USE OF PLANTS IN THE EUROPEAN PALAEOLITHIC
Introduction
This paper summarizes the evidence for the use of wood and other plant materials during the Palaeolithic of western Europe. It is not intended to be an exhaustive catalogue of examples, nor does it overlook the obvious fact that use of plants will have varied enormously through both space and time according to needs and availability. However, we hope to demonstrate that a surprisingly wide range of direct and indirect clues remain which can help to assess the role played by these perishable materials in the Palaeolithic.
Wood
The use of wooden posts in the construction of frames for dwellings (tents or houses) is well attested for the Palaeolithic (e.g., see Gábori-Csánk, 1976), and structures which seem to have included wood as a building material have been dated as early as the Lower Palaeolithic (e.g., Terra Amata, see de Lumley, 1969). Perhaps the best preserved example of a post-hole comes from the Mousterian site of Combe Grenal, layer G (Bordes 1961) where a plaster cast of the hole clearly shows that the post must have been a pointed wooden shaft, possibly one in a row of posts used in the construction of the shelter. It seems likely that such a wooden framework would have been covered over, and perhaps roofed, with skins and/or plant material. In those areas where numerous stone tools show the presence of Man but where there are no signs of shelters, either natural or man-made, it must be assumed that some artificial shelter was constructed, either of vegetation, or of skins, stones or earth.
It is certain that scaffolding or ladders were used in some caves, where art work has been found high up on the walls, far beyond the reach of man: for example, the great polychrome horse of Labastide, in the Pyrenean Magdalenian (Omnès, 1982). Traces of scaffolding have been found at Lascaux, where clay-filled holes and ledges in the cave-walls would have formed suitable supports for beams (Delluc and Delluc, 1979a).
Wood-burning fires, known in Europe and Asia in association with occupation levels from the ‘Mindel’ glaciation onwards (Terra Amata, Choukoutien) would have provided heat, light, defence and a means of cooking food (Perlès, 1977, Cohen, 1977). Charcoal has been found in numerous Palaeolithic sites (e.g., see Leroi-Gourhan et al., 1979), and anthracological analysis has proved a useful complement to palynology in that it identifies species which were definitely available to, and used by Man in particular periods.
Smoky wood fires may have been used for the preservation of meat and for the oil-tanning of hides (Geist, 1978). Fire may also have been used to control animals when hunting; to burn land deliberately to increase the productivity of plant resources (and thus to attract animals) (Cohen, 1977); and to fell trees or hollow-out tree trunks.
Charcoal was used for pigments, as has been shown by recent analysis of black paintings in the Magdalenian Salon Noir of the cave of Niaux (Brunet, 1981). The frequency of remains recovered from deep caves without signs of fire suggests the use of some form of portable light source, and this is confirmed by finds of stone ‘lamps’, possibly used to burn vegetable wicks in animal fat (Delluc and Delluc, 1979b; de Beaune-Romera, 1983), and by the fragments of wood, probably torches, found in caves such as Basua (Blanc, 1957) and Niaux (Perlès, 1977). No complete or unburned torches have yet been recovered.
Exposing a wooden tool to fire, to dry out the wood but not to char it, makes the tool harder and thus more efficient. This technique is used frequently by present-day hunter-gatherers (Coon, 1972). However, it is difficult to decide whether Palaeolithic tools were exposed to fire deliberately or by accident. The only Palaeolithic implement which is recorded as showing signs of deliberate fire-hardening is the Lehringen spear, reportedly ‘well sharpened with stone knives and then hardened in the fire’ (Movius, 1950). Burned wood has been recovered from Torralba, but it is not certain that a fire-hardened implement is present (Biberson, 1964). A broken and charred stick found at Krapina, Moravia, has been identified tentatively as a ‘fire stick’ used in the production of fire by the friction method, but this too cannot be proved.
Few wooden tools survive from the European Palaeolithic, but comparison with better preserved African sites, such as Kalambo Falls (e.g., see Fagan and van Noten, 1966) and with present-day hunter-gatherers indicates that this is undoubtedly the result of poor preservation rather than lack of use. Two clear examples of wooden spears have been recovered in Europe: the lower Palaeolithic spearhead from Clacton-on-Sea, Essex and the middle Palaeolithic Lehringen spear. Both are made of yew (Oakley et al., 1977). Biberson (1964) states that there may have been a Palaeolithic spear at Spicheren, Forbach, but in fact this site is now known to be a natural deposit of Villafranchian age (A. Thévenin, pers. comm.). Seventy-six substantial wooden fragments and thirty-one casts of wooden objects have been recovered from Torralba/Ambrona and one of these has been tentatively identified as a spearhead (Biberson, ibid.). It was recovered ‘between the bones of elephants’ (as was the Lehringen spear) and has an asymmetrical pointed end.
There are no surviving palaeolithic bows although there is a report of the destruction of a wooden bow of late Magdalenian date during excavations at Teyjat. Dordogne (Coles and Higgs, 1969: p. 240). Two wooden fragments recovered from the Ahrensburgian site of Stellmoor (Rozoy, 1978) have been identified as possible bows, and several of the accompanying pieces of wood with socketed or bifurcated bases, are probably projectiles or arrows. On some of them there is a clear nock, which gives support to the idea that they were arrow-shafts, while one of the long pieces may be a spear. It seems certain, therefore that the bow was in use in northern Europe by at least the Epipalaeolithic.
Bone spear throwers have been found in some Palaeolithic sites, and it is highly probable that there were also wooden specimens, which have vanished. Presumably they were used to launch wooden spears. Discoveries of bone hafts, some still containing stone tools (Jelinek, 1975), and of stone and bone tools with beveled, split or tanged bases suggest that hafting in wood was common in the Upper Palaeolithic (Bordaz, 1971). Unfortunately, no definite wooden hafts have been preserved, although some well preserved wood ‘specially shaped and used for hafting stone tools’ has been recovered from Königsaue, E. Germany (Mania and Toepfer, 1973); in 1894 Worthington Smith reported finding a hand axe at Bedford with ‘the butt end when first found wrapped round with herbaceous stems, probably rushes, as if for protection of the hand’, which unfortunately disintegrated soon after discovery. Some of the flint bladelets from the late Magdalenian site of Duruthy, France, have shown signs of a gum, presumably used to fit the blades into some form of haft (Arambourou and Thibault, 1975).
Digging sticks have been recovered in fairly large numbers from Palaeolithic sites in Africa (Cohen, 1977; Fagan and van Noten, 1966), and it seems quite likely that they were known and used in Europe, presumably to gather vegetable matter. The only European site to have yielded what may be remains of digging sticks is Torralba, where nine pieces of wood, all showing signs of being worked with a stone tool, have been found in the area around the suspected spear. At least one shows signs of being sawn, and the others show a form of polish (Biberson, 1964). Striations in three Aurignacian post-holes at Cueva Morin. N. Spain, have been interpreted as marks made by a digging stick (Freeman and Gonzalez-Echegaray, 1970).
Some of the enigmatic symbols found in Palaeolithic parietal art have been interpreted as wooden animal traps (Lips, 1949), though this idea is impossible to prove, especially as one has no certainty that the ‘traps’ are contemporary with the depictions of animals with which they are ‘associated’.
There is little evidence for other uses of wood. A spherical imprint in sand at Terra Amata filled with a whitish substance, has been interpreted as the remains of a wooden bowl (de Lumley, 1969). Wooden beads have been recovered from a few sites, such as Gönnersdorf (Brunnacker, 1978) and together with finds of bone needles, they could be indicative of the use of some form of thread (of animal or vegetable matter).
Fibres and Flowers
Less evidence exists for the use of non-woody plants: for example, the only surviving Palaeolithic rope comes from Lascaux, but it has not been possible to determine the material used in its construction (Delluc and Delluc, 1979a). Oakley (1962) has suggested that a dried fungus would have been used as a tinder, since fragments of Fomes fomentarius have been found in the Mousterian site of Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, Germany.
Pollen grains are generally the best preserved part of a plant but most of those found in archaeological sites are present through natural causes; they may indicate which species were available, but they tell us nothing of the uses to which they were put. Only where there is a substantial mass of pollen present in an area occupied by man is it plausible that its presence is not accidental. Thus there is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that plants were used as a form of bedding at Tautavel (France, Lower Palaeolithic), at Franchthi (Greece, Upper Palaeolithic), and the Mas d’ Azil (France, Azilian) (see Hansen and Renfrew, 1978; Boone and Renault-Miskovsky, 1976). Other examples exist, such as the Magdalenian decorated cave of Fontanet (Ariège), where armfuls of gramineae seem to have been carried in by man (Leroi-Gourhan, 1980). The best example, however, is Lascaux, where pollen was discovered in a dense mass, some having the form of the anther still preserved (Leroi-Gourhan and Girard, 1979). Analysis has shown that they were mainly grasses. The heaps of pollen are found in several levels throughout the Magdalenian phase, especially in the passage where the Magdalenians would have needed to sit down when decorating the walls.
Although a digression outside Europe, it is worth remembering that a Neanderthal grave in Shanidar cave, Iraq, contained pollen traces of eight different types of flower, presumably part of a wreath (Solecki, 1971; Leroi-Gourhan, 1968). The flowers were mainly small, brightly-coloured varieties, possibly woven into the branches of a shrub. Solecki has pointed out that most of the flowers are known to have herbal properties, and are used by the people of the region today. This may be a coincidence, but it is highly probable that the people of the Palaeolithic knew something of these uses, and perhaps others of which we have no knowledge. Some idea of the range of uses to which plants can be put is given in Appendix 2; many of them have been well presented in a fictional Palaeolithic context by Auel (1980, 1983).
Art
To assess the importance of flora from a study of the surviving art is impossible without an understanding of the mind of the artist. The dominant emphasis is upon animals, although there are a few fairly definite representations of plants while many are open to a variety of interpretations. They may be harpoons, feathers, abstract symbols, or schematised plants. Leroi-Gourhan (1965) has suggested that many of these designs are symbolic of ‘maleness’, while more recently Marshack (1972) has suggested that some should be regarded as stylized seasonal indicators with a floral basis. Of course, some representations of plants may have gone unrecognized in Palaeolithic iconography.
Tools
Microwear analysis is a relatively new technique for examining the polishes, striations, etc., which remain on a stone tool after its use, There are limits on the tools which can be analyzed by present methods but, given suitable pieces to work from, it is possible to distinguish between six broad categories of polish: wood, bone, hide, meat, antler and non-woody plant. The interpretation of the results obtained by this method can be a great help in understanding the function of the implements. For example, Keeley’s analysis of implements from Clacton and Hoxne has shown that there was a considerable amount of woodworking at both sites, with evidence for the sawing and cutting of wood (Keeley, 1977). Hoxne also gave evidence for the cutting or slicing of a non-woody, plant material. Similar results have been obtained from the analysis of other Palaeolithic tools recovered in Europe (e.g., Pant, 1979).
It is not the function of this paper to discuss microwear analysis in any detail. However, the importance of the results is obvious, and the technique may lead to a complete rethinking about the role of certain stone tools. Comparatively little analysis has been carried out using the scanning electron microscope, although Anderson (1980) has, for example, been able to identify a phytolith attached to an area of sickle gloss on a Mousterian scraper from Combe Grenal.
It is unfortunate that the collecting of plant-food does not really require any specialised equipment. Grinding-stones/pestles and mortars have been recovered from a number of Palaeolithic sites (Kraybill, 1977) but their presence need not indicate the grinding of plant food: there is no reason why they may not have been used for the grinding of meat, bones, cartilage or ochre.
Fruits and Nuts
Quantities of acorns, nuts and perforated fruit-stones were found in Magdalenian/Azilian contexts by a series of excavators in a number of Pyrenean eaves (see Bahn, 1979 and in press a and b); although they were from apparently undisturbed deposits, under stalagmite, Breuil (in Déchelette, 1908) believed that all such finds were attributable to the activity of rodents. Piette (1896b) and others insisted that the perforations had been made by flints and that there were no teeth marks. Piette also speculated that the fruit-stones had been opened in order to make drinks with the contents, whereas Briguel (1911) argued that the perforated stones made excellent whistles.
Seeds have been found preserved in a number of sites, including the lower Palaeolithic cave of Tautavel. A special mention should be made of the pioneering Frossards who, in 1870, retrieved carbonised raspberry and strawberry seeds from the Magdalenian sediments of the cave of Aurensan (France) by a crude but effective method of flotation (Frossard and Frossard, 1880).
Cereals
Piette (1896a) several times mentioned a find of a small heap of (what seemed to him to be) wheat grains in the Azilian layer of the Mas d’ Azil (see Bahn, 1973 and in press a and b), and his faith in a Palaeolithic knowledge of cereals was strengthened by several examples of cereal ‘ears’ in Magdalenian portable art. Two of the three reported specimens were never published, and are now lost. The example from Lourdes is well known but open to a number of interpretations (see Appendix 1, and Schiemann, 1940a).
Claims for Palaeolithic cereals continued to occur sporadically: for example, grains in a ‘Palaeolithic breccia’ in a cave at Engis in Belgium (Doudou, 1904); and Magdalenian grains and grinders mentioned by Baudouin (1932a, b). The best known claims were based on finds of carbonised grains in bird-pellets in a number of Austrian caves, most notably that of Merkenstein (Mühlhofer, 1935, 1940; von Stokar, 1939, 1942; Obermaier, 1939: p. 128) in apparently undisturbed ancient deposits. These claims were vigorously debated, with Schiemann (1940a, b) arguing that the deposits were disturbed and the grains too domesticated to be ancient. At present it is Schiemann’s opinion, that the finds represent intrusive materials from the castle above the cave, which prevails (W. Angeli, pers. comm.).
It was difficult to take such finds seriously for many years. Now, however, the finds of wild oats and barley in levels dated to 10,000 BC at Franchthi cave, Greece (Hansen and Renfrew, 1978) and that of cultivated wheat and barley in the Egyptian Upper Palaeolithic (Wendorf et al., 1979 - but see New Scientist 21/7/83, p. 182) may well invite a more open-minded approach, especially as Couteaux (1977) claims to have found cereal pollen in many French Palaeolithic sites from the Acheulian onwards!
Certainly, in view of the evidence of ‘bedding’ made of gramineae’ it is highly probable that Palaeolithic man made abundant use of whatever wild grasses were available to him: In the late Magdalenian of Duruthy (S. France), for example, a great number of backed bladelets display a kind of ‘sickle sheen’ which has led the excavators to a hypothesis of intensive gathering of wild gramineae (Arambourou and Thibault 1975).
Human Remains
It is clear from the animal bones at countless sites that meat was a staple diet of Palaeolithic man in Europe (Saffirio, 1975). However, it is likely that, in some periods plants were also of great importance to man, and indeed may have constituted the bulk of the food consumed, in terms of weight. Lack of preservation prevents a more accurate assessment of the relative contributions to diet of meat and plants, and one must turn to human remains for clues here.
Work on the teeth of Palaeolithic man has revealed features such as scratches and surface wear which may have been caused by plant food in the diet, but which could also have been caused by an occupational use of the teeth (stripping bark, chewing leather, etc.) or by small pieces of bone or grit in the food. Puech has made a study confined to the lingual surfaces of the teeth, as these surfaces are somewhat inaccessible, and hence less likely to bear marks from anything other than food (Puech, 1976). He believes that there was very little plant food in the diet of Neanderthal Man, but that the amount of plant food eaten increased throughout the Palaeolithic. Certainly, in southern France, the teeth of the Magdalenians - even of small children - are very worn (see Bahn, in press). However additional experiments and comparative studies are needed to accurately determine the relationship between groove morphology and dietary factors, including the cooking of food (Ryan, 1979).
The study of coprolites, which has proved extremely useful in the New World, has been unsatisfactory in the Old owing to the lack of well preserved specimens. Samples obtained from Terra Amata have been examined (Trevor-Deutsch and Bryant, 1978; Bryant and Williams-Dean, 1978) but there is some doubt about their human origin: Hall (quoted by Trevor-Deutsch and Bryant) states:
‘There is absolutely nothing about these specimens that suggests that they are fossilised excrement’. Four samples from Lazaret were found to contain bone, hair and charcoal, but no plant matter (Callen, 1963).
Conclusions
It has-been shown that there is evidence for the use of wood in the construction of shelters, scaffolding, and in the manufacture of certain tools. Presumably there were many other uses of wood which have left no trace. Differential preservation tends to give the impression that wood was the most commonly-used plant material; but there is a certain amount of evidence for the use of non-woody material for bedding. It is very difficult to determine what was eaten during the Palaeolithic; the amount of plant food in the diet can probably not be estimated with any accuracy. In any case, it will have varied enormously according to environment, season and latitude as shown by ethnographic studies (Lee and Devore, 1968).
Despite all the problems of preservation, it is clear from the variety of evidence reviewed above that plants of many different types were used throughout the European Palaeolithic for a wide variety of purposes. Ethnography and microwear analysis: suggest that many stone tools will have been used in the procurement and working of wood, and in view of the surviving objects in wood, it could be argued that differential preservation has forced us to concentrate on the less important aspects of the period’s technology. In a sense therefore the Palaeolithic might more accurately be termed the ‘Palaeoxylic’ or ‘Old Wood Age’.
By J.A. Tyldesley1 and P.G. Bahn, published in 1983, Quaternary Science Review. 2:53-81. Adapted to be posed by Leopoldo Costa.
See also:
MEDICINE IN ANCIENT GREECE
http://stravaganzastravaganza.blogspot.com/2012/02/medicine-in-ancient-greece.htmlMIDWIVES AND MATERNITY CARE IN THE ROMAN WORLD
DISTURBANCES IN EATING BEHAVIOR
COME PREVENIRE CELLULITE CON L'ALIMENTAZIONE
TEN FOODS FOR A BETTER SEX LIFE
CHILD MALNUTRITION AND POVERTY
HIPPOCRATES - ILLNESS OF MAIDENS
MADNESS, A BRIEF HISTORY
A PARTEIRA NO BRASIL IMPERIAL
HISTORY OF HOMEOPATHY
SPANISH INFLUENZA PANDEMIC OF 1917-19
MEDICINE IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA
MEDICINE IN ANCIENT EGYPT
MEDICINA NO BRASIL COLONIAL
HISTÓRIA DA ODONTOLOGIA NO BRASIL
0 Response to "USE OF PLANTS IN THE EUROPEAN PALAEOLITHIC"
Post a Comment