Materials and methods

A total number of 47 samples were taken (see. Fig. III.1). Of these, only 26 were reliably ascribed to one of the phases with which we are dealing in this work. One sample, A-9A2, belonged to the Early Neolithic phase but it was not in a context of clear anthropogenic origin and its interpretation remains problematic at the present state of research. Two samples (A-3B12 and AE-3A3) were dated to the Iron Age and, consequently, they were not incorporated into this analysis. Finally, one further sample (A-3B9) was dated to the Middle Ages, for which it was also not included in the analysis. Among the samples of unknown origin, it should be admitted that some samples were wrongly labelled during sieving works. These were equally not dealt with in any of the forthcoming analyses. None of these omitted samples contained significant numbers of plant macroremains (in total, ten items, of which only 6 were identifiable; see Fig.

III.2).

152

Most of the analysed contexts were only described as occupation layers, meaning an amalgam of residues of different actions of anthropogenic origin. Contexts where large pieces of charcoal were observed during excavation were described as charcoal-rich layers.

As mentioned in chapter 3.2.1.1. (Fig. 3.21), a probabilistic sampling strategy was applied at the site.

Around 20% of the sediment from all contexts was sampled and different volumes per context were obtained (Fig. 4.1). In total, nearly 800 litres of sediment were processed. Half of the samples were of less than 18 litres of volume, some samples were of between 20 and 60 litres and only one sample was of 155,50 litres (A-8A4). As mentioned before, the volume of the samples especially affects the chances of having represented seeds and fruits of large size. The botanical diversity represented in larger samples could be larger for a simple matter of probability. At this point it must be mentioned, though, that the location of Sardo Cave made it really difficult or even impossible for the archaeological team to sample much larger volumes of sediment.

The first samples that were analysed from this site were processed by water-screening, using sieve mesh sizes of 1 mm and 0,5 mm. A total of 37 litres were processed and it was rapidly observed that the extraordinary richness of charcoal remains at the site made the use of a flotation machine of absolute need.

The remaining samples were processed through this system (see chapter 3.2.2. for futher details).

Fig. 4.1. Histogram of the volume of sediment treated per context at Sardo Cave.

4.1.4. Results

A total number of 136 items were recovered from the site, considering all 4 phases of occupation (one during the Late Early Neolithic, two during the Middle Neolithic and one during the Late Neolithic). These are not quantitatively significant. For this reason, results are also not discussed at a context level. The total results per context are presented in Fig. III.2. Here, data were grouped per context type and layer for a qualitative approach to the obtained results (Fig. 4.2).

Fifteen taxa were identified (Fig. 4.2). Two taxa belong to cultivated plants, more specifically, cereals:

Hordeum vulgare var. nudum and Triticum aestivum/durum/turgidum. Weeds and ruderals are represented by two taxa: Galium aparine subsp. aparine and Galium aparine subsp. spurium. Three taxa grow in woodland edges and clearings: Rubus fruticosus, Rubus idaeus and Sambucus cf. racemosa. The woodland taxa can be grouped into taxa from open deciduous woodland, like Corylus avellana and Cornus sanguinea,

153

deciduous woodlands from valley bottoms, like Prunus padus; and coniferous woodlands: Abies alba and Pinus silvestris. Other taxa were just not possible to ascribe to any ecological group (cf. Asteraceae,

Fig. 4.2. Results of the seed and fruit analysis of Sardo Cave: identified taxa, part represented and ecological group (see abbreviations in chapter 3.2.7.). The results were amalgamated per type of context

(ch-rich: charcoal rich layer; occup.: occupational layer; stones: circles of stones) and chronological phase.

Phase 8, dated to c. 4800-4400 cal BC corresponds to the Late Early Neolithic phase. Three types of structures were identified (Fig. 4.2): occupational layers, charcoal-rich layers and (hearth-type) circles of stones. The composition of each type of feature is slightly different. Occupational layers mainly contain

154

woodland taxa or plants from woodland edges. The circle of stones only contained one fragment of hazelnut.

Within the charcoal-rich layer, several potentially consumed plants were found: naked barley, Corylus avellana and Prunus padus. Galium aparine subsp. spurium was also identified.

A rather similar spectrum was observed in the next phase (Phase 7), corresponding to the first half of the IVth millennium cal BC (Middle Neolithic phase). No cultivars were identified within the seed and fruit record, but other potential ruderals were encountered, like some small legumes (Vicia sp.). No significant difference was detected between the different types of features.

During Phase 6, dated towards the end of the IVth millennium cal BC (Middle Neolithic phase), a completely opposed pattern of spatial distribution of the plant remains to that observed in layer 8 was found.

Occupational layers include remains of cultivated plants (naked wheat), some potential ruderals, like Galium aparine subsp. spurium and taxa from woodland edges (Rubus fruticosus, R. idaeus). Hazelnuts and fruits of Cornus sanguinea were retrieved from charcoal-rich layers.

In the last Neolithic occupation, during 2900 and 2500 cal BC (Phase 5), a larger number of coniferous plant macroremains (fragments of needles) were recovered, along with other taxa that had also been identified in other layers of the site (Galium aparine, Rubus sp., etc.).

The state of preservation of the material was good, even though hazelnuts were heavily fragmented (around 50% of the fragments of shell measured less than 4 mm²) and cereal grains were relatively badly preserved.

Densities remained below 1 item per litre (r/l).

4.1.5. Discussion

4.1.5.1. Why was the site so poor in seed and fruit remains? Settlement nature, taphonomic or methodological reasons?

Preservation by charring is complex and many factors influence the type and quantity of charred plant macroremains that are recovered in a soil sample. A priori, Sardo Cave could have yielded much more quantitatively significant results. Several possibilities should be considered to explain the paucity of recovered remains in our analysis.

One possible explanation could be that the occupations of the shelter were majorly short (overnight stays?) and that the role of plants within the diet (or the refuse originated by their consumption) during those stays was reduced to a minimum. The results of the systematic project of prospection of the area around Sardo Cave can relatively reliably discard the existence of any large important site from the same chronology (Rodríguez-Antón 2011). As a result, it is unlikely that Sardo cave only had a secondary or specialized role within the economy of a group that was settled in the vicinities. In that case, the question is: was it only occupied for short periods or did some groups stay for long periods (over a year)? The archaeological record preserved supports at least slightly longer occupations. The space seems to be clearly structured in each dwelling phase (see chapter 3.1.1.3.) and some recurrent patterns are observed in the productive behaviour of each group in all settlement phases (Gassiot et al. 2012a). Phase 8, the oldest one, appears to be one of the more intense and long-lasting episodes. Phase 7 seems to be the result of a series of short-term occupations.

Phase 6 could have been of larger significance and duration, since a dwelling structure of c. 15 m² was built at the front of the cave. This phase is contemporary to most of the known occupations close to the National

155

Park of Aigüestortes. The last Neolithic phase of occupation is phase 5, which seems to be of much more intermittent nature, similar to Phase 7 (Gassiot et al. 2012a). In such a context it is significant that cultivars appeared in the two settlement phases that seem to belong to long-term occupations (phases 8 and 6).

Besides, none of the occupations seem to be of specialized nature, for which one should assume that a relatively wide variety of productive and reproductive activities could have taken place at the site. Whatever the case may be, other explanations must be considered to explain the relative absence of seed and fruit remains in the record of the site.

A second possibility would be that the charring conditions were not appropriate enough for the preservation of plant macroremains other than charcoal. That possibility exists but it is unlikely. The preservation of the charred material (e.g. charcoal) at the site is of excellent quality and very abundant. One would tend to think that more seed and fruit remains should have survived under such conditions.

Then, a third possibility must be faced. The consumed plant foods could have not been processed with fire and, as a result, very few traces of their consumption would have remained the site. This is always a possibility, especially for some fruits like hazelnuts, but it also sounds unlikely for other plant foods, like cereals.

One further taphonomic issue should not be discarded. The large number of charcoal fragments that were recovered outside the combustion structures at the site is probably the result of an intensive cleaning of these structures. One should not discard the possibility that the repeated cleaning of the dwelling area displaced most of the plant macroremains. These were consequently exposed to several processes of erosion and transport (downslope) and, eventually, only a very small part of them were recovered during the excavation of the site (mainly the larger and heavier items). This possibility, together with some of the previously outlined ones, seems to be the most plausible at the present state of research.

Finally, the applied sampling strategy ought to be considered, since one cannot discard the possibility that it had some impact on the final number of recovered items. As mentioned above, more than half of the samples were of less than 20 litres of volume of sediment. In order to evaluate the efficiency of sampling strategy, I compared the number of identified items, the number of taxa and the volume taken both per context (Fig. 4.3) and per amalgamated group of contexts and chronology (Fig. 4.4). The first graph shows that the number of items and taxa is low in all contexts. The second graph shows a more interesting tendency, which is that only those amalgamated contexts that add together more than 50 litres show an increase in the number of items and taxa recovered. This number seems not to grow much despite raising the processed volume above this threshold. This could mean that it is likely that the taxonomic diversity is low at the site, and that the density of items is also very low, but that somewhat larger volumes could have produced better results. However, very large samples like the one of A-8A4 did not produce, proportionally, much better data, for which it was probably not necessary to process such a large number of litres. In conclusion, the probabilistic sampling strategy applied in Sardo Cave may have not allowed the recovery of all the taxa present in all types of context. Volumes of around 80 litres per type of context might have yielded better results. Nonetheless, this sampling strategy was not responsible for the meagre results obtained for this site.

156

Fig. 4.3. Number of taxa and volume of sediment processed per context in Sardo Cave.

Fig. 4.4. Number of taxa and volume of sediment processed per type of context and chronology in Sardo Cave (see abbreviations in Fig. 4.3).

4.1.5.2. Was agriculture practiced in high mountain areas during the Neolithic?

The scanty results obtained at Sardo Cave can only be evaluated at a qualitative level. Despite this, one interesting issue can be raised from these data. Are the cereal grains recovered in phases 8 and 6 evidences of high mountain agricultural practices? Otherwise, were they transported from a base camp? Or obtained through trade?

Phase 8, dated to the first half of the Vth millennium cal BC, was interpreted as a relatively long occupation, just like phase 6 (3300-3100 cal BC). Naked barley was identified in a charcoal-rich layer of phase 8, and naked wheat was recovered in an occupational layer from phase 6. Both barley and naked wheat could grow as cultivars at such altitudes, but the number of recovered items is so low that one cannot argue in favour of any of the possible interpretations from above, based only on the plant macroremains.

According to F. Burjachs, cereal pollen was not identified at the site (Gassiot et al. 2012b). However, recent results from the use-wear analyses carried out on knapped lithic tools from the site revealed that sickle

1   10   100   1000  

Volume  (l.)   Nr.  items   Nr.  taxa  

1   10   100   1000  

stones  

LEN   pit  MN1   occup.  

LEN   ch-­‐rich  

MN2   occup.  

MN2   occup.  

LN   occup.  

MN1   ch-­‐rich   LEN  

Volume  (l.)   Nr.  items   Nr.  taxa  

157

blades were present and, consequently, it is possible that cereals were not only consumed at the site but also cultivated, harvested and processed (N. Mazzucco et al., oral com.; Gassiot, pers.com.). Nevertheless, one should take care when interpreting this evidence, since most of the tools found at the site were brought from elsewhere (due to the lack of appropriate lithic resources around the cave) (Gassiot et al. 2012a), where they could have been used for different purposes (including harvesting). At the present state of research, no definite conclusions can be proposed.

4.1.5.3. Wild fruit exploitation at Sardo Cave

Among the wild taxa, several edible fruits were identified. A compilation of the different traditional uses of the identified taxa is presented in Fig. 4.5. Six taxa have edible fruits, or other aerial plant parts, while four of them have medicinal uses. According to the PFAF database, only three taxa have real edible value and all have some medicinal properties.

Fig. 4.5. Ethnobotanically known uses among the plants that were identified in the seed and fruit record of Sardo Cave and edible and medicinal ranks for each taxon (from www.pfaf.org).

During Phase 8, the only clearly edible fruits are hazelnuts. They are present in all of the types of contexts shown in Fig. 4.2. Hazel wood was used for fuel during this phase (Obea et al. 2011) but it is unlikely that its fruits were not consumed, especially given their relatively ubiquitous presence at the site. It is difficult to tell, though, whether they were processed before consumption or whether they were eaten raw. The low number of recovered items, along with the lack of clear roasting pits at the site could be interpreted as a support for the latter possibility. Besides, roasting is usually practiced to facilitate storage and it is possible that storage practices were not necessary if the settlement was not completely permanent. Other fruits were also identified, like Prunus padus. Bird cherries are certainly not poisonous but they have a disagreeable flavour (Dallimore 1914), for which some processing is required (Mears & Hillman 2007). The leaves are toxic to goats, which makes it unlikely that this fruit reached the site due to grazing practices. In any case, one should not rule out the possibility that this fruit was accidentally burned when using branches of this

158

taxon as fuel. The only recovered fruit stone was found in a charcoal-rich layer, which could support this hypothesis. The use of wood of Prunus sp. as fuel is attested on the results of the charcoal analyses (Obea et al. 2011).

In Phase 7, Rubus fruticosus, Corylus avellana and Pinus sylvestris were identified and one could interpret that they were gathered and consumed for alimentary purposes, The low number of items retrieved does not allow anything more than speculations. It must be noted, though, that only a cone scale of scots pine was recovered, not the shell of the kernel or the kernel itself. Thus, if these fruits were eaten, this cone scale would be the residue obtained after extracting the kernels from the pine cones. Besides, one should consider that cones of Pinus sylvestris could have also arrived to the site to be used as fuel or along with its wood, which was probably gathered as fuel rather frequently, given its representation in the charcoal record of the layer (Obea et al. 2011). Furthermore, one should note that the chances for a seed of Rubus idaeus or R.

fruticosus to get charred after consumption are very low, unless one burns dung. Their seeds are very small and eaten without noticing. Thus, the recovered remains might be indicating a frequent consumption of this fruit.

A similar situation is observed in phase 6, where only raspberry and hazelnut were identified as potentially consumed taxa. In phase 5 only an unidentified specimen of Rubus sp. was retrieved. In both cases it is difficult to establish their anthropogenic origin based only on the seed and fruit record.

Other wild plants were recovered along the different occupations. The two different sub-species of Galium aparine that were identified were probably brought to the site by animals, since these fruits can very easily stick to their hairs, and maybe grew in front of the shelter, where rubbish and dung would potentially accumulate. Consequently, they could have accidentally got burnt. Finally, a relatively large number of fragments of needle of silver fir and other coniferous were identified along the stratigraphy at the site. These taxa were present in the surroundings of the settlement, especially during the Late Neolithic, when an increase of the pollen record of this taxon is observed (Gassiot et al. 2012b). Abies is not recorded in the charcoal record (Obea et al. 2011), for which other uses of this taxon might be speculated (bedding?).