Food evidence from biomolecular analysis of pottery remains

As we have been commenting, there are different approaches available to study food in the Neolithic. The transition from fishing, hunting and gathering to agriculture and live-stock was one of the deepest transitions in human history, with far-reaching conse-quences for biodiversity, human health and cultural development. One of the most com-mon material evidences of the communities that carried out all these changes are ce-ramic products. Research into these artefacts now allows us to have a great deal of in-formation, from the formal characteristics of the containers to the specific use of pot-tery. This is where, based on the determination of the organic residue that may eventu-ally have been preserved and which is the testimony of the different activities (culinary, storage, production, etc.) in which they would have been used (Fanti et al. 2018; Vieugué et al. 2016), we intend to broaden our knowledge of culinary patterns and the consump-tion of food products during the Neolithic.

47

The identification of subcutaneous animal fats has been widely documented in ceramics since the beginning of Neolithic in the Near East (Richard P. Evershed et al. 2008a; Gregg

& Slater, 2010a; Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2015; Spiteri et al. 2016). From the 7th millennium BC this pattern extends across Europe. Processed animal fats are identified in ceramic containers in the southeast, in Greece (Richard P. Evershed et al. 2008a; Spiteri et al.

2016)(Urem-Kotsou et al. 2014), Bulgaria (Vieugué et al. 2008), Hungary (Richard P.

Evershed et al. 2008b) or Romania (Oliver E. Craig et al. 2005)(Craig et al. 2008); in the central Mediterranean they are documented in Italy (Salque et al. 2012a; Spiteri et al.

2016), Croatia (Spiteri et al. 2016), Slovenia (Soberl et al. 2014; Šoberl et al. 2008); and in central Europe, in Germany (Salque et al. 2012a), Czech Republic (Matlova et al. 2017) and Poland (Salque et al. 2013).

The ubiquity of these substances reflects an intense consumption of materials of animal origin in the Neolithic (Regert et al. 1999), particularly in ceramics, either because they have been used to cook meat or to extract bone marrow (Gregg, 2009).

Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) and non-ruminants (pigs) seem to have been equally exploited in ceramics at the beginning of the Neolithic, in the different regions of the eastern Mediterranean (Oliver E. Craig et al. 2005). From the published results, there appears to be a transformation in processing preference towards ruminant fats, con-sistent with the predominant ovicaprine remains of faunistic sets (Manning et al.

2013)(Rowlew-Conwy et al. 2013), with some exceptions in Italy and Germany (Salque et al. 2012a). This restricted register of non-ruminant fats is repeated in northern Eu-rope, despite the good documentation available on pig farming from faunal remains (Manning et al. 2013). It is not until the British Neolithic that the presence of pig fat documented in ceramic containers becomes evident (Craig et al. 2015; Mukherjee et al.

2008)(Coopley et al. 2005). This bias in pig representation may be due to the underesti-mation of this type of fat when mixed (Regert, 2011), which would lead to over-quanti-fication of other species to the detriment of the pig. In this respect, solid reference mod-els are needed to help better understand the interpretation of the fats detected and the possible mixing of these fats.

48

In the Iberian Peninsula the record is smaller, but the few published papers indicate a predominant processing of ruminant fats (Debono Spiteri, 2012; Tarifa, 2015)(Breu 2019), compared to a consumption of non-ruminants around 35% of identified fats, as in Caserna de Sant Pau (Breu 2019), Guixeres de Vilobí (Breu 2019), La Serreta (Breu 2019), Cova de la Font Major (Breu 2019), Cova de la Guineu (Breu 2019) and Cueva de El Toro (Tarifa-Mateo et al. 2019).

The crossing of biomolecular results with the shape of the container can not only provide information about the use of the pots but can also inform us about how the identified product was processed. Among the few studies that have been able to establish a link between content and function of pottery (Salque et al. 2013; Soberl et al. 2014), rumi-nant fat was interpreted in a container for storage or transport of liquids as a water-proofing agent (Salque et al. 2013).

Also significant is the percentage of fat from dairy products that is identified throughout Europe in the containers found from the oldest Neolithic strata. Detection of dairy prod-ucts by biomolecular analysis in ceramics has shed light on our understanding of animal domestication (Oliver E. Craig et al. 2005; Spiteri et al. 2016; Vigne & Helmer, 2007). As mentioned above, this process of neolithization, which accompanied the domestication and exploitation of resources such as dairy products, developed with different intensi-ties in the territory. This is reflected in the presence of milk in the ceramics of the differ-ent archaeological sets studied (Oliver E. Craig et al. 2005; Drieu, 2017; Salque et al.

2013, 2012a; Soberl et al. 2014; Spiteri et al. 2016). In the Iberian Peninsula, the pres-ence of dairy products has been verified from the detection of lipids by mass spectrom-etry (Yañez et al. 2008) and recent studies applying isotopic lipid analysis have confirmed milk production in Can Sadurní (Spiteri et al. 2016), Reina Amàlia (Breu 2019), Sant Pau del Camp (Breu 2019), Guixeres de Vilobí (Breu 2019), Cova del Vidre (Breu 2019) and El Cavet (Breu 2019) and Cueva de El Toro (Tarifa-Mateo et al. 2019).

Ceramic containers would have participated from the acquisition and processing of dairy products to their consumption in the different stages of production. Thus, milk products

49

have been identified in vessels with characteristic elements for the transport of liquids, such as the spout pot of Cueva de El Toro (Tarifa-Mateo et al. 2019), or the cheesemak-ers of the LBK culture (Salque et al. 2013). These products have also been identified with evidence of processing with fire (Carrer et al. 2016a; Oliver E. Craig et al. 2005; Regert, 2011), related to the production of dairy products such as yoghurt or cheese (Richard P.

Evershed et al. 2008a).

Remarkable is the evidence of the persistence of mesolithic fishing practices along with evidence of processing of domestic animal fats and ceramic dairy products from Japan (Craig et al. 2013; Lucquin, Gibbs, et al. 2016b) to northern Europe (Craig, 2004; Craig et al. 2007, 2011; Cramp, Evershed, et al. 2014; Isaksson & Hallgren, 2012; Oras et al. 2017).

This biomarker of marine resources at Mesolithic/Neolithic sites led the Craig team to use them as markers to discuss the neolithic transition in northern Europe (Craig et al.

2011). On the other hand, aquatic resources are little processed in Neolithic site from the Mediterranean area (Debono Spiteri, 2012; Drieu, 2017). These results are well cor-related with isotopic analyses on human bones showing an absence of these products in diets during the Neolithic (Le Bras-Goude et al. 2006; Lelli et al. 2012; Lightfoot et al.

2011; Richards & Hedges, 1999). In post-Early Neolithic chronologies, there are no sig-nificant changes in the fats processed in ceramic containers, but the percentage of fats in domestic animals and the processing of dairy products are consolidated in all regions of the continent.

With respect to vegetable resources, the analysis of organic residues in ceramics pre-sents interpretative and preservation limitations. Even so, vegetable oils and epicuticu-lar waxes have been reported in a epicuticu-large number of European neolithic sites (Craig, 2004;

Debono Spiteri, 2012; Ogrinc et al. 2012; Regert et al. 2003; Soberl et al.

2014)(Decavallas 2011, Raemaekers et al. 2013). These products are often found mixed with animal fats and are interpreted as culinary mixtures, such as those interpreted in the Iberian Peninsula (Juan-Tresserras 2004).

50

51

Chapter II. Materials