic of Central Serbia. University of Pittsburgh.Pittsburgh.

Meurers-Balke J., Lüning J. 1992. Some aspects and expe-riments concerning the processing of glume wheats. InP. C. Anderson (ed.), Prehistoire de l’Agriculture: Nou-velles Approches Experimentales et Ethnographiques.Monographie du CRA 6. Éditions du Centre national de larecherche scientifique. Paris: 341–362.

Miculini≤ K., Mihaljevi≤ M. 2003. Analiza faune prapovijes-nog nalazi∏ta Slav≠a-Nova Gradi∏ka. Opuscula Archaeo-logica 27: 71–80.

Mihaljevi≤ M. 2000. Istra∫ivanje nalazi∏ta Slav≠a (NovaGradi∏ka, 1999). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏t-va 3: 63–71.

2004. Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.) Hrvatski arheolo∏ki go-di∏njak. 1. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 39–40.

2005. Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.) Hrvatski arheolo∏ki go-di∏njak. 2. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 53–55.

2006. Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.) Hrvatski ar-heolo∏ki godi∏njak. 3. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb:72–73, 75–76.

2007. Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. In M. Blanda (ed.), Hrvatskiarheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 4. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb:94–95.

2008. Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.), Hrvatskiarheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 5. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb:124–127.

2009. Slav≠a. In Z. Wiewegh (ed.), Hrvatski arheolo∏kigodi∏njak. 6. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 88–89.

2013. Sopotska kultura u zapadnoj Slavoniji s poseb-nim osvrtom na nalazi∏te Slav≠a Nova Gradi∏ka. PhDthesis. University of Zagreb. Zagreb.

Miksicek C. H. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeo-botanical record. Advances in Archaeological Methodand Theory 10: 211–247.

Miller N., Smart T. 1984. Intentional burning of dung asfuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred seedsinto the archaeological record. Journal of Ethnobiology4(1): 15–28.

Müller J., Rassmann K. and Hofmann R. (eds.) 2013. Oko-liste 1 – Untersuchungen einer spätneolithischen Sied-lungskammer in Zentralbosnien. Neolithikum und Chal-kolithikum in Zentralbosnien Vol. 1. Universitätsfor-schungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 228. Bonn.

Mu∏i≠ B., Krznari≤ πkrivanko M. and Medari≠ I. 2011. So-pot-geofizi≠ko istra∫ivanje. In Z. Wiewegh (ed.) Hrvatskiarheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 7. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb:84–87.

Obeli≤ B., Horvatin≤i≤ N. and Krajcar Broni≤ I. 2002. Ru-djer Bo∏kovic Institute Radiocarbon Measurements XV.Radiocarbon 44(2): 601–630.


337

Obeli≤ B., Krznari≠ πkrivanko M., Marijan B. and KrajcarBroni≤ I. 2004. Radiocarbon dating of Sopot culture sites(Late Neolithic) in Eastern Croatia. Radiocarbon 46(1):245–258.

Özdogan M. 2014. A new look at the introduction of theNeolithic way of life in Southeastern Europe. Changingparadigms of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life.Documenta Praehistorica 41: 33–49.

Pelling R., Campbell G., Carruthers W., Hunter K. and Mar-shall P. 2015. Exploring contamination (intrusion and re-siduality) in the archaeobotanical record: case studiesfrom central and southern England. Vegetation Historyand Archaeobotany 24: 85–99.

Reed K. 2015. From the field to the hearth: plant remainsfrom Neolithic Croatia (ca. 6000–4000 cal BC). Vegeta-tion History and Archaeobotany 24(5): 601–619.

Renfrew J. 1979. The first farmers of south east Europe.Archaeo-Physika 8: 243–265.

Rottoli M., Castiglioni E. 2009. Prehistory of plant grow-ing and collecting in northern Italy, based on seed remainsfrom early Neolithic to the Chalcolithic (c. 5600–2100 calB.C.). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18: 91–103.

Skelec G. 1997. Prapovijesno nalazi∏te Slav≠a. OpvscvlaArchaeologica 21: 217– 233.

Stevanovi≤ M. 1997. The age of clay: the social dynamicsof house destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archa-eology 16(4): 334–395.

πo∏i≤ R., Karavani≤ I. 2004. Cijepani liti≠ki materijal saprapovijesnog nalazi∏ta Slav≠a, Nova Gradi∏ka. VjesnikArheolo∏kog muzeja u Zagrebu 36: 17–41.

Tolar T., Jacomet S., Velu∏≠ek A. and ∞ufar K. 2011. Planteconomy at a late Neolithic lake dwelling site in Sloveniaat the time of the Alpine Iceman. Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 20(3): 207–222.

Tringham R., Krsti≤ D. 1990. Selevac: A Neolithic Villagein Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica. University ofCalifornia. Los Angeles.

Tringham R., Brukner B. and Voytek B. 1985. The OpovoProject: a study of socioeconomic change in the BalkanNeolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(4): 425–444.

Tringham R., Brukner B., Kaiser T., Borojevi≤ K., Bukvi≤L., Steli P., Russell N., Stevanovi≤ M. and Voytek B. 1992.Excavations at Opovo, 1985–1987: Socioeconomic Changein the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:351–386.

Valamoti S. M., Charles M. 2005. Distinguishing food fromfodder through the study of charred plant remains: an ex-perimental approach to dung-derived chaff. VegetationHistory and Archaeobotany 14(4): 528–533.

Van der Veen M. 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes: AnArchaeobotanical Study of Farming in northern Eng-land 1000 BC-AD 500. J. R. Collis Publications. Sheffield.

2007. Formation processes of desiccated and carbonizedplant remains – the identification of routine practice.Journal of Archaeological Science 34(6): 968–990.

Van der Veen M., Jones G. 2006. A re-analysis of agricul-tural production and consumption: Implications for un-derstanding the British Iron Age. Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 15(3): 217–228.

Van Zeist W. 2003. Plant husbandry and vegetation of tellGomolava, Vojvodina, Yugoslavia. Palaeohistoria 43/44:87–115.

Vrdoljak S., Mihaljevi≤ M. 1999. Istra∫ivanje nalazi∏ta Slav-≠a (Nova Gradi∏ka, 1998.). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheo-lo∏kog dru∏tva 1: 34–48.

Wilson D. G. 1984. The carbonisation of weed seeds andtheir representation in marcofossil assemblages. In W.Van Zeist., W. Casparie (eds.), Plant and Ancient Man.Balkema. Groningen: 201–206.

Xhuveli L., Schultze-Motel J. 1995. Neolithic cultivatedplants from Albania. Vegetation History and Archaeobo-tany 4: 245–248.

Zohary D., Hopf M. and Weiss E. 2012. Domestication ofplants in the Old World: the origin and spread of do-mesticated plants in south-west Asia, Europe, and theMediterranean Basin. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

diet and subsistence at the late neolithic tell sites of sopot, slav;a … · 2019. 5. 2. · sopot...

Documents