期刊名称：Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica : Natural Sciences in Archaeology
印刷版ISSN：1804-848X
出版年度：2015
卷号：VI
期号：1
页码：95-106
出版社：Archaeological Centre Olomouc
摘要：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. var currentpos,timer; function initialize() { timer=setInterval("scrollwindow()",10);} function sc(){clearInterval(timer); }function scrollwindow() { currentpos=document.body.scrollTop; window.scroll(0,++currentpos); if (currentpos != document.body.scrollTop) sc();} document.onmousedown=scdocument.ondblclick=initialize IANSA 2015 ● VI/1 ● 95–106 Michaela Divi.ová, Petr .ída: 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; Kn.rzer et al. 1999; Perry 1999; Mason, Hather 2000; Robinson 2000; R.sch 2000). An exception is the edited volume Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany. Perspectives from the northern temperate zone (Hather, Mason eds. 2002), which represents a significant 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 sufficient when dealing with pre-agricultural societies. Secondly, most importantly, the identification 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 identification 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 identified. 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 reflection 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 reflected 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 (Filipovi. 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 fibres 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 identified by scanning electron microscopy (e.g. Hather 1991; 1993; 2000; Holden et al. 1995; Kubiak-Martens 1996; 1999; 2002; 2008; Perry 1999). Therefore, a modification 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 difficult to estimate the contribution of plants to the Mesolithic diet. The extent and significance 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, fish, 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
