Did Neanderthals eat inner bark?

Sandgathe, Dennis M. ; Hayden, Brian

Introduction

The recent publication of a series of modified, pointed mammoth ribs from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Salzgitter-Lebenstedt has raised several issues about Neanderthal mental and motor capabilities (Gaudzinsld 1999). No strong suggestions as to what these objects might have been used for have been put forward. We would like to suggest that these, and other bone, antler, and wooden items recovered from European Palaeolithic sites, may have been bark peelers used to procure inner bark from trees and that this was an early and widespread Palaeolithic activity.

Many modern and recently extant indigenous groups from the temperate regions of the globe have exploited the inner bark of certain tree species as a food and medicine. In ethnographic cases where data is available, the inner bark is collected following the removal of the outer bark, which is carried out with a simple pointed tool that was manufactured and maintained specifically for this purpose. It is noted here that the known illustrations and ethnographic examples of these tools are very similar in size and form to a number of artefacts recovered from Palaeolithic contexts in temperate Europe.

Ethnographic bark peeling

Inner bark is the living, growing material of a tree that is added each year between the inner woody trunk and the outer bark components. It is described in ethnographic accounts as either a staple, a supplement to more staple resources, starvation food, as a 'treat', or, for some tree species, as having medicinal value (Turner 1988). In addition, both the outer bark and inner bark of various deciduous and conifer trees have been used ethnographically as construction materials for such things as cordage and weaving materials for containers, clothing, and shelter. Bark is also a common food among the great apes and, based on this, Watanabe (1985:12) suggested that it could be expected that it was a common food resource among the early humans first moving into more temperate regions and among the classic Neanderthals of Europe. It would certainly be an attractive and abundant resource during the colder climatic periods, including the last glacial maximum in Europe.

Ethnographic evidence indicates that inner bark was exploited as a food resource all across the temperate globe. In North America it was used by pre-and post-European contact groups in the Pacific north-west (Eidlitz 1969; Turner 1975; People of the 'Ksan 1980; Turner & Hebda 1989; Gottesfeld 1992; Mobely & Eldridge 1992; Kuhnlein & Turner 1996), in the Interior Plateau region (Teit 1900; Morice 1910; Turner 1987), in the Plains (Swetnam 1984; Kuhnlcin & Turner 1996), in the American south-west (Swetnam 1984), in the eastern and sub-Arctic Woodlands (Kuhnlein &Turner 1996), and in the eastern Maritimes (Kuhnlein &Turner 1996). In Eurasia it is known to have been exploited by eastern Russian agricultural populations at least up to the late nineteenth century (Maack 1870; Krashninnikov 1972), and in Scandinavian regions (Eidlitz 1969; Airaksinen 1986; Niklasson 1994; Zackrisson et al. 2000).

Inner bark was typically collected in the spring and early summer when other resources were often in scarce supply or of poor nutritional quality (in many places the spring was a starvation period). It includes the (vascular) cambium and associated layers of non-woody tissues; in particular, secondary phloem. It forms between the secondary xylem (the inner tree wood) and the primary phloem (the innermost component of the outer bark layer) and these tissues develop from it (Figure 1) (Bowes 1996: 67; Larson 1994:67-68, 1982). Spring/ early summer is the time of year when this layer is forming and is still physically separate from the outer bark and the secondary xylem on either side of it. Toward the end of this season the inner bark layer quickly becomes tougher as it differentiates into the tougher primary phloem and secondary xylem tissues. When the bark is removed the inner bark is in the soft, moist stage and it is relatively easy to scrape from the surface of the tree or from the inner surface of the removed bark. It is typically scraped off with a small chisel-like tool (of wood, bone, antler, or metal) in long noodle-like strips. Initially these are rather sticky, gelatinous, and sweet tasting and were often eaten fresh, sometimes mixed with animal grease. They do, however, rapidly dry out and sour if left uneaten or unprocessed. If they were not eaten fresh they were commonly either boiled or baked (in earth ovens) and sometimes then pounded into a mouldable dough which could be dried for future use (People of the 'Ksan 1980; Turner 1975; Kuhnlein & Turner 1996).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Tree species that are known to have been exploited ethnographically in temperate North America for their inner bark include those listed in Table 1.

Species exploited in Eurasia include pine (Pinus sp.) (especially Scot's pine, Pinus sylvestris L.), larch (Larix sp.), and willow (Salix sp.)

Little mention is made in the ethnographies about the age or size of the trees exploited. Generally though, the bark of smaller, younger trees tends to be thinner, softer, and, therefore, easier to remove, but yields less inner bark for the effort than larger trees. Larger trees provide greater quantities of inner bark and also are more likely to require the use of a tool to aid in the removal of their bark.

Nutritional specifics

The acquisition of the resource requires that the tough outer bark layer of a tree be peeled back in order to expose the underlying inner bark layer. On the north-west coast of North America and among groups living in the interior plateau region of British Columbia, this was accomplished in the past with the use of a chisel-shaped or spatulated stick, bone or antler that could be wedged into a cut in the bark and then used to pry the bark back (for photos of traditional application of a bark peeler see Turner 1988:182, Figure 4; Hall 1986). While surviving illustrations of these tools indicate that they were not typically overly elaborate, they were apparently manufactured and retained for this specific use.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Some good, early ethnographic descriptions and illustrations of bark peelers come from James Teit who travelled among coastal and interior groups in the American north-west at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. He notes that among the Thompson people of the Interior "[T]o separate the bark from the tree, a short piece of horn or wood was used" (Teit 1900: 233). Among the Shushwap he says "[b]ark was stripped off trees with bark-peelers made of antler. A few of these were made of wood and horn" (Teit 1909: 515). The two bark peelers that Teit provides illustrations of (Figure 2) are both of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) antler.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Father A. G. Morice (1910: 423) described bark peelers used among the Dene of the British Columbia Interior as "the shoot of a cariboo horn". A native informant born in western Montana in 1879 described bark peelers used among the Kutenai there as "... a wooden pole, sharpened at one end ..." (Swemam 1984: 180).

The Provincial Museum of British Columbia has two bark peelers (made from caribou antler) collected from the central Interior of the province in the 1920s that very closely resemble the more elaborate of the two illustrated in Figure 2.

Hayden (2000, 1997) recovered a 1000+ year old, elk antler bark peeler during excavations at Keatley Creek, a prehistoric site in the British Columbia Interior (Figure 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

A few less-than-clear descriptions from European ethnographies are available as well. For bark removal in Sweden in the past, Eidlitz (1969:59) notes only that "[s]pecial implements were used for this purpose': Zackrisson et al. (2000:100) observe that among the Saami people in Sweden, "... the bark strip was ripen peeled from part of the tree using a broad bladed scraper with a handle". Airaksinen et al. (1986:275) describe bark removal during periods of famine in Finland "[a] cut was then made on the trunk with a knife and the whole bark cylinder was taken off carefully with a special tool made from a branch of pine or from reindeer antler".

The examples of bark peelers for which dimensions are available Fall within a narrow range of overall lengths. Teit's two illustrated examples are 49 and 44 cm in length. The two examples in the Provincial Museum of British Columbia collections are 52 and 46 cm in length, approximately 3 cm at the maximum width of the shafts, and 1.3 cm at the thickest part of the shafts. The Keatley Creek specimen is 41 cm in length, 4.7 cm in maximum width, and 2 cm in maximum thickness (see Figure 3).

Artefacts from Palaeolithic sites

Artefacts closely resembling ethnographic examples of bark peelers have been recovered from a number of different Palaeolithic sites or locales in north-western Europe.

Several wooden artefacts were recovered from the site of Schoningen in north-central Germany which has been placed between the Elsterian and Saalian glaciations. This would put the age of the site at around 400 000 years BE Among the wooden artefacts recovered was a 78 cm long spruce stick with a short taper at either end (Thieme 1997, 1999).

Located in north central Germany and excavated in 1952 and again in the 1970s, the site of Salzgitter-Lebenstedt has been placed at the Glinde Interstadial (c. 48-55 000 years ago). Among the artefacts recovered in the 1952 excavation were 25 bone and antler items. A dozen of these were mammoth ribs with one or two ends slightly modified to simple chisel-like or spatulate forms (e.g. Figure 4). These ranged between 40 and 70 cm in length. Another item was a portion of reindeer (caribou) antler, 55 cm in length, also displaying a crudely modified, wedge shaped tip (Tode 1982; Gaudzinski 1999).

The site of Predmosti, located in the Czech Republic, was occupied multiple times during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic periods, although the major occupation(s) appears to have been Upper Palaeolithic. Among the artefacts recovered in Upper Palaeolithic contexts were fifty or so bone tools (Valoch 1982). Among these are several fragments of modified mammoth rib that closely resemble the more intact examples recovered from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Valoch 1982:69). There are also several end fragments of tools which had been modified from mammoth ribs to have flattish chisel-shaped tips.

Several mammoth ribs, approximately 50 cm in length, were recovered in the early 1900s from a gravel pit near Duisberg, Germany. Based on their geologic context they are at least pre-Holocene in age (Tromnau 1982:198, Figure 1).

The site of Bilzingsleben, dated to 350-420 000 BP, is located in eastern Germany. Among the items recovered are a relatively large number of bone tools and several wood ones (Mania et al. 1999; Mania 1995; Mania et al. 1994). The researchers do not provide specific descriptions or illustrations of individual artefacts, but they do carry out a general classification of tool forms (if not functions). Among the wooden items recovered they describe "long rod-like tools" and among the bone tools they include a category of "dagger-like tools", which were formed from split bison and rhinoceros ulnae and include a "grip-like part" and a pointed tip. While these descriptions are unsatisfactory for comparison purposes here, it would be interesting to examine these items with the bark peeler interpretation in mind.

We have also noted several Upper Palaeolithic bone artefacts on exhibit in the Musee National de Prehistoire in Les Eyzies, France. These are, by tradition, referred to as 'lissoirs' (hide smoothers), but closely resemble the several ethnographic examples of bark peelers described above. The relatively complete ones range in length between 25 and 35 centimetres. The examples we have included here come from the French sites of Pech de la Boissiere and Laugerie Haute Est (Figure 5).

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Tree species available during the European Palaeolithic

Pollen records that extend back into the Middle Palaeolithic in Europe are few and far between. There are, however, several long records that have provided data on the Late Pleistocene in Western Europe. These include the Grande Pile peat bog in north-east France (Woillard 1978; J. Guiot et al. 1989; Pons et al. 1992; de Beaulieu & Reille 1992), Bouchct (Reille & de Beaulieu 1990) and Ribains (de Beaulieu & Reille 1992) in the Massif Central of France, and Les Echets in the Rhone Valley near Lyons, France (de Beaulieu & Reille 1984; J. Guiot et al. 1989; Pons et al. 1992).

While throughout the Palaeolithic, climatic variability often resulted in extremes of variability in the overall presence or absence of trees and the relative abundance of different tree species, pollen records from the Late Pleistocene indicate that during this period (130-35 000 BP) there were always a number of available species of trees whose inner bark has been exploited by more recent groups.

During colder, drier climatic periods when grasses and shrubs were the dominant vegetation, of the tree species that were present, pine was dominant. There were also some spruce and juniper, deciduous species like birch and willow, and lesser quantities of other conifer and deciduous species. During these periods when a more steppic biome was dominant, trees would likely have been most common in river valleys.

During the warmer and wetter periods, a mixed forest landscape was dominant in more southerly latitudes and boreal forests to the north. The mixed forests included oak, hazel, birch, pine, spruce, hornbeam, alder, elm, ash, and other less common species, both conifer and broad-leaved plants. The boreal forest would have included mainly pine, spruce, fir, juniper, birch, and willow species.

Alternative interpretations of the Palaeolithic artefacts

Two alternative interpretations have been suggested for some of the artefacts recovered from Palaeolithic sites. One of these, 'throwing stick', was suggested as a potential use for the wooden item recovered from Schoningen (Thieme 1997). We would argue that this particular artefact is too long (at 78cm) to be an effective throwing stick

A survey of the throwing sticks held it1 the collections at the American Museum of Natural History provides a range in lengths of 23cm to 74cm, with an average of 49cm. While there are notable exceptions (such as the Australian boomerang and throwing sticks used by some cultures in games), in general, throwing sticks are shorter, heavier sticks that are not sharpened at the ends and a re, in fact, usually rather blunt. The other Palaeolithic artefacts that we have mentioned do fall well within the range of lengths for throwing sticks, but, unlike throwing sticks, have all been sharpened to some degree at one or both ends and are all flattish and rather light to he effective as thrown weapons.

The second possible interpretation is that these tools were digging sticks. This is, in our opinion, a more viable alternative than the first one. There are, however, notable differences in the ethnographic record between typical digging sticks and the bark peelers for which we have information. Digging sticks seem to be universally made of wood and are typically long, around a metre in length and often longer (e.g. Lee 1979:123-24; Marshall 1976:99-100; Teit 1909:513). That they are typically made of wood may be, in part, because other materials (like antler) are not available in suitable lengths. The Schoningen artefact is made of wood (as were some ethnographic bark peelers), and is slightly longer than typical bark peelers and, so, may in fact be a digging stick.

Currently the only available analytical approaches that might indicate function for bone, antler, or wood tools would be residue analysis and use-wear analysis. However, considering the extreme ages of these Palaeolithic tools, the likelihood that any relevant residues would have survived seems remote at best. Some use-wear studies have been done with prehistoric tools of these materials with some success (e.g. LeMoine 1995). But LeMoine found that, even with assemblages of bone and ivory tools that were relatively recent (from Arctic sites with direct ties to specific historical groups), preservation of identifiable use-wear patterns was poor. Of the several site assemblages, all more or less contemporary, the one that was the best preserved still had a use-wear destruction rate of about 50 per cent. For items that are in the tens of thousands of years old, any wear patterns that might be observable must be considered unreliable.

Summary and implications for Palaeolithic research

Traditionally, general models of Palaeolithic subsistence have stressed the importance of animals, especially large mammals, in human diets. Some recent isotopic studies have supported this view for the Middle Palaeolithic in particular (e.g. Richards et al 2000; Bocherens 1999). Even with respect to the Upper Palaeolithic, for which the evidence suggests a broadening of subsistence behaviours, large mammals are still seen as the dominant source of food. Evidence for the use of plant foods is scarce, either because they were a relatively minor dietary component or else because their remains simply do not survive well. However, it must be generally accepted that plants would have played some role in human diets throughout the Palaeolithic periods, and perhaps a critical caloric role.

Inner bark is an easily obtained, nutritious resource, available specifically during the critical spring season. It requires little in the way of preplanning in order to exploit and, while it does require specific tools, these are very simple in form and relatively easy to make.

Considering how common the uses of inner and outer bark are ethnographically, it seems reasonable that the collection of the former for food and the latter for a construction material (and possibly medicine) would also have been common in the Palaeolithic. This is especially so for inner bark during colder climatic episodes when other potential food plants would have been less abundant and conifers were more abundant. It is also reasonable to expect to find artefacts in Palaeolithic sites that closely resemble the tools used by modern and more recent prehistoric people for removing the bark from trees. The only potential limitation on the exploitation of this resource would have been the availability of suitable tree species, which does not appear to have been an issue in Palaeolithic Western Europe.

Table 1. Tree species exploited in North America

Black Pine Dougl. Pinus contorta
Yellow Pine Lawson Pinus ponderosa
Jack Pine Lamb Pinus banksiana
Nut Pine Engelm Pinus albicaulus
Sitka Spruce Bongard Picea sitchensis
Douglas Fir, Mirbel (Franco) Pseudotsuga menziesii
Western Hemlock Raf. (Sarg.) Tsuga heterophylla
Eastern Hemlock L. (Carr.) Tsuga canadensis
Balsam Fir L. (Miller) Abies balsamea
Cottonwood Torr. & Gray Populus trichocarpa
Balsam Poplar L Populus balsamifera
Trembling Aspen L. Populus tremuloides
Large-Toothed Aspen Michx. Populus grandidentata
Red Alder Bongard Alnus rubra
Paper Birch Marsh Betula papyrifera
Scrub Birch Betula glandulosa.
Red Cedar D. Don Thuja plicata

Table 2

Cambium of Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) (/100g fresh weight)

103 kcal. 202mg calcium
70.0g water 11.6mg magnesium
2.3g protein 1.6mg zinc
0.6g fat 2.5mg iron
25.9g carbohydrates 1.1g ash
 (Kuhnlein &
 Turner 1996)

Inner bark of Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) (/100g fresh weight)

27 kcal 1.5g crude fibre 10.0mg calcium
92.0g water 0.8g ash 39.0mg phosphorus
0.2g protein 0.3mg iron 8.0mg magnesium
0.5g fat 0.4mg copper 0.1mg manganese
6.3g carbohydrates 0.4mg zinc
 (Kuhnlein &
 Turner 1996)

Inner bark of Scrub Birch (Betula glandulosa) (/100g fresh weight)

43.0g water 14.0g carbohydrates
3.1g protein 11.0mg vitamin C
 (Kuhnlein &
 Turner 1996)

Inner bark of Black or Scrub Pine (Pinus contorta)

1.1% reducing sugar 2.4% protein
2.1% non-reducing sugar 2.3% ash
23.7% hemicellulose

 (Yanovsky &
 Kingsbury 1938)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the collections staff at the Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria for allowing access to the bark peelers in their collections, and to the collections staff of the Musee Nationale de Prehistoire in Les Eyzies de Tayac, France for allowing us to include images of artefacts in their collections. In particular a thanks is extended to Philippe Jugie of the Museum at Les Eyzies for providing such excellent photos of these images. Sabine Gaudzinski kindly allowed us to use her figures of bone tools from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. A thank you also to one of the anonymous reviewers for helping to clarify the niceties of tree anatomy and its terminology.

References

AIRAKSINEN, M.M., P. PEURA, L. ALA-Foss-SALOKANGAS, S. ANTERE, J. LUKKARINEN, M. SAIKKONEN & F. STENBACK. 1986. Toxicity of Plant Material Used as Emergency Food During Famines in Finland. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 18:273-96

AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. Museum Collections. Online: http://anthro.amnh.org (accessed: January 2002).

BEAULIEU, J.-L. DE & M. REILLE. 1992. The Last Climatic Cycle at La Grand Pile (Vosges, France): A New Pollen Profile. Quaternary Science Reviews Vol. 11: 431-38.

--1984. A Long Upper Pleistocene Pollen Record from Les Echets, near Lyon, France. Boreas 13:111-132.

BOCHERENS, NERVE. 1999. Reconstruction of Neanderthal diet using bone collagen carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes. Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Survival Strategies. (ed. Herbert Ullrich). Gelsenkirchen: Edition Archaea.

BOWES, BRYAN G. 1996. A Colour Atlas of Plant Structure. Manson Publishing Ltd. London.

EIDILITS, KESRSTIN. 1969. Food and emergency food in the circumpolar area. Studia Ethnographica Upsalienia XXXII, Sweden.

GAUDZINSKI, SABINE. 1999. Middle Palaeolithic bone took from the open-air site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). Journal of Archaeolagical Science 26:125-41.

GOTTESFELD, Leslie M. JOHNSON. 1992. The importance of bark products in the Aboriginal economies of northwestern British Columbia, Canada. Economic Botany 46(2) 148-57.

GUIOT, J., A. PONS, J-L. DR BEAULIEU & M. RIELLE. 1989. A 140,000 Year Continental Reconstruction from Two European Pollen Records. Nature 338:309-13.

HALL, ED (ed). 1986. Making a spruce bark canoe. A Way of Life. Northwest Territories Renewable Resources.

HARDEN, BRIAN. (ed). 2000. The ancient past of Keatley Creek. Volume II: Socioeconomy. Burnaby: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.

--1997. The pithouses of Keatley Creek. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

KRASHNINNIKOV S. P. 1972. Explorations of Kamchatka. Report of a Journey Made to Explore Eastern Siberia in 1735-41. Portland: Oregon Historical Society.

KUHNLEIN, HARIET V. & NANCY J. TURNER. 1996. Traditional Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples. Canada: Gordon and Breach Publishers.

LARSON, PHILIP R. 1994. The Vascular Cambium: development and structure. Springer Series in Wood Science. New York: Springer-Verlag.

LEE, RICHARD BORSHAY. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

LEMOINE, GENEVIEVE. 1995. Use wear analysis on bone and antler tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR international series 679. Oxford: Archaeopress.

MAACK RICHARD. 1870. Description of Vilyuiskii Okrug ([Yakut] people of the Vilyui River area of Sahka [Yakutia]) c. 1870. Saint Petersburg, Tip. Vulfa.

MANIA, URSULA. 1995. The Utilisation of Large Mammal Bones in Bilzingsleben: A Special Variant of Middle Pleistocene Man's Relationship to his Environment. in Man and Environment in the Palaeolithic. (ed.H. Ullrich): 239-46. Liege: E.R.A.U.L. 62.

MANIA, D, U. MANIA & E. VLCEK. 1999. The Bilzingsleben Site: Homo erectus, his Culture and his Ecosphere. Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Survival Strategies. (ed. Herbert Ullrich.) Gelsenkirchen: Edition Archaea.

--1994. Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia). Naturwissenschaften 81:123-27.

MARSHALL, LORNA. 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

MOBELY, CHARLES M. & MORLEY ELDRIDGE. 1992. Culturally Modified Trees in the Pacific Northwest. Arctic Anthropology 29 (2) 91-110

MORICE, A. G. 1910. The Great Dene Race. Anthropos Ephemeris Internationalis Ethnologica et Linguistica. Vol. 5

NIKLASSON, M., O. ZACKRISSON & L. OSTLUND). 1994. A Dendrochronological Reconstruction of Use by Saami of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Inner Bark Over the Last 350 Years at Sadvajaure, N. Sweden. Vegetational History and Archaeobotany 3:183-190.

PONS, A., J. GUIOT, J-L. DE BEAULIEU & M. REILL E. 1992. Recent Contributions to the Climatology of the Last Glacial-Interglacial Cycle Based on French Pollen Sequences. Quaternary Science Reviews 11:439-448

PEOPLE OF THE 'KSAN. 1980. Gathering What Nature Provided: Food Traditions of the Gitksan. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.

REILLE, M & J. L. DE BEAULIEU. 1990. Pollen Analysis of a Long Upper Pleistocene Continental Sequence in a Velay Maar (Massif Central, France). Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 80: 35-48.

RICHARDS, MICHAEL P, PAUL B. PETTIT, ERIK TRINKHAUS, FRED H. SMITH, MAJA PAUNIVIC IVOR KARAVANIC. 2000. Neanderthal Diet at Vindija and Neanderthal Predation: The Evidence from Stable Isotopes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, 13: 7663-7666.

SWETNAM, THOMAS W. 1984. Peeled Pondorosa Pine "Frees: A Record of Inner Bark Utilization by Native Americans. Journal of Ethnology 4(2) 177-90

TEIT, JAMES A. 1900. The Thompson Indians of British Columbia, The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Part IV. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. II.

--1909. The Shuswap. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Part VII. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. II.

THIEME, HARTMUT. 1999. Lower Palaeolithic Throwing Spears and Other Wooden Implements from Schoningen, Germany. Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Survival Strategies. (ed. Herbert Ullrich). Gelsenkirchen: Edition Archaea.

--1997. Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany. Nature 385:807-10.

TODE, ALFRED. 1982. Der Altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Teil I, Archaologischer Teil, Koln: Bohlau Verlag.

TROMNAU, G. 1982. Fine bearbeitete Mammutrippe aus den Rheinkiesen bet Duisburg. Festschrifit fur Rudolf Stampfub (ed.G. Krause): 197-201. Bonn: Hebelt Verlag.

TURNER, NANCY J. 1988. Ethnobotany of Coniferous Trees in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish of British Columbia. Economic Botany 42(2) 177-194

--1975. Food Planu of British Columbia Indians. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

TURNER, NANCY J. & RICHARD J. HEBRA. 1989. Contemporary Use of Bark for Medicine by Two Salishan Native Elders of Southeast Vancouver Island, Canada. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 29:59-72

VALOCH, KAREL 1982. Die Beingerate von Predmosti in Mahren (Czechoslovakia). Anthropologie XX (l) 57-69

WATANABE, HITOSHI. 1985. The Chopper-Chopping Tool Complex of Eastern Asia: An Ethnographical-Ecological Re-examination. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:1-8

WOILLARD, GENEVIEVE M.1978. Grande Pile Peat Bog: A Continuous Pollen Record for the Last 140,000 Years. Quaternary Research 9:1-21

YANOVSKY & KINGSBURY. 1938. Analyses of Some Indian Food Plants. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 21:648-65.

ZACKRISSON, O., L OSTLUND, O. KORHONEN & I. BERGMAN, 2000. The Ancient Use of Pinus sylvestri L. (Scots Pine) Inner Bark by Sami People in Northern Sweden, Related to Cultural and Ecological Factors. Vegetational History and Archaeobotany 9:99-109

Dennis M. Sandgathe * (1) & Brian Hayden (*)

* Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. VSA-1S6, Canada 1 (Email: dmsandga@sfu.ca)