Neolithic Farming in Central Europe: an Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Practices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NEOLITHIC FARMING IN CENTRAL EUROPE Neolithic Farming in Central Europe examines the nature of the earliest crop cultivation, a subject that illuminates the lives of Neolithic farming families and the day to day reality of the transition from hunting and gathering to farming. Debate surrounding the nature of crop husbandry in Neolithic central Europe has focused on the permanence of cultivation, its intensity and its seasonality, variables that carry different implications for Neolithic society. Amy Bogaard reviews the archaeological evidence for four major competing models of Neolithic crop husbandry – shifting cultivation, extensive plough cultivation, floodplain cultivation and intensive garden cultivation – and evaluates charred crop and weed assemblages. Her conclusions identify the most appropriate model of cultivation, and highlight the consequences of these agricultural practices for our understanding of Neolithic societies in central Europe. Amy Bogaard is Lecturer in Archaeological Science at the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham. Her main research interests are early farming practices and archaeobotany. i ii NEOLITHIC FARMING IN CENTRAL EUROPE An archaeobotanical study of crop husbandry practices Amy Bogaard iii First published 2004 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor &Francis or Routledge ’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © 2004 Amy Bogaard All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bogaard Amy, 1972– Neolithic Farming in Central Europe: an archaeobotanical study of crop husbandry practices. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Neolithic period—Europe, Central. 2. Bandkeramik culture—Europe, Central. 3. Agriculture—Europe, Central—Origin. 4. Agriculture, Prehistoric—Europe, Central. 5. Plant remains (Archaeology)—Europe, Central. 6. Europe, Central—Antiquities. I. Title. GN776.2.A1B64 2004 930—dc22 2003027487 ISBN 0-203-35800-7 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-66978-9 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-32485-8 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-32486-6 (pbk) iv TO MY EXTENDED FAMILY v vi CONTENTS List of figures viii List of tables xi Acknowledgements xiii Introduction 1 1 The study area and its archaeological background 10 2 Models of crop husbandry in Neolithic central Europe 21 3 The key variables of permanence, intensity and seasonality and their wider implications 50 4 Archaeobotanical, ecological and statistical methodology 60 5 Testing the four major crop husbandry models 96 6 Identification of separate ecological gradients and specific crop husbandry practices 115 7 Conclusions: Neolithic farming in central Europe 154 Notes 171 Bibliography 173 Index 202 vii FIGURES 1.1 Map showing the study area, which encompasses much of the loess belt (dark shading) and the Alpine Foreland 10 4.1 Map showing the location of archaeological sites from which the selected archaeobotanical samples derive 69 5.1 Histograms showing proportions of perennials in the archaeobotanical samples 97 5.2 Results of the discriminant analysis separating autumn- and spring-sown weed associations in Germany based on semi-quantitative data 100 5.3 The relationship of autumn-sown and spring-sown weed associations from Germany, Asturias plots and archaeobotanical samples to the discriminant function extracted to distinguish autumn- and spring-sown weed associations from Germany based on semi- quantitative data 102 5.4 The relationship of archaeobotanical samples from different processing stages to the discriminant function based on semi-quantitative data 103 5.5 Results of the discriminant analysis separating Evvia pulse gardens and fields based on semi-quantitative data 106 5.6 The relationship of Evvia pulse gardens and fields, Asturias plots and archaeobotanical samples to the discriminant function extracted to distinguish Evvia gardens and fields based on semi-quantitative data 107 5.7 The relationship of archaeobotanical samples from different processing stages to the discriminant function based on semi-quantitative data 108 6.1 Correspondence analysis plot of weed species in the glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples 117 6.2 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing the contribution of Phleum pratense L. 118 viii LIST OF FIGURES 6.3 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing the archaeological sites from which samples derive 119 6.4 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing the geographical regions from which samples derive 119 6.5 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing the period from which samples derive 120 6.6 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing life history 121 6.7 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing germination time 122 6.8 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing flowering onset/length 123 6.9 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing estimated epidermal cell endopolyploidy 124 6.10 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing length of the flowering period 126 6.11 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing vegetative spread 127 6.12 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing vegetative spread (perennials) and length of the flowering period (annuals) 128 6.13 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing mean canopy dimension 130 6.14 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing the weed size index 131 6.15 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing leaf area per node 132 6.16 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing leaf area per node:thickness 133 6.17 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing specific leaf area 133 6.18 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing guard cell length 135 6.19 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing stomatal density 136 6.20 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing the seed longevity index 137 6.21 Correspondence analysis plot of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples showing phytosociological class 138 ix LIST OF FIGURES 6.22 Schematic representation of major ecological trends in the correspondence analysis of glume wheat fine sieve by-product samples 139 6.23 Map showing sites with samples included in the correspondence analysis and their crop growing conditions 140 x TABLES 1.1 The chronological framework followed in this book 12 2.1 Experimental, historical and ethnographic data on cereal yields and archaeological estimates of crop and cultivated area requirements 23 2.2 Estimates of the cultivated area for a household of five (requiring 1,500 kg cereals per annum), assuming negligible deduction for seed corn 43 3.1 The relationship of the four major crop husbandry models to the three variables of permanence, intensity and seasonality 50 4.1 Simplification of crop identification categories 63 4.2 The archaeobotanical dataset selected, summarized by crop type and crop processing classification 67 4.3 Period, context and bibliographic information for the selected archaeobotanical samples 70 4.4 The standardized potential arable weed taxa and their frequency in selected samples 77 4.5 The major categories of functional attributes used and their ecological significance 79 4.6 Flowering onset/length classes 84 5.1 Woodland taxa in the archaeobotanical samples 98 5.2 The classification of archaeobotanical samples by the discriminant function extracted to distinguish weed associations from autumn- and spring-sown crops (Germany), showing samples classified with high and low probability 101 5.3 The classification of archaeobotanical samples, with Chenopodium album L. removed, by the discriminant function extracted to distinguish weed associations from autumn- and spring-sown crops (Germany), showing samples classified with high and low probability 104 xi LIST OF TABLES 5.4 The classification of archaeobotanical samples by the discriminant function extracted to distinguish pulse fields and gardens (Evvia), showing samples classified with high and low probability 106 5.5 The classification of archaeobotanical samples, with Chenopodium album L. removed, by the discriminant function extracted to distinguish pulse fields and gardens (Evvia), showing samples classified with high and low probability 109 5.6 Cross-tabulation of the classification of archaeobotanical samples by the semi-quantitative discriminant