Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:15:53.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unveiling the relevance of carbohydrate-rich underground plant foods in the archaeological record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Marian Berihuete-Azorín*
Affiliation:
Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES), Tarragona, Spain Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Departament d'Història i Història de l'Art, Tarragona, Spain
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rich in carbohydrates, underground storage organs played a key role in human history. This project aims to establish a systematic methodology for their multi-proxy study, creating an online reference collection, using different microscopy techniques for identification and establishing a reference guide to use-wear patterns on experimental archaeology tools used for the processing of underground storage organs.

Type
Project Gallery
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Underground storage organs are plant structures that store energy and water. Underground storage organs are a very valuable food resource (Singels Reference Singels2013): they grow seasonally, are predictable and reliable, as well as relatively easy to gather and process. Their consumption is attested in a variety of ethnographic sources (Berihuete-Azorín et al. Reference Berihuete-Azorín, Arranz Otaegui and López-Dóriga2018), while data suggest that around 40 species of underground storage organs were used as food by recent northern hunter-gatherers (Kuhnlein & Turner Reference Kuhnlein, Turner and Katz1991). Underground storage organs had a key role throughout human history. There is no doubt that they offered the most abundant and readily available source of carbohydrates in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe (Kubiak-Martens Reference Kubiak-Martens, Kubiak-Martens and Hardy2016), and it is estimated that probably 20–30 species were used (Mears & Hillman Reference Mears and Hillman2007). Their importance, however, has been undervalued for multiple reasons such as recovery issues, identification difficulties and a focus on other food resources. This project aims to provide reference material that can be used for the identification of underground storage organs and their processing on any archaeological site, and thus fill a gap in the study of archaeological hunter-gatherer economies.

Macrobotanical remains regularly document the presence of fruits and seeds belonging to species that also produce underground storage organs. The direct presence of underground storage organs is rarely described, however, with very few recorded examples (e.g. Holden et al. Reference Holden, Hather and Watson1995; Kubiak-Martens Reference Kubiak-Martens1996, Reference Kubiak-Martens1999, Reference Kubiak-Martens2002; Pryor et al. Reference Pryor, Steele, Jones, Svoboda and Beresford-Jones2013; Larbey et al. Reference Larbey, Mentzer, Ligouis, Wurz and Jones2019; Florin et al. Reference Florin, Fairbairn, Nango, Djandjomerr, Marwick, Fullagar, Smith, Wallis and Clarkson2020; Wadley et al. Reference Wadley, Backwell, d'Errico and Sievers2020). Current reconstructions of hunter-gatherer diets are dominated by chemical analyses of animal and human bones, plant microremains (starch and phytolith), and use-wear analysis of lithic tools. This is partly because the recovery of plant macroremains requires sampling, sediment processing and sorting of the residues, whereas the aforementioned techniques can be applied without systematic sampling methods. The situation is even less favourable for underground storage organs because the recovery of archaeological parenchyma (meristematic and epidermal tissue of plants) requires special effort (Mason & Hather Reference Mason and Hather2002) and entails numerous identification difficulties. While small-sized, complete tubers that retain features such as shape or detachment scars may allow easier identification; when dealing with fragmented storage organs, it is necessary to examine the internal anatomy, especially the organisation of vascular tissue and anatomy of parenchyma cells, for which scanning electron microscopy is required. Moreover, the limited availability of atlases and reference collections contribute to the underrepresentation of this resource in the archaeological record (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Unidentifiable underground storage organ remains: left) visible vascular bundles from La Draga, Spain (micrograph by L. Kubiak-Martens); right) underground storage organ remains from Zamotsje 2, Russia (micrograph by M. Berihuete-Azorín).

A first step to overcome this situation is the creation of a reference collection in an online repository. This project aims higher, however, by creating a larger corpus of information that will also link to examples of exploitation of underground storage organs by other means, namely use-wear and residue analyses on tools. We will create a set of wooden tools (digging sticks) and stone tools (knifes/scrapers and grinding stones) that ethnobotanical studies suggest are involved in harvesting and processing underground storage organs (e.g. Hurtado & Hill Reference Hurtado and Hill1989). These three tool types will be used to harvest and process underground storage organs, and the use-wear of the used tools will be recorded; the tools will then be sampled for starches, which can be taxon distinctive, in order to create a reference collection for the selected species. A set of experiments to test how heat and different processing techniques may affect the starches will also be carried out. All data will be made available for reference in one repository.

The application of new imaging techniques has proven useful in identifying underground storage organs (Pritchard et al. Reference Pritchard, Lewis, Beeching and Denham2019) and other food remains (González et al. Reference González-Carretero, Wollstonecroft and Fuller2017; Heiss et al. Reference Heiss, Antolín, Bleicher, Harb, Jacomet, Kühn and Valamoti2017). Some of these new methodologies (3D scanning and microCT) will also be tested and used to generate the underground storage organ reference collection. In addition to the methodological innovation, the project will systematically search the material archives of nine key prehistoric archaeological sites on the Iberian Peninsula to check for the presence of underground storage organs. Some of these sites, such as Trinchera Dolina, Atapuerca (Figure 2), where the earliest hominids of Europe were discovered (Carbonell et al. Reference Carbonell, de Castro, Parés, Pérez-González, Cuenca-Bescós, Ollé and Sala2008), are fundamental to our understanding of Iberian Prehistory and human evolution.

Figure 2. Early hunter-gatherer sites (red): 1) Trinchera Dolina, Atapuerca, (Burgos); 2) Cova Eirós, Tricastela (Lugo); 3) Abric Romaní, Capellades (Barcelona). Early Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer sites (purple): 4) Molí de Salt, Vimbodí i Poblet (Tarragona); 5) Serinyà sites (Girona); 6) El Cierro, Ribadesella (Asturias); 7) El Aspio, Ruesga (Cantabria). Last hunter-gatherer sites (green): 8) Cova de Fems, Ulldemolins (Tarragona); 9) Poças de Sao Bento, Alcácer do Sal (Alentejo).

These nine sites were selected to cover a wide chronological framework and allow the detection of variations in prehistoric resource management. This project crosses disciplinary boundaries to overcome the limitations in identifying archaeological underground storage organs. It brings together new and traditional archaeobotanical methods, and cutting-edge image-representation techniques that are complemented by use-wear analysis and a starch reference collection.

Acknowledgements

Marian Berihuete-Azorín is hosted at IPHES from the Generalitat de Catalunya CERCA Programme, as a member of the 2017-SGR-836 Group. Special thanks to E. Allué, supervisor of this project, and to L. Kubiak-Martens and E. Cristiani.

Funding statement

Marian Berihuete-Azorín (2018 BP 00272) received funding from the postdoctoral fellowships programme Beatriu de Pinos, which was in turn funded by the Secretary of Universities and Research (Government of Catalonia) and by the Horizon 2020 programme of research and innovation of the European Union under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 801370.

References

Berihuete-Azorín, M., Arranz Otaegui, A. & López-Dóriga, I.. 2018. Estructuras vegetales subterráneas de almacenamiento en la Península Ibérica: Estado de la cuestión y perspectivas de futuro. Cadernos do GEEvH 7: 138–61.Google Scholar
Carbonell, E., de Castro, J.M.B., Parés, J.M., Pérez-González, A., Cuenca-Bescós, G., Ollé, A. & Sala, R.. 2008. The first hominin of Europe. Nature 452: 465–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06815CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Florin, S.A., Fairbairn, A.S., Nango, M., Djandjomerr, D., Marwick, B., Fullagar, R., Smith, M., Wallis, L.A. & Clarkson, C.. 2020. The first Australian plant foods at Madjedbebe, 65 000–53 000 years ago. Nature Communications 11: 18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14723-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Carretero, L., Wollstonecroft, M. & Fuller, D.Q.. 2017. A methodological approach to the study of archaeological cereal meals: a case study at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26: 415–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-017-0602-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiss, A.G., Antolín, F., Bleicher, N., Harb, C., Jacomet, S., Kühn, M. & Valamoti, S.M.. 2017. State of the (t)art: analytical approaches in the investigation of components and production traits of archaeological bread-like objects, applied to two finds from the Neolithic lakeshore settlement Parkhaus Opéra (Zürich, Switzerland). PLoS ONE 12: e0182401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, T.G., Hather, J.G. & Watson, J.P.N.. 1995. Mesolithic plant exploitation at the Roc del Migdia, Catalonia. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 769–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(95)90006-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurtado, A.M. & Hill, K.. 1989. Experimental studies of tool efficiency among Machiguenga women and implications for root-digging foragers. Journal of Anthropological Research 45: 207–17. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.45.2.3630334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubiak-Martens, L. 1996. Evidence for possible use of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic diet from the site of Całowanie in the central part of the Polish Plain. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 5: 3338. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00189433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubiak-Martens, L. 1999. The plant food component of the diet at the Late Mesolithic (Ertebolle) settlement at Tybrind Vig, Denmark. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8: 117–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02042850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubiak-Martens, L. 2002. New evidence for the use of root foods in pre-agrarian subsistence recovered from the Late Mesolithic site at Halsskov, Denmark. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 2332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003340200003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubiak-Martens, L. 2016. Scanning electron microscopy and starchy food in Mesolithic Europe: the importance of roots and tubers in Mesolithic diet, in Kubiak-Martens, L. & Hardy, K. (ed.) Wild harvest: plants in the hominin and pre-agrarian human worlds: 113–34. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dmjj.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhnlein, H. & Turner, N.. 1991. Traditional plant foods of Canadian Indigenous peoples: nutrition, botany and use, in Katz, S. (ed.) Food and nutrition in history and anthropology (volume 8). Philadelphia (PA): Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Larbey, C., Mentzer, S.M., Ligouis, B., Wurz, S. & Jones, M.K.. 2019. Cooked starchy food in hearths ca. 120 kya and 65 kya (MIS 5e and MIS 4) from Klasies River Cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 131: 210–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, S.L. & Hather, J.G. (ed.). 2002. Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany: perspectives from the northern temperate zone. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mears, R. & Hillman, G.. 2007. Wild food. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Pritchard, J., Lewis, T., Beeching, L. & Denham, T.. 2019. An assessment of microCT technology for the investigation of charred archaeological parenchyma from house sites at Kuk Swamp, Papua New Guinea. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11: 1927–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0648-0Google Scholar
Pryor, A.J., Steele, M., Jones, M.K., Svoboda, J. & Beresford-Jones, D.G.. 2013. Plant foods in the Upper Palaeolithic at Dolní Vӗstonice? Parenchyma redux. Antiquity 87: 971–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00049802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singels, E. 2013. Underground storage organs of plants as a food source for Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in the Southern Cape. Unpublished MA dissertation, Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Wadley, L., Backwell, L., d'Errico, F. & Sievers, C.. 2020. Cooked starchy rhizomes in Africa 170 thousand years ago. Science 367: 8791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Unidentifiable underground storage organ remains: left) visible vascular bundles from La Draga, Spain (micrograph by L. Kubiak-Martens); right) underground storage organ remains from Zamotsje 2, Russia (micrograph by M. Berihuete-Azorín).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Early hunter-gatherer sites (red): 1) Trinchera Dolina, Atapuerca, (Burgos); 2) Cova Eirós, Tricastela (Lugo); 3) Abric Romaní, Capellades (Barcelona). Early Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer sites (purple): 4) Molí de Salt, Vimbodí i Poblet (Tarragona); 5) Serinyà sites (Girona); 6) El Cierro, Ribadesella (Asturias); 7) El Aspio, Ruesga (Cantabria). Last hunter-gatherer sites (green): 8) Cova de Fems, Ulldemolins (Tarragona); 9) Poças de Sao Bento, Alcácer do Sal (Alentejo).