Dig out, Dig in! Plant-based diet at the Late Bronze Age copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil (Lower Austria) and the relevance of processed foodstuffs for the supply of Alpine Bronze Age miners

Andreas G Heiss; Thorsten Jakobitsch; Silvia Wiesinger; Peter Trebsche

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248287

. 2021 Mar 24;16(3):e0248287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248287

Dig out, Dig in! Plant-based diet at the Late Bronze Age copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil (Lower Austria) and the relevance of processed foodstuffs for the supply of Alpine Bronze Age miners

Andreas G Heiss ^1,^*, Thorsten Jakobitsch ^1,², Silvia Wiesinger ¹, Peter Trebsche ³

Editor: Peter F Biehl⁴

PMCID: PMC7990284 PMID: 33760845

Abstract

This paper starts from theoretical and methodical considerations about the role of archaeobotanical finds in culinary archaeology, emphasizing the importance of processed cereal preparations as the “missing link” between crop and consumption. These considerations are exemplified by the discussion of abundant new archaeobotanical data from the Late Bronze Age copper mining site of Prigglitz-Gasteil, situated at the easternmost fringe of the Alps. At this site, copper ore mining in opencast mines took place from the 11^th until the 9^th century BCE (late Urnfield Culture), as well as copper processing (beneficiation, smelting, refining, casting) on artificial terrain terraces. During archaeological excavations from 2010 to 2014, two areas of the site were investigated and sampled for archaeobotanical finds and micro-debris in a high-resolution approach. This paper aims at 1) analysing the food plant spectrum at the mining settlement of Prigglitz-Gasteil basing on charred plant macroremains, 2) investigating producer/consumer aspects of Prigglitz-Gasteil in comparison to the Bronze Age metallurgical sites of Kiechlberg, Klinglberg, and Mauken, and 3) reconstructing the miners’ and metallurgists’ diets.

Our analyses demonstrate that the plant-based diet of the investigated mining communities reflects the general regional and chronological trends rather than particular preferences of the miners or metallurgists. The lack of chaff, combined with a high occurrence of processed food, suggests that the miners at Prigglitz-Gasteil were supplied from outside with ready-to-cook and processed grain, either from adjacent communities or from a larger distance. This consumer character is in accordance with observation from previously analysed metallurgical sites. Interestingly, the components observed in charred cereal products (barley, Hordeum vulgare, and foxtail millet, Setaria italica) contrast with the dominant crop taxa (broomcorn millet, Panicum miliaceum, foxtail millet, and lentil, Lens culinaris). Foraging of fruits and nuts also significantly contributed to the daily diet.

1. Introduction

1.1. Miners as specialist producers—And as consumers

Mining for copper ores in the eastern Alps is documented from periods as early as the Late Neolithic, mostly in the area of today’s Austrian federal states of Tyrol and Salzburg [1]. From there, copper mining activities spread rather slowly eastwards until they reached the very eastern Alpine foothills. The first archaeological traces of copper mining in these remote eastern Alpine mountain ranges have been dated to the Late Bronze Age [2, 3], a period characterised by generally intensified settlement activities across the Alpine range, which is commonly associated with the increasingly warmer climate after the “Löbben” [4] climate deterioration [5–7].

It is commonly accepted that, just as in later societies, the craftspeople involved in the chaînes opératoires (operational sequences) of Bronze Age copper ore mining, copper smelting, and bronze production—miners, smelters, foundrymen—were highly specialized [8]. Full-time specialization in mining, however, could only emerge within or supported by a community that provided them with everyday necessities, i. e. primarily food and raw materials. This hypothesis presupposes that a surplus of agricultural goods was produced in the surroundings of the mining and smelting sites and delivered to the working areas.

While a mining site is clearly a producer site for copper and bronze products, the aforementioned considerations put it into the position of a consumer site when it comes to food supplies. In the case of the Bronze Age salt mine of Hallstatt, the agricultural hinterland is located a several day’s journey away in the river valleys or at the high alpine pastures of the Dachstein mountains [9, 10]. For other mining regions in the Alps, it has been suggested that supplies from both a local production and the hinterland may have been required for the maintenance of their productivity [11]. Archaeobotanical and palynological studies from Bronze Age mining sites have already highlighted various aspects of such models [e. g. 9, 11, 12, 13–17].

1.2. Pork… and what else? Current state of research into Alpine Bronze Age miners’ diets

The animal-based part of the alimentation of the specialists involved in mining and metallurgy has already been exhaustively studied based on animal bone assemblages from mining camps, smelting sites, and contemporary producer sites. Archaeozoological analyses have shown that the meat supply of mining sites throughout the Eastern Alps was mostly based on pork production. A high percentage of pig bones is characteristic throughout the Early Bronze Age until the Late Bronze Age. Based on sex determination, the distribution of slaughtering ages, the representation of skeletal elements, and estimates of the areas required for the corresponding livestock farming, the pigs are assumed not to have been raised in the mountainous terrains but in more suitable environments; any surplus of pork would have been delivered to/exchanged with the miners. The Hallstatt salt mines even provided evidence for large-scale on-site pork curing [10, 18]. The results from Prigglitz fit into this general Bronze Age pattern [6, 10, 19] concerning the miners’ obvious preference for pork for meat consumption. Recent studies have revealed a change in dominant meat categories at the beginning of the Early Iron Age [20].

Current insights into the plant-based aspects of Bronze Age miners’ food are far less conclusive: While ample archaeobotanical evidence exists for Iron Age mining sites such as Dürrnberg [21–23] or the Iron Age phases of Hallstatt [24, 25], archaeobotanical data on Bronze Age mining in the Eastern Alps is still somewhat anecdotic and mostly restricted to the early centuries of copper mining (Fig 1).

Fig 1 — The overview is based on the 2σ ranges of the oldest and youngest calibrated radiocarbon dates, respectively. Intra-site modelling was only considered for Prigglitz (see section 2.3.2). Published data from Kiechlberg [17], Klinglberg [26], and Mauken [27] were recalibrated with OxCal 3.10 [28] and the IntCal13 calibration curve [29]. Illustration: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

The multi-phase hilltop settlement at Kiechlberg (Thaur, Tyrol, Austria; western margin of mining region 5 in Fig 2) is outstanding due to its temporal range, as the oldest settlement activities relatable to copper metallurgy are as early as the Late Neolithic [30, 31]. A total amount of 20 flotation samples (c. 115 l) were taken for archaeobotanical analysis. While the samples retrieved from the Late Neolithic midden layers resulted in a rich account of more than 800 macroremains of cultivated crops [17], the Early to Middle Bronze Age layers which shall be considered as a comparison to our own study were mostly uninformative: The material contained only punctual evidence (n<5 each) of pea, hazelnut, and unidentifiable cereal grains [17], thus allowing no inferences on the organisation of food supplies. Finds of processed foodstuffs are not documented for any of the phases at Kiechlberg (Oeggl, pers. comm. 2020).

The Early Bronze Age hillfort settlement at Klinglberg (St. Veit im Pongau, Salzburg, Austria; mining region 8 in Fig 2) was not only the first site of this kind which was investigated archaeobotanically in the eastern Alps. With 1,803 soil samples and a total volume of 14,600 litres of processed soil, Klinglberg also represents the most intensively sampled and analysed Bronze Age copper production site from an archaeobotanical perspective, and the conclusions drawn have fundamentally influenced the current ways of how to look at food supplies for Bronze Age mining communities. Analysis of the charred plant remains resulted in a clearly emmer- and barley-dominated cereal spectrum, complemented by pea on the legume side [16]. The botanical find assemblage was characterised by an overall lack of cereal chaff in contrast to ample evidence of grain; furthermore, chunks of processed cereals were found in some of the sampled contexts, which were interpreted as chunks of charred bread by F. J. Green and S. J. Shennan. They considered the archaeobotanical find assemblage as indicative for grain supplies from outside the mining area, delivered in the state of bread and of “ready-to-cook” grain [16, 26, 32]. In-depth analyses of the “bread” remains have, however, not been carried out.

Prior to the current study, the mining and ore-processing site of Mauken (Radfeld, Tyrol, Austria; mining region 5 in Fig 2) has been the only Late Bronze Age mining site in the Eastern Alps providing plant macroremains. At the copper ore processing and smelting site Mauk A (Late Bronze Age, late 12^th to 11^th century BCE), slope water had created waterlogged conditions with excellent preservation of wooden implements. Still, the only cultivated plant remains found were a single charred grain each of broomcorn millet, hulled barley, and an imported possible condiment [6, 12, 33]. No traces of processed foodstuffs were found.

In the current paper, we present archaeobotanical data resulting from a high-resolution sampling approach applied during the fieldwork at the Late Bronze Age copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil in the years 2010 to 2014. By comparing the results obtained from our own analyses with previously published data, we aim at improving the overall knowledge on plant-based food resources of Bronze Age miners in the Alpine range.

1.3. The copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil

1.3.1. Location

The Late Bronze Age site of Prigglitz-Gasteil (47°42’46"N 15°56’29"E) is situated in the modern cadastral area of Prigglitz, district of Neunkirchen, in the Southeast of what is today the State of Lower Austria. The area is part of the easternmost copper mining region known in the Eastern Alps (region 11 in Fig 2). The nearest Late Bronze Age settlements from which archaeobotanical data are available for comparison are more than 50 kilometres away (Fig 2): To the west, Kulm/Trofaiach [34], to the south Neudorf/St. Ruprecht a. d. Raab [35], to the north Unterradlberg [36], and to the east Sopron-Krautacker [37].

1.3.2. Excavation and chronology

The site of Prigglitz-Gasteil was discovered in the 1950s by F. Hampl [38], and it was soon recognized as the largest prehistoric copper mining site in Lower Austria. In 2010, author P. Trebsche resumed modern fieldwork resulting in five seasons of excavation (2010–2014) and several campaigns of geophysical prospections and core drillings (2017–2018).

During these excavation campaigns, an absolute chronology for mining activities has been established, placing them into the 11^th–9^th centuries BCE of the late Urnfield culture [3, 39]. With the aid of geoelectric and seismic measurements, complemented with core drillings, it was possible to reconstruct the Bronze Age mine working as a large opencast mine reaching a depth of at least 30 m below the actual surface. During the excavations, two terrain terraces immediately next to the opencast mine were investigated. The Bronze Age terraces had been cut into older layers of mining debris to create horizontal space for buildings and workshops.

Buildings were exclusively made of timber using different construction techniques, with wattle and daub walls. Many of the buildings contained hearths which could have been used either for domestic purposes or for metallurgical production. Numerous finds from the accumulated cultural layers indicate the refinement of copper, casting of bronze objects, bone and antler working as well as cooking and food consumption. The area investigated on terraces 3 and 4 (Fig 3) is therefore interpreted as the habitation of the mining community working there and/or the workshops of people supplying the miners [3, 19, 39–41].

Fig 3 — The investigated working platforms/terraces are indicated. Image: UIBK/P. Trebsche.

1.3.3. Geology, soils, and vegetation cover

The excavation area is situated on the eastern slopes of the Gahns, a plateau connected to the Schneeberg massive, in the transition of the Greywacke Zone and the Northern Calcareous Alps (Styrian / Lower Austrian Limestone Alps). At the interface of these two geological units, copper ore (chalcopyrite) and iron ore (siderite) form the deposit of Gasteil “Sandriegel” [42]. The topsoils on the slopes in the research area are predominantly shallow ranker soils [43].

Vegetation historical data are not available for our area of interest up to now. Preliminary palynological studies of local vegetation history are however currently being undertaken, and an exhaustive study will be carried out during a consecutive project (see Conclusions and outlook). The available vegetation historical framework is therefore limited to observations of current vegetation, supported by models of potential natural vegetation [PNV, 44]. Current vegetation forms a mosaic of extensively cultivated fields as well as pastures and densely forested areas. The latter, as a characteristic for the transition between the influences of sub-Illyrian and Pannonian climates, are composed of spruce-fir-beech forests (Abieti-Fagetum) and black pine forests (Seslerio-Pinetum nigrae) [45, 46]. Occurrence of these two main forest types is congruent with the local potential natural vegetation [47].

1.4. Research goals

The project “Life and Work at the Bronze Age Mine of Prigglitz”, directed by P. Trebsche and running from October 2017 until September 2021, is currently investigating the operational sequences and flows of goods not only of the mining, smelting, and alloying products, but also those concerning tools, construction materials, fuel, and provisions with food. In the current study, the authors aimed at addressing the following aspects of the project:

To provide a theoretical framework for the evaluation of plant-based culinary artefacts (predominantly when in charred state) found in archaeobotanical find assemblages, basing on previous work by the first author [48].
To present the identified charred remains of food plants which were retrieved from the Late Bronze Age mining site at Prigglitz-Gasteil in a high-resolution sampling approach. The fragments of processed cereal preparations will be presented as the “missing link” between crop spectra and actual diet.
To evaluate the results from Prigglitz-Gasteil as compared to archaeobotanical data from four other Bronze Age copper production in the Eastern Alps, and from (supra-)regional crop spectra covering various types of settlements in the surrounding regions (eastern and southern Austria, and western Hungary), thereby exploring possible cultural, spatial, and chronological differences in nutrition and food processing patterns.
To reconstruct the chaînes opératoires of plant-based dishes found at Prigglitz-Gasteil, basing on the current bioarchaeological evidence.
To add up to the current state of research on food supplies for Bronze Age copper production sites in the Alps, with a focus on subsistence patterns and culinary aspects at Prigglitz-Gasteil.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. General statements

2.1.1. Availability of data and material

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Electronic Supplementary Materials (ESM). All archaeological plant remains are stored in the archaeological depot of the State Collections of Lower Austria and are available for scientific re-evaluation on request: Landessammlungen Niederösterreich, Bereich Urgeschichte und Historische Archäologie, MAMUZ Schloss Asparn/Zaya, Schlossplatz 1, 2151 Asparn a. d. Zaya, Österreich/Austria. E-mail: franz.pieler@noel.gv.at, phone: +43 (27 42) 90 05–499 12.

2.1.2. Ethics statement

The individual in Fig 7, our valued colleague Michael Konrad, has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to be depicted in the publication. No additional permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.

2.2. Approaching the miners’ plant-based nutrition

Off-site data obtained from pollen profiles, where available, serve as a palaeoecological framework, providing diachronic information on vegetation history, agricultural activities, and sometimes mining-associated pollution [11, 14, 15, 49–52]. When approaching the agricultural foundations of a mining community, they are the most important tool in the reconstruction of land use patterns and past agricultural landscapes.

To gain insights on the alimentation itself, however, analysis and careful interpretation of on-site archaeological plant macroremains still play the key role, in particular when it comes to the characterisation of the producer or consumer character of a site [53–56]. Approaches towards such differentiation have been successfully carried out for numerous other contexts than mining, resulting in a variety of models and inferences [e. g. 54, 56–59] and, although rarely explicitly stated as such, all these models root in theoretical concepts on crop and food processing. Fig 4 illustrates such a general framework using a behaviour chain [60]–a concept that is more generalist and abstract than the more refined chaîne opératoire, and which is therefore more suitable for outlining general theoretical statements [61].

Fig 4 — Activities in brackets are facultative and mobile elements, which can take place in virtually any position of the chain. Illustration from Heiss [48].

Building onto such simple principles, the pioneering works by G. Hillman [57, 67] and G. E. M. Jones [68] initiated the application of complex operational sequences obtained from ethnography and experimental observations onto archaeobotanical finds. The results enabled the modelling of detailed chaînes opératoires of crop processing basing on a seed assemblage’s composition of grain, chaff, and weed seeds, respectively (Fig 5) [54, 56, 69–71].

Fig 5 — The sequence starts on top with the cereal plant, proceeding counter-clockwise towards “ready-to-cook” grains. Ramifications (optional steps) in dashed lines. Illustration basing on the original design by Stevens [54], additional steps such as harvesting, kiln-drying, storing, and parching/soaking prior to dehusking were added [65, 72, 73]. Image from Heiss [48].

However, operational sequences modelled for edible plants usually end with the stage of ready-to-cook/ready-to-eat grain or seed. Reconstructions of the “biographies of things” [74] in archaeobotany usually leave a huge blank space between a crop and its consumption. This space leaves nothing less unexplored than the huge field of cuisine, the “cultural domain which is principally concerned with the knowledge and behaviour of a given cultural community regarding the preparation and consumption of food” [75]. In the case of the term “cooking”, we follow S. Graff as contrasted to e. g. K. E. Twiss [76] in her preference for a clear terminological differentiation between cuisine and “cooking”, thus limiting the latter to the “food preparation strategy that involves the application of heat (…) such as boiling, roasting, baking, frying, or smoking” [77]. In Fig 6, we set the term “cooked” under quotation marks for this reason.

Fig 6 — The transformations of natural, unchanged ("raw") plant components into culturally modified ("cooked") food is roughly inspired by Lévi-Strauss’ [78] *triangle culinaire* (*cru*–*cuit*–*pourri*). While natural conditions (on the left side) influence the possible ingredients, it is cultural aspects (on the right side) on which their processing and consumption patterns depend. Image: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss, modified from Katz and Voigt [79].

Cuisine as the “elephant in the room” has however mostly not been ignored by archaeobotany out of negligence, but due to serious methodological constraints: As soon as a grain or seed loses its shape when crushed or ground, not only is it transformed a big leap further towards becoming an artefact, but the resulting archaeological remains become much more difficult to identify, and to interpret [48, 80, 81]. On the upside, the resulting materials bear potentially legible traces of the processes they have undergone [48, 82, 83]. The following section outlines a few important aspects which, to the authors, seem to be of importance when approaching these difficulties.

2.2.1. Looking at food remains as culinary artefacts

While the role and relevance of plant remains as parts of a certain material culture are undoubtedly commonly accepted [84, 85], it is particularly the dichotomy between ecofacts and artefacts which might still require a closer look when dealing with processed food remains, as “ecofacts typically are not considered artefacts unless clear indications exist that they were modified” [86]. Finds of harvested grain can therefore certainly be regarded as ecofacts. However, what if grain is ground into flour, mixed with water, shaped into a bread, and then baked? We are convinced that such an object is clearly artefactual [48]: Archaeological finds of processed foodstuffs are the remnants of objects “predominantly shaped by human action” [87], and they precisely match common definitions of what is an artefact [88–91]. They are the material outcomes of human action and creativity, they are biogenic artefacts produced within the boundaries of a certain cuisine [75]. They are the results of transformations, which replace natural shapes and compositions by culturally determined ones (Fig 6). They bear not only information on the raw materials they contain, but also on the processes these materials have undergone. We therefore entirely disagree with approaches regarding remains of processed foodstuffs as non-artefactual [e. g. 87].

Before proceeding, it therefore seems necessary to briefly continue arguing against definitions of artefacts and their delimitations to ecofacts that acknowledge a piece of chipped flint as the artefactual outcome of a skilled maker’s action [92, 93], but not a bread bun or a jug of beer (the beer, not the jug), which both result from highly complex production processes [94–99]. In the following, we point out a few possible explanations for such—in our opinion strangely distorted—views:

Preservation biases. Renfrew and Bahn [100], as an example, seem to confirm this by the contextual association of “non-artefactual” with “organic” and “environmental remains” as a matter of course. However, despite its equally organic nature and the same resulting difficulties in preservation, wood seems to be entirely independent from such conceptual restrictions: wood is commonly regarded as a raw material perfectly suitable for things considered as artefacts [100–102]. Furthermore, food’s intended destiny lies in consumption. It could therefore even be its ephemeral nature that, in the eyes of some, disqualifies food remains from being regarded as meaningful elements of a certain material culture.
Methodological biases. As mentioned in the previous section, the understanding of archaeological finds of processed food is intrinsically tied to the analyses of their inner structures [82, 103–107]. Original surfaces are very often missing, and even complete objects (which rarely occur) are usually neither as showy nor as straightforward to describe as it is the case with a pot, a brooch, or a glass bracelet. S. R. Graff [77] ironically referred to food remains as “boring artifact categories”. Furthermore, stringent typologies for archaeological finds of foodstuffs are still widely not available [48, 82].
Social and gender biases in research. In her article, Graff also points out that presuppositions on the producers of food—women, maybe also children or slaves, as she summarises it—have rendered the outcomes of cuisine as something “viewed as less valuable by the scholarly community” [77], and have thus limited archaeological research interest (and endeavour) of the entire topic for a long time [see also 64, 108, 109].

Very likely, all three types of biases have, to varying extent, contributed to the “non-artefactual” scholarly look towards archaeological food, challenging of which has even been regarded as “blurring and subverting these boundaries [between artefact and ecofact]” [87] instead of being judged as consistent. As a concluding statement, we may quote from A. Sherratt’s 1991 publication that “People don’t eat species, they eat meals” [110] and add “… and these meals are culinary artefacts.”

We believe that acknowledging the look at archaeological remains of processed food as the artefactual outcomes of a past cuisine is the prerequisite to accept not only the possibility but the necessity to describe the production of an archaeological dish in a specific chaîne opératoire [64], regardless (but aware) of the possible limitations. Just as for any other type of artefact, a better understanding of the transformative processes applied within a past cuisine will also allow setting foundations for the creation of typologies of archaeological foodstuffs not only basing on their mere outer shapes, but also encompassing their components and the operational sequences involved in their production [48].

However, any attempt to reconstruct both the ingredients and the chaînes opératoires of their processing—that is, the recipe—for a charred archaeological food remain must inevitably remain incomplete. The primary source of mischief lies within food preparation itself: Aside from their numerous effects on texture, taste, and shelf life, many food processing techniques directly aim at facilitating the consumption of raw food materials that would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible, to digest [111, 112]. From the researcher’s view, the higher the degree of refinement, the lower the chance to identify the ingredients under a microscope, because fragmentation gets ever stronger, while diagnostic elements increasingly disappear [e. g. grain husks and seed coats, see 107].

Many of the actions involved in food processing—most notably crushing/grinding, cooking/boiling, and fermenting [113]–do not only pre-digest the raw ingredients for humans, but also for any other hungry life form. Their resistance to microbial attack is considerably reduced, with the consequence that flour and its products decompose rapidly, even under waterlogged conditions [98, 114].

2.2.2. Prerequisites for preservation, and for analysis

There are environmental conditions which allow for the preservation of chemically unmodified processed foodstuffs over archaeologically relevant periods of time, for example if desiccation [115–117] or high salt concentrations [118, 119] are inhibiting microbial growth. Outside such contexts, however, the analysis of archaeological cereal products is mainly limited to charred material [82, 120].

Charring is well-known for being a strong filter for plant remains not only due to the charring conditions themselves [121–123], but also because it limits the preservation of processed plant foods to particular events such as “baking accidents”, intentional burning [106], and catastrophic fires [82, 83]. Furthermore, once charred, the material becomes brittle and highly sensitive to mechanical stress, the presence of which influences the chances of preservation—particularly of larger objects—during deposition and recovery [48, 120]. On the positive side, charring does not generally affect the determinability of plant tissues, as not only the cell wall structures [104, 105] but also subcellular elements such as starch granules can remain recognizable in charred state [124–126].

Charring massively transforms the chemical composition of organic matter [127–129] and consequently places narrow limits on chemical residue analyses. They are still possible, but in contrast to histological approaches they are often limited to very general statements when it comes to charred plant-based materials [107, 130–137]. Chemical analyses of uncharred (that is, desiccated) food preparations have, in contrast, already revealed their potential and diagnostic acuity [138, 139].

The rather recent field of (archaeo-)proteomic analyses, applied to (partially) charred remains, could spark a revolution in the near future: In archaeological contexts, proteins appear to be more resilient to decomposition than e.g. DNA [140, 141], and they have already proven to not only identify organisms but also their specific tissues with unsuspected precision [142]. As for the site of Prigglitz-Gasteil, lipid residue and proteomics analyses of suspected cooking ware sherds are envisaged for a follow-up project.

2.2.3. Rough guidelines for the work with charred fragments of food preparations

Roughly summing up the previous two sections and pages 39–50 from the first author’s habilitation thesis [48], we think that the analysis of archaeological food preparations should always be accompanied by the following considerations:

Limited visibility of plant tissues. Non-destructive SEM analysis can only be carried out on surfaces (of subsamples), while any plant tissues enclosed within the charred foodstuff (e. g. a cereal product) remain invisible. Sometimes, even the expected main ingredients (e. g. flour) in a sample do not deliver enough identifiable material, while possible accessory components—accidental ones such as glumes, or intentional ones such as condiments—are even more difficult to track. However, there are cases where even condiments have successfully been identified [82, 143, 144].
Limited identifiability of plant tissues. Archaeobotanical identification bases on intact cell wall structures, and thus on robust thick-walled tissues. Consequently, outer hulls (e. g. chaff, seed coat, pericarp) often preserve. Thin-walled storage parenchyma (cereal endosperm, pulse cotyledonary tissue, fruit pulp) frequently collapses and fuses into amorphous masses when charred. The higher the degree of refinement, the lower the chance to find anything identifiable (see section 2.2.2).
Visibility of many components only to chemical residue analysis. Any ingredients not leaving distinct cell patterns remain invisible to histological approaches towards charred material. Solid and detectable animal parts such as fish scales [107] only rarely make it into processed foodstuffs, while meat, lard, and dairy products leave no identifiable traces other than chemical ones. However, due to charring, chemical diagnosis can be very limited (see section 2.2.2).
Different processes can lead to identical structures, recently subsumed by J. J. García-Granero under the term of equifinality [145]. As an example, observation of intact starch granules in a charred cereal product is clearly indicative of its charring in dry state [48]. In contrast, the absence of intact starch granules is ambiguous and may either indicate charring in hydrated state, or charring of an already pre-cooked/pre-boiled product (which may or may not have been subsequently dried prior to charring) [103].
Complete identification of components is currently impossible (see above). Even easily identifiable plant-based components may be hidden in the material, and most animal-based components will go undetected without chemical residue analysis.
Culinary production processes frequently involve recycling, which is why every product can basically serve as raw material for another product. Bread, for instance, can be dried and stored as a food preserve, eventually becoming the basis of a soup or stew [146]. Ground dry bread can be mixed into fresh bread dough [147, 148], or hydrated for the production of kvass-like beers low in alcohol [149–151]. After mashing, the spent grain can in turn be used as a starter for making bread [66, 152].

All in all, quantitative conclusions on ingredients should not be made, and it is important to consider that composite foodstuffs may not be recognised as such. The possibility of complex, even iterating operational sequences must always be kept in mind. Against this background, any modelled chaîne opératoire should be accompanied by an open discussion of potential flaws and uncertainties [48], in order to avoid misinterpretations.

2.3. The material from Prigglitz-Gasteil

2.3.1. Sampling and sample processing

During the excavations from 2010 to 2014, all stratigraphic units (Stratigraphische Einheiten, SE) were systematically sampled. The archaeobotanical samples for the current study were taken from the residential area of the miners and/or craftsmen located immediately next to the mine on the two artificial terraces T3 and T4. From all occupation layers or building horizons, samples with volumes ranging from 10 to 20 l per sample were taken. Up to 30 samples per layer were taken from cultural layers that extended over larger areas, using a 1 x 1 m grid (Fig 7). The mining debris deposited between occupation phases was generally not sampled due to its almost complete lack in archaeological finds and visible plant remains (e. g. charcoal fragments).

Following this strategy, altogether 310 sediment samples with a total volume of 4,793.5 litres were taken from the excavated areas on terraces T3 (102 m²) and T4 (113.45 m²). This high-resolution sampling strategy was chosen to allow for spatial (Fig 7) as well as temporal (Fig 8) investigation of activities. All sediment samples were flotated and subsequently wet-sieved to retrieve botanical macroremains and micro-refuse such as casting droplets and bone fragments. Flotation was carried out with the flotation device set up at MAMUZ Schloss Asparn/Zaya in Lower Austria according to standard methodology [153, 154]. Sieve sets with mesh sizes of 2.0, 1.0, and 0.5 mm were used.

Fig 8 — Excavation area 6, profile 10. Image: UIBK/P. Trebsche.

2.3.2. Dating and chronology

The absolute chronology of the site is based on a large series of more than 75 radiocarbon dates funded within the scope of the FWF project, and mostly coming from short-lived organic materials (charred plant remains and animal bones), which were then calibrated in a stratigraphic model.

The habitation remains on Terraces 3 and 4 from which the archaeobotanical finds presented in this paper originate can be dated to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1300–800 BCE), more precisely to the Late Urnfield Period (c. 1050–800 BCE). Building activities on Terrace 3 and 4 overlap, but cover different time spans, with the activities on Terrace 3 starting in the second half of the 11^th century BCE and ending at the beginning of the 8^th century BCE, while the constructions on Terrace 4 only cover the last quarter of the 10^th century BCE.

The upper Terrace T3 yielded a stratigraphy comprising eleven phases from the Late Bronze Age (phases T3-11 to T3-05), followed by a phase of erosion (T3-04), one phase of medieval occupation (phase T3-03) and two phases of the Modern Period (phases T3-02 and T3-01). According to a series of 19 radiocarbon dates, prehistoric activities in this area started from 1072–999 BCE (1σ) and lasted until 796–764 BCE (1σ), i. e., approximately two and a half centuries [3, 155].

The stratigraphy excavated on the lower Terrace T4 comprises 14 phases from the Late Bronze Age (phases T4-14 to T4-09) to the Medieval Period (phase T4-04) and the Modern Period (phases T4-02 and T4-01). During the Late Bronze Age, ten consecutive construction activities are attested at this terrace; they were interrupted by three episodes of copper ore mining [155]. Bayesian modelling of 13 radiocarbon dates [156] for short-lived organic materials allowed for a precise dating of the Late Bronze Age phases. The boundary start ranges from 946–906 BCE (1σ) with a peak in the probability distribution at 920 BCE. The boundary end date ranges from 910–851 BCE (1σ) with its peak at 895 BCE. Most probably, the entire stratigraphic sequence from the first construction in sub-phase T4-13G to the latest cultural layer deposited in phase T4-08 was created in only 25 calendar years [3, 155].

In addition to the high-resolution radiocarbon dating approach within our project, ¹⁴C dating of a single broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) grain of from find no. 691 (SE 413), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) SFB/CRC 1266, was included into a recent overview of the early chronology of millet cultivation in Europe [157].

Basing on all available chronological information, a representative subsample of 90 soil samples from 74 stratigraphic units (SEs) with a total volume of 1,459 litres was selected from all available samples to get a diachronic overview of the Late Bronze Age activities on terraces T3 and T4. The samples represent nearly all phases of the Late Bronze Age occupation at the Prigglitz-Gasteil site (Fig 9).

Fig 9 — For detailed values, please refer to the raw data in S1 Table. Image: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

2.3.3. Laboratory work

Heavy fractions from flotation and wet-sieving samples were searched for micro-refuse under a magnifier lamp, any charred plant remains which had remained therein were added to the light fractions. From all latter (organic) fractions, charred plant macroremains were sorted under the stereomicroscope (Olympus SZX10, magnification 6.3–63x), with the exceptions of wood charcoal fragments and entirely unidentifiable amorphous charred objects [82, ACOs, cf. 158, equivalent to the term ’AOV’, cf. 159]. These two categories were only retrieved and counted if their grain sizes were 2 mm or larger.

During sorting, ACOs which displayed possible traces of plant tissue were consecutively checked for identifiable cereal tissue under an Olympus BX53M metallurgical microscope (magnifications of 100x up to 500x) in order to support their interpretation as cereal products [82]. Ten random fragments (highlighted in red in S1 Table) containing cereal tissue visible under the light microscope were selected for SEM analysis in order to investigate their components and inner structures.

SEM imagery for three of the ACOs (from finds no. 5, 8, 42) was produced at the Department of Molecular Botany of the University of Hohenheim within the scope of the ERC project PlantCult, using a Zeiss DSM 940 SEM after sputter coating the samples with gold/palladium in a Balzers SCD 040. Seven more ACOs (from finds no. 945, 1008, 2148, 2150, and 2153) were analysed at the archaeobotany laboratory of the Austrian Archaeological Institute (OeAW-OeAI) using a Hitachi TM4000Plus SEM without prior sputter coating. Species/genus identification of cereals followed common microstructural features of glumes and bran [160–162] as adapted to archaeological plant remains [83, 104, 105, 163, 164].

Identification of all other botanical macroremains, except for charcoal (see Conclusions and outlook) was carried out basing on the reference collection at OeAW-OeAI [165], general literature for seed identification [166–170], and specialised literature focusing on morphological cereal identification [171, 172].

Entire seeds as well as their fragments were all counted as one find each (see S1 Table). The only exception were the large quantities of fragmented charred conifer needles. To avoid overrepresentation, only the minimal numbers of needles were counted (see Table 1). Original counts of all fragments are, however, available on request.

Table 1. Counting method applied to conifer needles.

Table from Heiss [173], modified.

Number observed	Number counted
10 entire needles	10
10 tips	10
10 bases	10
10 bases and 5 tips	10
10 tips and 50 middle parts	10

Open in a new tab

2.3.4. Data evaluation and documentation

The results were recorded and evaluated using the ArboDat 2016 database [174, 175]. Phytosociological class groups [176], roughly represented in ArboDat as “ecogroups”, were modified by aspects of the site’s current vegetation observed during a vegetation survey in September 2010, carried out by M. Kohler-Schneider and A. G. Heiss. The resulting groups served as a basic means for classification of the habitats from which the identified plant remains could have originated. The occurrence of identified plants was evaluated by sample and by phase in this publication, basing on the respective total sum and ubiquity [frequency of occurrence, cf. 121].

Comparative diagrams of cereal spectra follow the guidelines proposed by Stika & Heiss [177, 178], i. e. grain finds of taxa unequivocally or at least probably (cf.) identified to species level are included, while identifications to genus level and above are excluded. Naked wheats which are not satisfactorily discernible by their grains are treated as a single species. Chaff finds are generally excluded from the diagrams. The resulting percentages are rounded to whole numbers. Ternary diagrams were created using the software Triplot [179].

Light micrographs were created using an integrated Olympus system (stereomicroscope SZX10, digital camera UC909, software Stream Basic), processed in Adobe Photoshop CC, and mounted into plates in Adobe Illustrator CC. The map in Fig 2 was created using ArcGIS Pro [180] basing on the following map sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, USGS, NGA.

3. Results

The Late Bronze Age samples contained a total amount of 7,022 charred plant macroremains, retrieved from a soil volume of 1,459 litres. For the raw data, please refer to S1 Table. The mean find density of all plant macroremains (charcoal excluded) which amounts to 4.81 finds per litre (median: 2.3) is not particularly high. Nearly half of the botanical macroremains (n = 3,392) were not identifiable due to insufficiently preserved morphologies and/or surface features (Fig 10). Possible reasons leading to this extremely high proportion will be discussed later. The identifiable archaeobotanical finds (Fig 11) are mainly represented by seeds/fruits of cultivated plants (two thirds) and conifer needles (one third). Arable weeds as well as plants from woodland margins occur to minor extents, amounting to 10–12% each.

Fig 10 — n = 7,022. Diagram: OeAW-OeAI/T. Jakobitsch.

Fig 11 — The group “deciduous forests and woodland margins” overlaps to a large extent with the “wild fruits” group from Fig 10. The group “coniferous forests” is mainly represented by fir and spruce needles. n = 3,630. Diagram: OeAW-OeAI/T. Jakobitsch.

3.1. Cultivated crops

3.1.1. Seeds and grains

Domesticates, mainly cereals, occurred quite numerous (n = 1,116) and highly ubiquitous (71%) in the material, yet very unevenly distributed: 75 samples out of 90 contained less than one remain of cultivated plants per litre or even none at all. In contrast, there are three samples around, or well over, ten finds per litre: Sample 1421 (SE 820, phase T3-08B) with 9.9 finds/l, sample 2148 (SE 1047, phase T4-13E) with 21 finds/l, and sample 2153 (SE 1068, phase T4-13F) amounting to 18 finds/l.

Looking at the cereals only, 98% of the finds were small fragments with abraded surfaces, and they could not be assigned to any genus. The identifiable fraction of grain finds was clearly dominated by millet caryopses (Figs 12a and 12b and 13), with broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) being more common at the site than foxtail millet (Setaria italica); whereas both taxa regularly occur in the samples taken at Terrace 3, they are nearly absent from Terrace 4.

Fig 12 — a) broomcorn millet (*Panicum miliaceum*), b) foxtail millet (*Setaria italica*), c) lentil (cf. *Lens culinaris*). Scale bar length: 1 mm. Images: OeAW-OeAI/S. Wiesinger (top and middle row), A. G. Heiss (bottom row).

Fig 13 — n = 101. Diagram: OeAW-OeAI/T. Jakobitsch.

Barley (Hordeum vulgare), emmer (Triticum dicoccum), and an unidentified wheat species (Triticum sp.), possibly poorly preserved emmer, occurred in minor amounts. Cereal remains other than grain (fragments) were rare and low in numbers: Culm fragments were the most common ones, deriving mostly from a single sample from terrace T4 (stratigraphic unit SE 1047), followed by a few glume bases of einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer (Triticum dicoccum).

Finds of pulses were in general much rarer (n = 19) and far less ubiquitous (8%) than cereals at Prigglitz-Gasteil, lentil (Lens culinaris) being the only identifiable taxon.

3.1.2. Cereal products

A major group of cereal remains (n = 76, ubiquity 28%) was represented by amorphous charred objects (ACOs) containing fragments of cereal bran or glumes embedded in their matrix, and which are commonly interpreted as cereal products [48, 82, 120, 143, 181] (Fig 14). It was taken care to verify that the cereal tissue fragments were indeed contents of the chosen ACOs and were not just sticking to them. This was important because the endosperms of both barley and broomcorn millet tend to liquefy under certain charring conditions [182, 183], and create an amorphous matrix around otherwise intact grains [see also the experiment in 173]. This was not the case in the analysed ACOs.

Fig 14 — Both contain barley (*Hordeum vulgare*). Top: find no. 0008, bottom: find no. 0042. Images: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

Among the components, only barley (Hordeum vulgare) as well as foxtail millet (Setaria italica) were identified by their characteristic tissue features (Table 2, Fig 15), while any other possible ingredients must currently remain unknown (see section 2.2.3). None of the investigated samples displayed traces of intact (= ungelatinised) starch granules. The material was mostly very dense with only a few areas showing pores, but none exceeding 200 μm, qualifying them as micropores [184]. Due to the overall small sizes of the cereal product fragments, it was not possible to assess the size classes of a sufficient number of grain chunks contained therein. No information on the degree of milling/grinding is therefore available. Cell wall thicknesses observed in the preserved aleurone tissue did not show any obvious anomalies, which is why the authors did not pursue the issue of possibly malted grain [cf. 83] any further.

Table 2. Cereal components identified in the ACOs analysed via SEM.

Terrace / phase	Stratigraphical unit (SE)	Find no.	Cereal taxa / identified by…
T3-08D	2006	0005	cf. Cerealia / possible longitudinal cells
T3-08D	0679	0945 (frag. A)	Panicum/Setaria / glume epidermis Setaria italica / glume epidermis
T3-08D	0679	0945 (frag. B)	Cerealia, non-Hordeum / single-layered aleurone
T3-08E	2012	0008	Hordeum vulgare / multi-layered aleurone cf. Hordeum vulgare / glume fragment
T3-08E	0700	1008	Hordeum vulgare / multi-layered aleurone
T3-10	2008	0042	Hordeum vulgare / multi-layered aleurone
T4-13E	1047	2148	Hordeum vulgare / glume epidermis
T4-13F	1058	2150	Cerealia, non-Hordeum / single-layered aleurone
T4-13F	1068	2153 (frag. A)	Hordeum vulgare / double-layered transverse cells
T4-13F	1068	2153 (frag. B)	Cerealia / bran remains including aleurone

Open in a new tab

Fig 15 — a) foxtail millet (*Setaria italica*) glume from find no. 0945, b) cereal (non-*Hordeum*) aleurone from find no. 0945, c) barley (*Hordeum vulgare*) aleurone from find no. 0008, d) barley (*Hordeum vulgare*) aleurone from find no. 0042, e) hulled barley (*Hordeum vulgare*) glume from find no. 2148, f) barley (*Hordeum vulgare*) transverse cells from find no. 2153. Image labels: A1, A2, A3… aleurone layers, GE… glume epidermis, SE… fused starchy endosperm, T1, T2… transverse cell layers. Images: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

Numerous amorphous charred objects (n = 1,160) were listed in the group of “Indeterminata” (see S1 Table), as they did not display any obvious fragments of cereals or other plant remains on their surfaces. While future in-depth analysis of their inner surfaces may very well uncover more cereal products in this group, this must be regarded as speculative at the current state of research.

3.1.3. Wild plants

Among the remains of wild plants, the largest number of finds was attributable to the ecogroup of arable weeds and ruderals, i. e. taxa commonly restricted to anthropogenic habitats. This group (n = 437) occurred ubiquitous (64%) across the excavated areas of Prigglitz-Gasteil. The most frequent weed taxa belong to members of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae = Amaranthaceae p. p.) and to wild millets (Poaceae-Panicoideae, including e. g. Echinochloa and wild Setaria taxa). These wild millets showed an overall distribution pattern similar to the one of cultivated millets.

Remains of species which were associated to open land ecosystems, and thus grassland in the widest sense (n = 267) were found to occur about as ubiquitous as weedy plants. The most numerous and ubiquitous group therein were Poaceae caryopses which were not identifiable any further, while the most common genera were bedstraw (Galium sp.), strawberry/cinquefoil (Fragaria sp. and Potentilla sp.), and sedges (Carex sp.). Plants from dry soils such as thyme (cf. Thymus sp.) were present, but also wetland taxa such as bugleweed (cf. Lycopus europaeus).

A variety of wild plants which preferably grow in light forests and on woodland margins was found (n = 329) (Fig 16), the most common remains being rose (Rosa sp.) nutlets and rosehip fragments (in total 154 finds), followed by drupes of the genus Rubus (n = 93). Other common finds from this ecogroup were hazel (Corylus avellana), crab apple or wild pear (Malus sp. / Pyrus sp.), sloe (Prunus spinosa), Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas), and elder (Sambucus nigra and S. racemosa).

As mentioned above for the cereal products, it is likely that the large number of unidentified ACOs also contains more of the parenchymatous fruit fragments which were sometimes attributable to Rosa species and to Malus/Pyrus species. However, a complete overview of the taxa contributing to the ACO will require a large-scale SEM approach.

Fir (Abies alba) needle fragments nearly exclusively represented the largest ecogroup in the find assemblage (plants from coniferous woods: n = 1,409), and they occurred in virtually every stratigraphic unit (SE) and sample. Spruce (Picea abies) needles were the second most frequent find category, ubiquitous on T3 but apparently missing on terrace T4.

As stated in the research goals (section 1.4), such distribution patterns as well as a general in-depth study of the wild plants at Prigglitz-Gasteil will be the focus of a follow-up publication [185] which will also incorporate palynological results as well as the detailed in-site chronology and geospatial analyses which are still under way.

4. Discussion

4.1. General observations

The large proportion (42%) of entirely unidentifiable charred remains lacking surface features is certainly the most striking characteristic of the analysed find assemblage. To some extent, this may be explained by the particular find situation of the working platforms: The samples from Prigglitz-Gasteil nearly exclusively come from cultural layers exposed to the surface and not from the protected infills of sunken features such as pits.

Furthermore, the rocky local sediment—a deposit of coarse-grained overburden and mining tailings—is much more abrasive to the fragile charred material than e. g. loess or humus-rich matrix. Consequently, prior to deposition, any “successfully” charred organic remain would be exposed to mechanical stress and multiple relocation events in a highly abrasive soil matrix, caused by trampling and surface water runoff, soil erosion, and intentional reshaping of the platforms. Exposition to erosion after deforestation could also have caused similarly high percentages of unidentified charred plant remains recovered from the Early Bronze Age contexts of Kiechlberg [17].

Compared to the other archaeobotanically investigated Alpine Bronze Age copper production sites, the observed mean find densities are among the highest (Fig 17)–except for the extraordinarily high find density reported from Mauk A which is due to local waterlogged preservation conditions. Prigglitz-Gasteil is certainly among the most intensively sampled and analysed sites.

Fig 17 — Left side: total sample volumes, right side: resulting find densities. Both horizontal axes are in logarithmic scale due to the differences in magnitudes. Top: younger sites, bottom: older sites. Find numbers of conifer needles from Mauken were adapted to the counting method described in section 2.3.3. For Mauk A, no figures of unidentified plant remains were available [6], thus lowering the overall find density for the site. Illustration: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

Intra-site variation of find densities is high at Prigglitz-Gasteil: While most sampled phases are poor in material—in particular concerning cultivated crops—the samples from phases T4-13E and T4-13F may even represent the charred remainders of small former stocks.

Comparison between Late Bronze Age Prigglitz-Gasteil and the other copper production sites discussed in this paper is basically problematic, as the other sites are either poor in finds or not contemporary—or both. Careful consideration of possible similarities and differences is therefore required, even for a very general look at the data (Fig 18).

Fig 18 — Conifer needles are excluded as “background noise”. Illustration: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

Taking the two sites at Mauken for a start, the hypothesis has been brought forward that the scarcity of cultivated crops could serve as an indicator for crop production elsewhere and would therefore point towards the consumer character of a site [6, 186]. The site of Prigglitz-Gasteil resulted in amounts of cultivated and wild food plants ranging somewhere between the extremes of Klinglberg (high) and Mauken (low), which currently renders this criterion uninformative for our material.

4.2. Food plants

4.2.1. Comparative crop plant spectra

Taking the available evidence on current environmental conditions (see section 1.3.3) together with what we know about the regional climate history [187], no particular environmental restraints would affect the cultivation of any of the identified crop plants close to the metallurgical site of Prigglitz-Gasteil. The same is basically true for the sites of Kiechlberg [17, 31], Klinglberg [16, 188, 189], and Mauken [12, 27, 190].

Discussion of possible other factors influencing the identified crop spectra at Prigglitz-Gasteil and the other copper production sites requires a diachronic approach. Furthermore, as even the closest archaeobotanically analysed settlements are too far away to be directly related to Prigglitz (Fig 2), information on general tendencies in the region seemed to be more useful to refer to than individual settlements would have been. For this reason, we chose to use the semi-quantitative regional data generated from representativeness indices (RI) as brought forward by Stika and Heiss [177, 178]. Fig 19 unites these considerations as a basis for discussion, also including more recent information from Popovtschak et al. [191].

Fig 19 — Cereals from Fig 3 complemented with the lentil finds from S1 Table. Central row: diachronic comparison to the results from Klinglberg [17], Kiechlberg [16, 26], and Mauken [data from 6, 12, 27]. To provide easier comparison to already published data, all count numbers were modified according to the procedures explained in section 2.3.4. Left and right rows: regional diachronic data for cereals and pulses, displayed via their respective representativeness indices (RIs) from the region “Eastern Alps and their Foreland” as published by Stika & Heiss [177, 178]. Illustration: OeAW-OeAI/A. G. Heiss.

Taking the crop plant spectrum of the region “Eastern Alps and their Foreland” [177, 178] during Late Bronze Age as a reference, the most important crop plants are also present in Prigglitz-Gasteil, if at quite different proportions: barley (Hordeum vulgare), emmer (Triticum dicoccum), broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica) as well as lentil (Lens culinaris).

In comparison to the other copper production sites, there is, for example, a notable difference in the importance of barley between Prigglitz and Klinglberg. However, against the background of the diachronic regional changes as reported by Stika & Heiss [177, 178], this rather seems to reflect the general trend of barley’s decrease in importance between Early and Late Bronze Age than any site-specific preferences. At the same time, the large amounts of millet at Prigglitz fit together well with the late arrival of millets towards Late Bronze Age, which is by now well-documented across Europe [157, 192]. Still, it must be noted that the rather large proportion of undetermined grain fragments found at Prigglitz-Gasteil may also play a big role in distorting the results.

On the legume side, the prominence of lentil at Prigglitz-Gasteil contrasts with the inner Alpine “pea-only” sites Kiechlberg and Klinglberg. Looking at the reference data, this could just as well be related to the general increase of lentil’s importance towards Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Alpine region. The differing species notwithstanding, it must be noted that the presence of pulses in a mining site rich in faunal evidence is an important proof that aside from the generally pork-dominated diet also plant-based protein was consumed by the local miners.

4.2.2. Crops from field to kitchen

As laid out in the introduction, the proportions of grain, chaff, and arable weeds in archaeobotanical find assemblages have successfully been used as indicators helping to assess the stages of cereal processing present at a site. For St. Veit-Klinglberg, S. J. Shennan and F. Green concluded from the large number of grains and the completely lacking chaff that grain processing had not been carried out on-site, and that grain supplies must have come from outside the settlement, arriving in a threshed or even—in the case of hulled wheats—dehusked state [16, 26]. The presence of a ready-made cereal product (“charred bread”) was interpreted as additional strong support for this hypothesis. For the site at Kiechlberg, although mainly basing on Eneolithic finds, Schwarz & Oeggl [17] drew similar conclusions basing on the low occurrences of chaff and arable weeds.

For Prigglitz-Gasteil, we chose ternary diagrams as a familiar tool for the visualisation of these proportions. However, in contrast to the idea originally brought forward by G. E. Jones [68], we do not intend to precisely identify certain processing stages from the diagrams but merely visualize the data for the following discussion. This is the reason why in Fig 20 not only free-threshing cereals are included, but also hulled taxa.

It is important to note right away that the diagrams comparing the proportions of grain—weed—chaff (Fig 20a ans 20b, left sides) show an overall strong proportion of arable weeds in nearly all phases. However, at Prigglitz-Gasteil we do not deal with closed find contexts such as storage finds, but rather with an anthropogenically deforested, repeatedly trampled, and reshaped area (see section 4.1). Chances are therefore very high that the identified weeds are not arable weeds but that they rather reflect locally growing ruderal taxa. This gets even more likely as the metallurgical processes documented for Prigglitz-Gasteil such as smelting or alloying [40, 41] all require fire—charring will therefore only occur to a minor extent in cooking fires, while most charring events will be connected to technical fires. At the current state of research, we cannot exclude that the charred remains of weeds could be entirely unrelated to in situ cooking processes.

Consequently, we chose to produce an additional type of ternary plot (Fig 20a and 20b, right sides) which compares only aspects of the crop plants themselves, thereby excluding any local influences, and—more important—instead, including cereal products as the results of the “cuisine part” of crop processing operational sequences (see Introduction). These diagrams illustrate the nearly lacking chaff opposed to large numbers of ready-to-cook grain, and to varying amounts of processed cereal-based foodstuffs. This suggests that hypotheses on grain imported in late stages of crop cleaning (Fig 5), possibly even in a state of further processing [16, 17, 26], could very likely work just as well for Prigglitz-Gasteil. We will elaborate on this in the following section.

Due to the various conditions influencing the preservation and composition of the find assemblage, many agricultural details of the crop plants found at Prigglitz-Gasteil (see also section 4.1) are unfortunately beyond analysis, such as ecological characteristics of the crop fields [193] or the possible presence of maslins [194, 195]–in the case of Prigglitz-Gasteil, synchronous cultivation and harvest of barley and lentil in the same patches. One may be tempted to use the lack of pulses among the ACO components as an argument against such a mixed cultivation of barley and lentil. However, due to the high chance of a charred food preparation’s components to “escape” analysis (see section 2.2.3), we strongly advise against any such interpretation.

4.2.3. Comparative wild fruit spectra

Due to the currently uncertain origins of the weedy plants (see section 3.1.3) at Prigglitz-Gasteil, only non-weedy plants are included in the following considerations, even if his means the exclusion of potentially consumed taxa such as goosefoot [196–198] and nightshade [199].

At Prigglitz-Gasteil, gathered fruits play an important role next to (processed) cereals, their find numbers amounting to roughly a quarter of all seeds/fruits of food plants (Figs 10 and 11). Whilst this proportion is among the highest ones among the compared copper production sites (Fig 18), it is by far the most diverse one: remains of hazelnut, crab apple and/or wild pear, sloe, raspberry, dewberry, blackberry, rose, strawberry, and (black as well as red-berried) elder were found.

For the other metallurgical sites referred to in this paper, evidence of wild fruit is much more fragmentary: The Early and Middle Bronze Age layers at Kiechlberg [26], for example, delivered only three fragments of hazel (Corylus avellana) shells [17]. From Klinglberg, only qualitative information is published, referring to hazel shell fragments that “were recovered from a number of contexts but not in large quantities” [16], and, further on, “evidence of Prunus and Rubus species was encountered”. F. Green also mentions a peculiar find of Hippohaë rhamnoides, interpreted as an import [16]. At Mauk A, large numbers (> 500) of uncharred black elder (Sambucus nigra) fruit stones were found [6, 12], accompanied by several dozen fruit stones of raspberry (Rubus idaeus) and blackberry (R. fruticosus agg.) stones as well as a single rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) seed [6]–all in waterlogged preservation.

4.2.4. Gathering the berries and nuts

All the aforementioned taxa have in common to grow in degraded forests, on woodland margins, and on clearings [200]. When considering the available information on local vegetation composition at the respective periods and sites—Kiechlberg [17, 201], Klinglberg [202, 203], Mauken [6, 12], and Prigglitz-Gasteil (see section 1.3.3), the fruits of all these taxa were very likely easily available in the sites’ immediate surroundings in the months from June until October [204]. It may seem that the specialist communities of miners and metallurgists were not only sustained by food from agricultural production but also from foraging activities.

For Prigglitz-Gasteil, the seasonal use of such “wild” resources in the surroundings may represent a parallel to the animal find assemblage: Archaeozoological analysis suggests that either the miners themselves or other on-site craftspeople were regularly foraging the surrounding woods in spring for shed deer antlers to produce tools from them [19]. Probably they kept up the same foraging habit during summer and autumn to provide berries and nuts.

4.3. Plant-based food

4.3.1. Cereal products

Fragmented, large-seeded cereal grains do make up for the vast majority (98%) of cereal finds. Such large proportions of fragmented grains have previously been suggested as possible indicators of food processing, namely grinding or pounding, by M. van der Veen and G. Jones [56]. Exploring the potential of this large find category seemed promising, in particular because S. M. Valamoti [81] had even been able to identify pre-cooked cereal products from charred grain fragments from Greece by using the characteristic of bulging edges. She was able to document that this feature derived from an operational sequence of crushing and swelling prior to charring.

Unfortunately, neither of these considerations can be taken into account for the Prigglitz finds, as their former surfaces are usually gone due to abrasion (Fig 21). Furthermore, the few fragments with preserved fractured faces did not display any bulging edges and are therefore lacking hints on pre-charring fragmentation and possible cooking. The taphonomical considerations mentioned earlier—relocation by surface runoff, in combination with trampling—are at least as likely the reason for the high fragmentation rates of cereal grains as are actions related to food processing. As a temporary conclusion, we currently do not consider the degree of fragmentation of cereal grains at Prigglitz-Gasteil as informative on their artefactual character, or for the reconstruction of food-related chaînes opératoires.

Analysis of the cereal-based ACOs (amorphous charred objects), on the contrary, revealed a few clear hints on their production (Fig 22). Some remaining questions shall be discussed in the following (numbers corresponding to those in Fig 22).

Dehusking/dehulling: Hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) was either rubbed/dehulled—thus leaving only a few accidental glume remains—or left “as is”. Which of the two was the case cannot be decided due to the impossibility of quantitative statements on the ingredients of archaeological finds of processed foodstuffs. The glumes of foxtail millet (Setaria italica), however, had quite certainly been intended to be removed due to their limited palatability [205], but had accidentally remained [206]. No other cereals were observed, and neither were indications on other peculiarities, such as malted grains [83, 126].
Separate or joint processing: Barley and foxtail millet grains were crushed or ground for the cereal products found at Prigglitz-Gasteil. It is, however, unknown whether the two cereals were used for separate dishes or mixed at some point (Fig 22). Until now, neither were observed together in the same fragment of cereal product. If in mixture, the resulting dish could have been somehow comparable to the Hirsotto [193] from the contemporary settlement of Stillfried an der March (Lower Austria, see Fig 2): These charred chunks contained coarsely crushed grains of barley, broomcorn millet, and rye brome, the latter however missing from the Prigglitz material [for recipe interpretations, see 193, 207].
Degree of grinding: Too few grain fragments per cereal-based ACOs were available for measurements as to allow for any qualified statement on overall grain sizes. Consequently, no information on the degree of crushing or grinding is available for the analysed food remains.
Consistency: The preparation(s) got into contact with heat in a hydrated state as no ungelatinised starch was observed in the analysed fragments. The degree of this hydration had however not resulted in an entirely liquid mixture, as no particle size sorting was observed [83], supporting the interpretation of the remains as those of a cereal-based mush. Although water is the most likely hydrating agent, others such as milk cannot be excluded (see below).
Additional ingredients: No other additional components such as salt, condiments, fat, other cereals, etc. were observable in the material, but must be at least considered as possibilities. The chemical residue analyses on presumed cooking vessels planned for the consecutive project will hopefully shed more light on these hitherto “invisible” components.
Cooking/baking: The resulting mass was most probably not fermented due to the exclusive occurrence of micropores. Whether the final stage of preparation before charring was a cooked or raw mush is currently unknown.

With varying degrees of precision, these considerations give a general idea of what was produced, and how it was produced. The answer to the question where the ingredients were processed needs, however, more evidence to give clearer insights into the supply structures of Prigglitz-Gasteil and contribute to the general question of the subsistence of mining communities. Other find categories do, however, add up to the previous arguments. Firstly, finds of tools involved in food production are generally rare at the site: Of the more than 9,000 pottery fragments retrieved from the site, only around 50 show charred crusts on their surfaces, pointing towards their former use as cooking vessels [208]. Whether these were used for cooking on site or were transported to the mining site together with their pre-cooked contents, is currently uncertain. However, remains of grinding stones which represent a much more “immobile” kind of implement than pottery does, are entirely missing in the areas excavated so far [208]. It seems therefore at least highly improbable that any grinding/crushing of grains was carried out on-site.

4.3.2. What about… processed fruits and nuts?

We mentioned earlier that, under the premise of direct consumption in a fresh state, the archaeobotanical finds of fruits and nuts from Prigglitz-Gasteil would roughly indicate seasonal foraging/gathering activities from May until November. If we also consider food processing as a possibility, this conclusion will, however, become less straightforward.

There are indeed reasons why fruits and nuts would get processed prior to consumption instead of eating them raw. Bearing in mind that all sites except Mauk A yielded only assemblages of charred plant remains, we may focus on heat treatments here: Boiling, cooking, roasting, and drying of fruits and nuts can be highly useful for the detoxification of harmful compound as in Sambucus [209], or for the improvement of taste and palatability as in Malus sylvestris or Prunus spinosa [210]. Increasing shelf life by several weeks and months is another plausible reason for such heat treatments. The latter case has continuously been demonstrated by numerous finds of entire or halved fruits of charred crab apples (Malus sylvestris) from Neolithic [211–213] and Bronze Age [214–216] lakeshore settlements—and fewer finds from dryland sites [e. g. 217]–suggesting a common habit of drying them for preservation. Roasting of hazelnuts has likewise been postulated, albeit mostly for Mesolithic populations [218].

Such habits of roasting or drying fruits and nuts may indeed have led to the preservation of the numerous charred fruit fragments of crab apples and rosehips found at Prigglitz-Gasteil, and to the finds of hazelnut shell fragments from the other sites. However, interpretation of the finds of wild taxa suffers from the same possible biases as the weedy plant assemblages (see sections 3.1.3 and 4.2.3): They could simply have grown at or around the sites, and they could have been charred by sheer accident in the technical fires, or intentionally burned as waste (see also Green’s considerations [16]).

As a conclusion for this section, while pointing out the possibility of processed fruits/nut, it must be clearly stated that none of the charred wild fruit finds from either Prigglitz-Gasteil or the other sites allow unequivocal conclusions on cooking processes, neither do they allow clear implications on the seasonality of the sites concerned.

5. Conclusions and outlook

Prigglitz-Gasteil is among the most intensively sampled and most species-rich Bronze Age mining sites in the Eastern Alps. The utilised crop plant spectrum lies within the range expected for the period and region. From the cultivated taxa, only barley and foxtail millet are documented as components of the analysed cereal preparations—either processed in mixture or separately, these two could have made up the major components of a miners’ dish, a simple unfermented cereal mush. The role of pulses and wild fruits/nuts in Bronze Age “mining cuisine”, however, still has to remain vague.

Analysis of more cereal product fragments from Prigglitz-Gasteil, together with a re-evaluation of the “charred bread” from Klinglberg via SEM, will help clarify the currently uncertain aspects of their components and production, accompanied by chemical residue analysis of the supposed cooking vessels from Prigglitz-Gasteil. The very encouraging results from Stillfried/March [120, 193], a settlement in Lower Austria contemporary to Prigglitz-Gasteil, even make it conceivable for Prigglitz-Gasteil to address potentially existing culinary variability within the same site.

At Prigglitz-Gasteil, cereals were likely brought from outside in the form of ready-to-cook grains and ground flour/meal to sustain the workers with food ingredients in order to cook them on site. Some food may even have been delivered in pre-cooked state. This general impression confirms previous interpretations of archaeobotanically investigated Bronze Age metallurgical sites.

Where exactly the agricultural production took place is a question that will need clarification in the future. Adjacent farmsteads could have provided the mining site with food resources, but also more remote settlements could have contributed. At the same time, foraging for natural resources probably played a significant role in Prigglitz-Gasteil, partially fulfilling the need for raw materials (shed antlers) and for nutritional supplements (gathered wild fruit) taken from the natural surroundings.

The distribution patterns of plant finds indicate functional intra-site differentiation (e. g. a possible small cereal stock in SE 1047; plant spectra differing between T3 and T4; weedy plants distribution as contrasted to cereals distribution) and might even derive from entirely different processes happening on the two working terraces. Analysis of the remaining archaeobotanical samples from the late Bronze Age layers, together with high-resolution spatial and diachronic evaluation of other small finds (charcoal, casting droplets, and antler and bone fragments) will hopefully help render the picture of metallurgy and other craftsmanship at Prigglitz-Gasteil more complete, and will result in better insights into the use of space at the site. Supplies of the mining and metallurgical operations with construction timber and firewood are currently under investigation. The results will be presented in a follow-up publication [185], and will be accompanied by palynological data on local vegetation history.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The charred plant remains from the Late Bronze Age layers of Prigglitz-Gasteil.

Sheet 1: counts by individual samples, sheet 2: counts summed up to phases. Red squares: Cereal-based ACOs analysed via SEM. Data: OeAW-OeAI/T. Jakobitsch, S. Wiesinger, A. G. Heiss.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(97.6KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Ilona Szunyogh (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna—BOKU), Michael Konrad and Julia Längauer (both Danube University Krems—DUK) for the meticulous flotation of the samples (I. Szunyogh, M. Konrad), and for scanning through the heavy fractions (I. Szunyogh, J. Längauer). We are grateful to Marianne Kohler-Schneider (BOKU) who kindly supported the first author in scientific and organisational issues during the pilot project. The authors warmly thank Klaus Oeggl (University of Innsbruck) for supporting us with background information on the Kiechlberg material, and for his cooperation to conduct palynological investigations in the area. Our thanks also go to Erika Rücker and Anne Heller (both University of Hohenheim) for their help in producing the PlantCult-funded SEM images. We thank Soultana Maria Valamoti (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), PI of ERC Project PlantCult, for all the constructive exchange and for the great time we had in the project. For their helpful suggestions during review, we thank Liliana Janik (University of Cambridge) and Kerstin Kowarik (Natural History Museum Vienna).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Electronic Supplementary Materials (ESM). All archaeological plant remains are stored in the archaeological depot of the State Collections of Lower Austria and are available for scientific re-evaluation on request: Landessammlungen Niederösterreich, Bereich Urgeschichte und Historische Archäologie, MAMUZ/Schloss Asparn/Zaya, Schlossplatz 1, 2151 Asparna. d. Zaya, Österreich/Austria. E-mail: franz.pieler@noel.gv.at, phone: +43 (27 42) 90 05 – 499 12.

Funding Statement

TJ, SW, and AGH received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) project “Life and Work at the Bronze Age Mine of Prigglitz” (proj. No. P30289-G25, PI Peter Trebsche) for the analysis of plant macroremains and charcoal. https://pf.fwf.ac.at/en/research-in-practice/project-finder/41105 AGH received funding from the Federal Government of Lower Austria for the analysis of plant macroremains and charcoal during the pilot project. http://www.noe.gv.at/noe/Kontakt-Landesverwaltung/Abteilung_Kunst-Kultur.html AGH received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) project “PlantCult” (ERC-CoG-2015, GA 682529, PI Soultana Maria Valamoti) for the SEM analysis of some of the cereal products. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/682529 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Bartelheim M, Eckstein K, Huijsmans M, Krauß R, Pernicka E. Kupferzeitliche Metallgewinnung in Brixlegg, Österreich. In: Bartelheim M, Pernicka E, Krause R, editors. Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt / The Beginnings of Metallurgy in the Old World. Rahden: Marie Leidorf; 2002. p. 33–82. [Google Scholar]
2.Stöllner T. Die zeitliche Einordnung der prähistorischen Montanreviere in den Ost- und Südalpen—Anmerkungen zu einem Forschungsstand. In: Oeggl K, Prast M, editors. Die Geschichte des Bergbaus in Tirol und seinen angrenzenden Gebieten Proceedings zum 3 Milestone-Meeting des SFB HiMAT vom 23–26102008 in Silbertal. Conference Series. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press; 2009. p. 37–60. [Google Scholar]
3.Trebsche P. Zur Absolutdatierung der urnenfelderzeitlichen Kupfergewinnung im südöstlichen Niederösterreich. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 2015;45(1):41–60. [Google Scholar]
4.Patzelt G, Bortenschlager S. Die postglazialen Gletscher- und Klimaschwankungen in der Venedigergruppe (Hohe Tauern, Ostalpen). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie. 1973;Suppl. 16:25–72. [Google Scholar]
5.Viehweider B, Lutz J, Oeggl K. Late-Holocene land use changes caused by exploitation in the mining region of Kitzbühel (Tyrol, Austria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2015;24(6):711–29. 10.1007/s00334-015-0527-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6.Schibler J, Breitenlechner E, Deschler-Erb S, Goldenberg G, Hanke K, Hiebel G, et al. Miners and mining in the Late Bronze Age: a multidisciplinary study from Austria. Antiquity. 2011;85:1259–78. [Google Scholar]
7.Schmidt R, Kamenik C, Roth M. Der Einfluss des Klimas auf die Hochlagennutzung in den südlichen Niederen Tauern (Lungau) während der letzten 4000 Jahre. In: Schmidt R, Matulla C, Psenner R, editors. Klimawandel in Österreich. alpine space—man & environment. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press; 2009. p. 87–96. [Google Scholar]
8.Ottaway BS. Innovation, production and specialization in early prehistoric copper metallurgy. EJA. 2001;4(1):87–112. [Google Scholar]
9.Kowarik K, Reschreiter H. Provisioning a Salt Mine—On the Infrastructure of the Bronze Age Salt Mines of Hallstatt. In: Mandl F, editor. Archäologie in den Alpen—Alltag und Kult Internationales Symposium der ANISA, 16–18 Oktober 2009. Haus im Ennstal: ANISA, Verein für alpine Forschung; 2010. p. 105–16. [Google Scholar]
10.Pucher E, Barth FE, Seemann R, Brandstätter F, editors. Bronzezeitliche Fleischverarbeitung im Salzbergtal bei Hallstatt. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; 2013. [Google Scholar]
11.Stöllner T. Mining and Economy. A Discussion of Spatial Organisations and Structures of Early Raw Material Exploitation. In: Stöllner T, Körlin G, Steffens G, Cierny J, editors. Man and Mining Studies in honour of Gerd Weisgerber. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum; 2003. p. 415–46. [Google Scholar]
12.Heiss AG. Anthrakologische und paläoethnobotanische Untersuchungen im bronzezeitlichen Bergbaugebiet Schwaz—Brixlegg (Tirol) [Master thesis]. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck; 2001.
13.Schwarz AS, Oeggl K. Vegetation change during the Bronze Age studied in a multi-proxy approach: use of wood linked to charcoal analysis. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2013;22(6):493–507. 10.1007/s00334-013-0402-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Breitenlechner E, Stöllner TH, Thomas PA, Lutz J, Oeggl K. An Interdisciplinary Study on the Environmental Reflection of Prehistoric Mining Activities at the Mitterberg Main Lode (Salzburg, Austria). Archaeometry. 2014;56(1):102–28. 10.1111/arcm.12010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Breitenlechner E, Goldenberg G, Lutz J, Oeggl K. The impact of prehistoric mining activities on the environment: a multidisciplinary study at the fen Schwarzenbergmoos (Brixlegg, Tyrol, Austria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2013;22(4):351–66. 10.1007/s00334-012-0379-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Green FJ. The plant remains from the Klinglberg. In: Shennan SJ, editor. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps Excavations at St Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. p. 223–31. [Google Scholar]
17.Schwarz AS, Oeggl K. Resource usage of the hilltop settlement on the Kiechlberg near Thaur (Tyrol, Austria) from Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2015;25:85–103. 10.1007/s00334-015-0529-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Reschreiter H, Kowarik K. Bronze Age Mining in Hallstatt. A New Picture of Everyday Life in the Salt Mines and Beyond. ArchAustr. 2019;103:99–136. 10.1553/archaeologia103s99 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.Trebsche P, Pucher E. Urnenfelderzeitliche Kupfergewinnung am Rande der Ostalpen. Erste Ergebnisse zu Ernährung und Wirtschaftsweise in der Bergbausiedlung von Prigglitz-Gasteil (Niederösterreich). Praehist Z. 2013;88(1–2):114–51. [Google Scholar]
20.Saliari K, Pucher E, Staudt M, Goldenberg G. Continuities and changes of animal exploitation across the Bronze Age—Iron Age boundary at mining sites in the Eastern Alps. Archaeofauna. 2020;29:77–106. [Google Scholar]
21.Boenke N. Organic resources at the Iron Age Dürrnberg salt-mine (Hallein, Austria)—Long distance trade or local sources? Archaeometry. 2005;47(2):471–83. [Google Scholar]
22.Stöllner T, Aspöck H, Boenke N, Dobiat C, Gawlick H-J, Groenman-van Waateringe W, et al. The economy of Dürrnberg-bei-Hallein: An Iron Age salt-mining centre in the Austrian Alps. Antiquaries Journal. 2003;83(123–194). [Google Scholar]
23.Swidrak I, Schmidl A. Pflanzengroßreste aus der latènezeitlichen Gewerbesiedlung im Ramsautal am Dürrnberg. In: Dobiat C, Sievers S, Stöllner T, editors. Dürrnberg und Manching Wirtschaftsarchäologie im ostkeltischen Raum Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Hallein / Bad Dürmberg vom 7 bis 11 Oktober 1998. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 2002. p. 147–55. [Google Scholar]
24.Reschreiter H, Kowarik K. Vom Alltag der Bergleute. In: Kern A, Kowarik K, Rausch AW, Reschreiter H, editors. Salz-Reich 7000 Jahre Hallstatt. Veröffentlichungen der Prähistorischen Abteilung (VPA). Wien: Verlag des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien; 2008. p. 92–5. [Google Scholar]
25.Barth FE. Das Ritschert, eine urzeitliche Reminiszenz. Archäologie Österreichs. 1999;10(2):54–8. [Google Scholar]
26.Shennan SJ. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps. Excavations at St. Veit-Klinglberg. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. 397 p. [Google Scholar]
27.Heiss AG, Oeggl K. Analysis of the fuel wood used in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age copper mining sites of the Schwaz and Brixlegg area (Tyrol, Austria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(2):211–21. 10.1007/s00334-007-0096-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Bronk Ramsey C. OxCal 3.10. 2005.
29.Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, et al. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon. 2013;55(4):1869–87. 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 30854509 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Töchterle U, Goldenberg G, Tomedi G. Recent discoveries from the Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age settlement on the Kiechlberg/Thaur (North Tyrol, Austria). The European Archaeologist. 2009/2010;32:21–2. [Google Scholar]
31.Töchterle U, Bachnetzer T, Brandl M, Deschler-Erb S, Goldenberg G, Krismer M, et al. Der Kiechlberg bei Thaur—eine neolithische bis frühbronzezeitliche Höhensiedlung. In: Goldenberg G, Töchterle U, Oeggl K, Krenn-Leeb A, editors. Forschungsprogramm HiMAT—Neues zur Bergbaugeschichte der Ostalpen. Archäologie Österreichs Spezial. Wien: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte; 2011. p. 31–58. [Google Scholar]
32.Shennan SJ. Ausgrabungen in einer frühbronzezeitlichen Siedlung auf dem Klinglberg, St. Veit im Pongau, Salzburg (1985–1988). ArchAustr. 1989;73:35–48. [Google Scholar]
33.Heiss AG, Oeggl K. The oldest evidence of Nigella damascena L. (Ranunculaceae) and its possible introduction to central Europe. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2005;14(4):562–70. [Google Scholar]
34.Stika H-P. Pflanzenreste aus der Höhensiedlung der späten Urnenfelderzeit am Kulm bei Trofaiach. Fundberichte aus Österreich. 2000;38(1999):163–8. [Google Scholar]
35.Heiss AG, Wiesinger S. Abschlussbericht zur archäobotanischen Grundlagenforschung im Rahmen des Projekts Interreg-SI-AT »PalaeoDiversiStyria«, und Überblick über archäobotanische Großrestanalysen in Steiermark und Kärnten. In: Črešnar M, Kiszter S, Mele M, Peitler K, Vintar A, editors. Plants—Animals—People Lively archaeological landscapes of Styria and Northeastern Slovenia / Pflanzen—Tiere—Menschen Lebendige archäologische Landschaften der Steiermark und Nordostsloweniens / Rastline—živali—ljudje Žive arheološke krajine avstrijske Štajerske in severovzhodne Slovenije. Schild von Steier, Beiheft. Graz/Ljubljana: Universalmuseum Joanneum/Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije; 2019. p. 285–371. [Google Scholar]
36.Wiesinger S, Thanheiser U. Botanische Auswertung. Fundberichte aus Österreich. 2011;50:84–5. [Google Scholar]
37.Gyulai F. Archaeobotany in Hungary. Seed, Fruit, Food and Beverage Remains in the Carpathian Basin from the Neolithic to the Late Middle Ages. Jerem E, Meid W, editors. Budapest: Archaeolingua; 2010. 478 p. [Google Scholar]
38.Hampl F, Mayrhofer RJ. Urnenfelderzeitlicher Kupferbergbau und mittelalterlicher Eisenbergbau in Niederösterreich. 2. Arbeitsbericht über die Grabungen d. NÖ. Landesmuseums 1953–1959. ArchAustr. 1963;33:50–106. [Google Scholar]
39.Trebsche P. Urnenfelderzeitlicher Kupferbergbau in Niederösterreich. In: Stöllner T, Oeggl K, editors. Bergauf Bergab 10000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen Wissenschaftlicher Beiband zur Ausstellung. Rahden: Marie Leidorf; 2015. p. 209–14. [Google Scholar]
40.Haubner R, Strobl S, Trebsche P. Analysis of Urnfield Period Bronze Droplets Formed during Casting. Mater Sci Forum. 2017;891:41–8. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.891.41 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
41.Haubner R, Strobl S, Trebsche P. Metallographic analyses from the late Urnfield period copper mining settlement at Prigglitz-Gasteil in Lower Austria. In: Turck R, Stöllner T, Goldenberg G, editors. Alpine Copper II—Alpenkupfer II—Rame delle Alpi II—Ciuvre des Alpes II. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft. Rahden: Marie Leidorf; 2019. p. 323–32. [Google Scholar]
42.Hackenberg M. Bergbau im Semmeringgebiet. Arch f Lagerstforsch Geol B-A. 2003;24:5–97. [Google Scholar]
43.BFW. Digitale Bodenkarte von Österreich—eBOD2 Wien: Bundesforschungs- und Ausbildungszentrum für Wald, Naturgefahren und Landschaft; 2020 [cited 2020 05.06.2020]. https://bodenkarte.at/.
44.Tüxen R. Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung: Bundesanstalt für Vegetationskartierung; 1956. 55 p. [Google Scholar]
45.Zukrigl K. Montane und subalpine Waldgesellschaften am Alpenostrand. Wien: Österreichischer Agrarverlag; 1973. 386 p. [Google Scholar]
46.Zukrigl K. Die Schwarzföhrenwälder am Alpenostrand in Niederösterreich. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum. 1999;12:11–20. [Google Scholar]
47.Wagner H. Die natürliche Pflanzendecke Österreichs. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 1989. 72 p. [Google Scholar]
48.Heiss AG. Fifty Shapes of Grain. New archaeobotanical approaches towards charred finds of processed cereal-based foods. I. Rahmenschrift and Original Papers [Habilitation thesis]. Wien: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU); 2019.
49.Oeggl K. Die Paläoökologie des historischen und prähistorischen Bergbaus in den Ostalpen. Berichte der Reinhold-Tüxen-Gesellschaft. 2009;21:241–52. [Google Scholar]
50.Breitenlechner E, Hilber M, Lutz J, Kathrein Y, Unterkircher A, Oeggl K. The impact of mining activities on the environment reflected by pollen, charcoal and geochemical analyses. J Archaeol Sci. 2010;37(7):1458–67. [Google Scholar]
51.Festi D, Brandner D, Grabner M, Knierzinger W, Reschreiter H, Kowarik K. 3500 years of environmental sustainability in the large-scale alpine mining district of Hallstatt, Austria. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2021;35:102670. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102670 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
52.Knierzinger W, Huang J-JS, Strasser M, Knorr K-H, Drescher-Schneider R, Wagreich M. Late Holocene periods of copper mining in the Eisenerz Alps (Austria) deduced from calcareous lake deposits. Anthropocene. 2021;33. 10.1016/j.ancene.2020.100273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
53.Bakels CC. Producers and Consumers in Archaeobotany. A comment on "When method meets theory: the use and misuse of cereal producer/consumer models in archaeobotany". In: Albarella U, editor. Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Environmental Science and Technology Library. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic; 2001. p. 299–301. [Google Scholar]
54.Stevens CJ. An Investigation of Agricultural Consumption and Production Models for Prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environmental Archaeology. 2003;8(1):61–76. [Google Scholar]
55.van der Veen M, Jones GEM. The production and consumption of cereals: a question of scale. In: Haselgrove C, Moore T, editors. The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2007. p. 419–29. [Google Scholar]
56.van der Veen M, Jones GEM. A re-analysis of agricultural production and consumption: implications for understanding the British Iron Age. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2006;15:217–28. [Google Scholar]
57.Hillman GC. Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops. In: Mercer RJ, editor. Farming Practice in British Prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1981. p. 123–62. [Google Scholar]
58.Bakels CC. Growing grain for others or How to detect surplus production? Journal of European Archaeology. 1996;4:329–36. [Google Scholar]
59.Jones M. Plant exploitation. In: Champion TC, Collis JR, editors. The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Sheffield Excavation Reports. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 1996. p. 29–40. [Google Scholar]
60.Schiffer MB. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. Amer Antiq. 1972;37(2):156–65. [Google Scholar]
61.Sellet F. Chaîne opératoire; the concept and its applications. Lithic Technology. 1993;18(1 & 2):106–12. [Google Scholar]
62.Hodder I. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Chichester: Wiley; 2012. [Google Scholar]
63.Hodder I. Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. J Royal Anthropol Inst. 2011;17:154–77. 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01674.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
64.Twiss KC. The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2012;20(4):357–95. 10.1007/s10814-012-9058-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
65.Hastorf CA. The Social Archaeology of Food: Thinking about Eating from Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. 400 p. [Google Scholar]
66.Samuel D. Approaches to the Archaology of Food. Petits Propos Culinaires. 1996;54:12–21. [Google Scholar]
67.Hillman GC. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: The application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: van Zeist W, Casparie WA, editors. Plants and Ancient Man Studies in palaeoethnobotany Proceedings of the 6^th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, Groningen 1983. Rotterdam/Boston: A. A. Balkema; 1984. p. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
68.Jones GEM. The application of present-day cereal processing studies to charred archaeobotanical remains. Circaea. 1990;6(2):91–6. [Google Scholar]
69.Kreuz A, Schäfer E. Archaeobotanical consideration of the development of Pre-Roman Iron Age crop growing in the region of Hesse, Germany, and the question of agricultural production and consumption at hillfort sites and open settlements. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(Supplement 1):159–79. 10.1007/s00334-008-0182-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
70.Jones GEM. An ethnoarchaeological investigation of the effects of cereal grain sieving. Circaea. 1996;12(2):177–82. [Google Scholar]
71.Jacomet S. Use in Environmental Archaeology. In: Elias SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. 3: Elsevier; 2007. p. 2384–412. [Google Scholar]
72.Peña-Chocarro L, Zapata Peña L. Post-harvesting processing of hulled wheats. An ethnoarchaelogical approach. In: Anderson PC, Cummings LS, Schippers TK, Simonel B, editors. Le traitement des récoltes: Un regard sur la diversité du Néolithique au présent XXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Antibes: Éditions APDCA; 2003. p. 99–113. [Google Scholar]
73.Samuel D. Cereal Food Processing in Ancient Egypt, A Case Study of Integration. In: Luff R, Rowley-Conwy P, editors. Whither Environmental Archaeology? Oxbow Monograph. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 1994. p. 153–8. [Google Scholar]
74.Harding A. Introduction: Biographies of Things. Distant Worlds Journal. 2016;1:5–10. [Google Scholar]
75.Buccini AF. Defining ’Cuisine’: Communication, Culinary Grammar, and the Typology of Cuisine. In: McWilliams M, editor. Food & Communication: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2015. London: Prospect Books; 2016. p. 105–21. [Google Scholar]
76.Twiss KC. The Archaeology of Food: Identity, Politics, and Ideology in the Prehistoric and Historic Past. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press; 2019. 247 p. [Google Scholar]
77.Graff SR. Archaeology of Cuisine and Cooking. Annu Rev Anthrop. 2020;49. 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-045734 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
78.Lévi-Strauss C. Le triangle culinaire. L’Arc. 1965;26:19–29. [Google Scholar]
79.Katz SH, Voigt MM. Bread and beer: The early use of cereals in the human diet. Expedition. 1986;28(2):23–35. [Google Scholar]
80.Toulemonde F. Les blocs carbonisés de millet commun de l’habitat protohistorique de Villiers-sur-Seine « Le Gros Buisson » (Seine-et-Marne): peut-on parler de préparation alimentaire? ArchéoSciences. 2014;(38):109–18. 10.4000/archeosciences.4192 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
81.Valamoti SM. Ground cereal food preparations from Greece: the prehistory and modern survival of traditional Mediterranean ‘fast foods’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2011;3(1):19–39. 10.1007/s12520-011-0058-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
82.Heiss AG, Antolín F, Bleicher N, Harb C, Jacomet S, Kühn M, et al. 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. 2017;12(8):e0182401. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Heiss AG, Berihuete-Azorín M, Antolín F, Kubiak-Martens L, Marinova E, Arendt EK, et al. Mashes to Mashes, Crust to Crust. Presenting a novel microstructural marker for malting in the archaeological record. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0231696. Epub 07.05.2020. 10.1371/journal.pone.0231696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Palmer C, van der Veen M. Archaeobotany and the social context of food. Acta Palaeobotanica. 2002;42(2):195–202. [Google Scholar]
85.van der Veen M. Food as embodied material culture: diversity and change in plant food consumption in Roman Britain. JRA. 2008;21:83–109. [Google Scholar]
86.Morehart CT, Morell-Hart S. Beyond the Ecofact: Toward a Social Paleoethnobotany in Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2015;22(2):483–511. 10.1007/s10816-013-9183-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
87.Jones M. Environmental Archaeology. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 63–7. [Google Scholar]
88.Peacock E. Distinguishing between Artifacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England. J Field Archaeol. 1991;18(3):345–61. 10.1179/009346991791548645 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
89.Miller D. Artefacts as products of human categorisation processes. In: Hodder I, editor. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p. 17–25. [Google Scholar]
90.Balme J. Artifacts, Overview. In: Pearsall DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. 1–3. London: Academic Press; 2007. p. 508–17. [Google Scholar]
91.Emery KF. Ecofacts, Overview. In: Pearsall DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London: Academic Press; 2007. p. 1111–4. [Google Scholar]
92.Schlanger N. The Chaîne Opératoire. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 18–23. [Google Scholar]
93.Bamforth DW, Finlay N. Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2008;15(1):1–27. 10.1007/s10816-007-9043-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
94.Bamforth CW. Beer. Tap Into the Art and Science of Brewing. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. 233 p. [Google Scholar]
95.Narziß L, Back W, Gastl M, Zarnkow M. Die Bierbrauerei Band 3: Abriss der Bierbrauerei. 8 ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2017. 471 p. [Google Scholar]
96.McGovern PE. Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2009. 348 p. [Google Scholar]
97.Figoni P. How Baking Works. Exploring the Fundamentals of Baking Science. 2 ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2008. 399 p. [Google Scholar]
98.Samuel D. Bread in Archaeology. In: Fechner K, Mesnil M, editors. Pain, fours et foyers des temps passés Archéologie et traditions boulangères des peuples agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche Orient. Civilisations. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2002. p. 27–36. [Google Scholar]
99.Samuel D. Their Staff Of Life: Initial Investigations On Ancient Egyptian Bread Baking. In: Kemp BJ, editor. Amarna Reports V. London: Egypt Exploration Society; 1989. p. 253–90. [Google Scholar]
100.Renfrew C, Bahn P. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. 7 ed. London: Thames & Hudson; 2016. 672 p. [Google Scholar]
101.Pettitt PB. Ideas in Absolute and Relative Dating. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 47–52. [Google Scholar]
102.Bahn P. The Three Ages. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 197–9. [Google Scholar]
103.Heiss AG, Gail N. Brot oder nicht Brot—keine einfache Frage. Methodische Überlegungen zu verkohlten archäologischen Speiseresten und die Neubearbeitung von Funden aus dem gallo-römischen Gräberfeld von Wederath-Belginum. In: Cordie R, Haßlinger N, Wiethold J, editors. Was aßen Kelten und Römer? Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Ernährung westlich des Rheins. Schriften des Archäologiepark Belginum. Morbach: Archäologiepark Belginum; 2019. p. 73–88. [Google Scholar]
104.Hansson A-M, Isaksson S. Analyses of charred organic remains. Laborativ Arkeologi. 1994;7:21–9. [Google Scholar]
105.Dickson C. The identification of cereals from ancient bran fragments. Circaea. 1987;4(2):95–102. [Google Scholar]
106.Heiss AG, Pouget N, Wiethold J, Delor-Ahü A, Le Goff I. Tissue-based analysis of a charred flat bread (galette) from a Roman cemetery at Saint-Memmie (Dép. Marne, Champagne-Ardenne, north-eastern France). J Archaeol Sci. 2015;55:71–82. Epub 29.12.2014. 10.1016/j.jas.2014.12.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
107.Kubiak-Martens L, Brinkkemper O, Oudemans TFM. What’s for dinner? Processed food in the coastal area of the northern Netherlands in the Late Neolithic. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2015;24(1):47–62. 10.1007/s00334-014-0485-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
108.Graff SR. Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2018;26:305–51. 10.1007/s10814-017-9111-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
109.Pollock S. Towards an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces. An Introduction. eTopoi. 2012;Special Volume 2:1–20.
110.Sherratt AG. Palaeoethnobotany: from crops to cuisine. In: Queiroga F, Dinis AP, editors. Paleoecologia e arqueologia II: trabalhos dedicados a A R Pinto da Silva. Vila Nova de Famalicão: Centro de Estudos Arqueológicos Famalicenses; 1991. p. 221–36. [Google Scholar]
111.Wollstonecroft MM. Investigating the role of food processing in human evolution: a niche construction approach. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2011;3(1):141–50. 10.1007/s12520-011-0062-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
112.Stahl AB. Plant-food processing: implications for dietary quality. In: Harris DR, Hillman GC, editors. Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation. London/Boston/Sydney/Wellington: Unwin Hyman; 1989. p. 171–97. [Google Scholar]
113.Cappers RTJ. Digital Atlas of Traditional Food Made from Cereals and Milk. Groningen: Barkhuis/University of Groningen Library; 2018. 639 p. [Google Scholar]
114.Haslam M. The decomposition of starch grains in soils: implications for archaeological residue analyses. J Archaeol Sci. 2004;31(12):1715–34. 10.1016/j.jas.2004.05.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
115.Samuel D. A New Look at Bread and Beer. Egyptian Archaeology. 1994;4:9–11. [Google Scholar]
116.Gong Y, Yang Y, Ferguson DK, Tao D, Li W, Wang C, et al. Investigation of ancient noodles, cakes, and millet at the Subeixi Site, Xinjiang, China. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38(2):470–9. 10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
117.Chen T, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Wang B, Hu Y, Wang C, et al. Archaeobotanical study of ancient food and cereal remains at the Astana Cemeteries, Xinjiang, China. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(9):e45137. 10.1371/journal.pone.0045137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118.Hofmann-de Keijzer R, van Bommel MR, Joosten I, Hartl A, Proaño Gaibor AN, Heiss AG, et al. Die Farben und Färbetechniken der prähistorischen Textilien aus dem Salzbergbau Hallstatt / The colours and dyeing techniques of prehistoric textiles from the salt mines of Hallstatt. In: Grömer K, Kern A, Reschreiter H, Rösel-Mautendorfer H, editors. Textilien aus Hallstatt Gewebte Kultur aus dem bronze- und eisenzeitlichen Salzbergwerk / Textiles from Hallstatt Weaving Culture in Bronze Age and Iron Age Salt Mines. Archaeolingua. Budapest: Archaeolingua; 2013. p. 135–62. [Google Scholar]
119.Kern A, Kowarik K, Rausch AW, Reschreiter H, editors. Salz-Reich. 7000 Jahre Hallstatt. Wien: Verlag des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien; 2008.
120.Heiss AG, Antolín F, Berihuete-Azorín M, Biederer B, Erlach R, Gail N, et al. The Hoard of the Rings. “Odd” annular bread-like objects as a case study for cereal-product diversity at the Late Bronze Age hillfort site of Stillfried (Lower Austria). PLOS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0216907. Epub 05.06.2019. 10.1371/journal.pone.0216907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121.Popper VS. Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In: Hastorf CA, Popper VS, editors. Current Paleoethnobotany Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press; 1988. p. 53–71. [Google Scholar]
122.Antolín F, Buxó i Capdevila R. Proposal for the systematic description and taphonomic study of carbonized cereal grain assemblages: a case study of an early Neolithic funerary context in the cave of Can Sadurní (Begues, Barcelona province, Spain). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2011;20(1):53–66. 10.1007/s00334-010-0255-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
123.Boardman S, Jones GEM. Experiments on the Effects of Charring on Cereal Plant Components. J Archaeol Sci. 1990;17(1):1–11. 10.1016/0305-4403(90)90012-T [DOI] [Google Scholar]
124.Valamoti SM, Samuel D, Bayram M, Marinova E. Prehistoric cereal foods from Greece and Bulgaria: investigation of starch microstructure in experimental and archaeological charred remains. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(Supplement 1):265–76. 10.1007/s00334-008-0190-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
125.Berihuete Azorín M, Stika H-P, Bourliva A, Papadopoulou L, Valamoti SM. “Fresh from the Oven”: experiments on Triticum spelta and a protocol for carbonising specimens for archaebotanical comparison collections. forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
126.Cordes A, Henriksen PS, Hald MM, Sørensen L, Nielsen PO, Xu J, et al. Identification of prehistoric malting and partial grain germination from starch granules in charred barley grains. J Archaeol Sci. 2021;125:105297. 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105297 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
127.Greenwood CT. The Thermal Degradation of Starch. In: Wolfrom ML, Tipson RS, editors. Advances in Carbohydrate Chemistry. 22: Academic Press; 1967. p. 483–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128.Montoya J, Pecha B, Janna FC, Garcia-Perez M. Micro-explosion of liquid intermediates during the fast pyrolysis of sucrose and organosolv lignin. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2016;122:106–21. 10.1016/j.jaap.2016.10.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
129.Werner K, Pommer L, Broström M. Thermal decomposition of hemicelluloses. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2014;110:130–7. 10.1016/j.jaap.2014.08.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
130.Hillman GC, Wales S, McLaren F, Evans JG, Butler A. Identifying problematic remains of ancient food plants: a comparison of the role of chemical, histological and morphological criteria. Wld Archaeol. 1993;25(1):94–121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131.McLaren F, Evans JG. The chemical identification of ancient British bread flours: encountering and overcoming some of the obstacles. In: Fechner K, Mesnil M, editors. Pain, fours et foyers des temps passés Archéologie et traditions boulangères des peuples agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche Orient. Civilisations. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2002. p. 169–82. [Google Scholar]
132.Martínez Straumann S. Makro- und mikroskopische Untersuchungen von Speisekrusten aus Keramikgefässen. In: Jacomet S, Leuzinger U, Schibler J, editors. Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3 Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Archäologie im Thurgau: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau; 2004. p. 277–83. [Google Scholar]
133.Lannoy S, Marinval P, Buleon A, Chiron H, Mejanelle P, Pin S, et al. Étude de «pains/galettes» archéologiques français. In: Fechner K, Mesnil M, editors. Pain, fours et foyers des temps passés Archéologie et traditions boulangères des peuples agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche Orient. Civilisations. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2002. p. 119–60. [Google Scholar]
134.Oudemans TFM, Boon JJ. Molecular archaeology: Analysis of charred (food) remains from prehistoric pottery by pyrolysis—gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 1991;20:197–227. 10.1016/0165-2370(91)80073-H [DOI] [Google Scholar]
135.Pető Á, Gyulai F, Pópity D, Kenéz Á. Macro- and micro-archaeobotanical study of a vessel content from a Late Neolithic structured deposition from southeastern Hungary. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40(1):58–71. 10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
136.Oudemans TFM, Erhardt D. Organic residue analysis in ceramic studies: implications for conservation treatment and collections management. Studies in Conservation. 1996;41(Supplement 1):137–42. 10.1179/sic.1996.41.Supplement-1.137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
137.Rosiak A, Kałużna-Czaplińska J, Gątarek P. Analytical Interpretation of Organic Residues From Ceramics As a Source of Knowledge About Our Ancestors. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2019:1–7. 10.1080/10408347.2019.1602821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
138.Zheng HP, Jiang HE, Zhang YB, Lü EG, Yang YM, Wang CS. Early Processed Triticeae Food Remains in The Yanghai Tombs, Xinjiang, China. Archaeometry. 2015;57(2):378–91. 10.1111/arcm.12110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
139.Zhu Z, Yu C, Luo W, Miao Y, Lu Z, Liu L, et al. Accurate identification of the pastry contained in a ceramic pot excavated from Jurou Li’s grave from the Jin dynasty (1115–1234 CE) in Xi’an, Shaanxi, China. Archaeometry. 2020;62(1):130–40. 10.1111/arcm.12490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
140.Wadsworth C, Procopio N, Anderung C, Carretero J-M, Iriarte E, Valdiosera C, et al. Comparing ancient DNA survival and proteome content in 69 archaeological cattle tooth and bone samples from multiple European sites. Journal of Proteomics. 2017;158:1–8. 10.1016/j.jprot.2017.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
141.Wadsworth C, Buckley M. Characterization of Proteomes Extracted through Collagen-based Stable Isotope and Radiocarbon Dating Methods. Journal of Proteome Research. 2018;17(1):429–39. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00624 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
142.Hendy J, Colonese AC, Franz I, Fernandes R, Fischer R, Orton D, et al. Ancient proteins from ceramic vessels at Çatalhöyük West reveal the hidden cuisine of early farmers. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1). 10.1038/s41467-018-06335-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
143.González Carretero L, Wollstonecroft M, Fuller DQ. A methodological approach to the study of archaeological cereal meals: a case study at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2017;26(4):415–32. 10.1007/s00334-017-0602-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
144.Fairbairn AS, Wright NJ, Weeden M, Barjamovic G, Matsumura K, Rasch R. Ceremonial plant consumption at Middle Bronze Age Büklükale, Kırıkkale Province, central Turkey. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2018. 10.1007/s00334-018-0703-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
145.García-Granero JJ. Starch taphonomy, equifinality and the importance of context: Some notes on the identification of food processing through starch grain analysis. J Archaeol Sci. 2020;124. 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
146.Staub F. Das Brot im Spiegel schweizerdeutscher Volkssprache und Sitte. Leipzig: G. Hirzel; 1868. 186 p. [Google Scholar]
147.Neufeld CA. Der Nahrungsmittelchemiker als Sachverständiger: Anleitung zur Begutachtung der Nahrungsmittel, Genußmittel und Gebrauchsgegenstände nach den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen. Berlin: Springer; 1907. 477 p. [Google Scholar]
148.Seibel W. Verwendung von Brotmehl und Bröseln bei der Backwarenherstellung. Getreide, Mehl und Brot. 1987;41:39–42. [Google Scholar]
149.Rosenstock E, Scheibner A. Fermentierter Brei und vergorenes Malz: Bier in der Vorgeschichte Südwestasiens und Europas. Mitt Anthrop Ges Wien. 2017;147:31–62. [Google Scholar]
150.Samuel D. Brewing and baking. In: Nicholson PT, Shaw I, editors. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 537–76. [Google Scholar]
151.Zarnkow M, Spieleder E, Back W, Sacher B, Otto A, Einwag B. Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen zum altorientalischen Bierbrauen in der Siedlung von Tall Bazi/Nordsyrien vor rund 3200 Jahren. TG Technikgeschichte. 2006;73(1):3–26. 10.5771/0040-117X-2006-1-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
152.Ktenioudaki A, Alvarez-Jubete L, Smyth TJ, Kilcawley K, Rai DK, Gallagher E. Application of bioprocessing techniques (sourdough fermentation and technological aids) for brewer’s spent grain breads. Food Res Int. 2015;73:107–16. 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.03.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
153.Jacomet S, Kreuz A. Archäobotanik. Aufgaben, Methoden und Ergebnisse vegetations- und agrargeschichtlicher Forschung. Stuttgart: Ulmer; 1999. 368 p. [Google Scholar]
154.Jacomet S, Hüster Plogmann H, Schibler J, Akeret Ö, Deschler-Erb S. Archäobiologischer Feldkurs 2009. Basel: Eigenverlag; 2009. 44 p. [Google Scholar]
155.Trebsche P. in preparation.
156.Bronk Ramsey C. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon. 2009;51(1):337–60. [Google Scholar]
157.Filipović D, Meadows J, Dal Corso M, Kirleis W, Alsleben A, Akeret Ö, et al. New AMS ¹⁴C dates track the arrival and spread of broomcorn millet cultivation and agricultural change in prehistoric Europe. Scientific Reports. 2020;10:13698. 10.1038/s41598-020-70495-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
158.Heiss AG. Ceremonial Foodstuffs from Prehistoric Burnt-Offering Places in the Alpine Region. In: Chevalier A, Marinova E, Peña-Chocarro L, editors. Plants and People: Choices and Diversity through Time. Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage (EARTH): 8,000 Years of Resilience and Innovation. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2014. p. 343–53. [Google Scholar]
159.Jacomet S, Petrucci-Bavaud M, Kühn M. Samen und Früchte. In: Schucany C, editor. Die römische Villa von Biberist-Spitalhof/SO (Grabungen 1982, 1983, 1986–1989) Untersuchungen im Wirtschaftsteil und Überlegungen zum Umland. 2. Remshalden: Bernhard Albert Greiner; 2006. p. 579–624. [Google Scholar]
160.Winton AL, Winton KB. The Structure and Composition of Foods. Volume I: Cereals, Starch, Oil Seeds, Nuts, Oils, Forage Plants. New York: Wiley; 1932. 710 p. [Google Scholar]
161.Gassner G, Hohmann B, Deutschmann F. Mikroskopische Untersuchung pflanzlicher Lebensmittel. 5. ed. Stuttgart: Fischer; 1989. 414 p. [Google Scholar]
162.Hahn H, Michaelsen I. Mikroskopische Diagnostik pflanzlicher Nahrungs-, Genuß- und Futtermittel, einschließlich Gewürze. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer; 1996. 174 p. [Google Scholar]
163.Hall AR, Jones AKG, Kenward HK. Cereal bran and human faecal remains from archaeological deposits—Some preliminary observations. In: Proudfoot B, editor. Site, Environment and Economy. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress; 1983. p. 85–104. [Google Scholar]
164.Fuller DQ. A Millet Atlas. Some Identification Guidance: University College London; 2006. 18 p. [Google Scholar]
165.Heiss AG, Galik A, Gamble M, Srienc M, Ladstätter S. The Department for Bioarchaeology at the Austrian Archaeological Institute (ÖAI), Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW). Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. 2019;10(2):167–75. 10.24916/iansa.2019.2.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
166.Berggren G. Atlas of seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species with morphological descriptions. Part 3 Salicaceae-Cruciferae. Stockholm: Swedish Natural Science Research Council; 1981. 261 p. [Google Scholar]
167.Anderberg A-L. Atlas of seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species with morphological descriptions. Part 4 Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. Stockholm: Swedish Natural Science Research Council; 1994. 281 p. [Google Scholar]
168.Cappers RTJ, Bekker RM, Jans JEA. Digitale zadenatlas van Nederland / Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands. Eelde: Barkhuis; 2006. 528 p. [Google Scholar]
169.Bojňanský V, Fargašová A. Atlas of Seeds and Fruits of Central and East-European Flora. The Carpathian Mountains Region. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. 1046 p. [Google Scholar]
170.Beijerinck W. Zadenatlas der nederlandsche flora ten behoeve van de botanie, palaeontologie, bodemcultuur en warenkennis. Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen; 1947. [Google Scholar]
171.Kohler-Schneider M. Prähistorische Getreidefunde. Eine Bestimmungshilfe für verkohlte Korn- und Druschreste. Skriptum zu den UE "Archäobotanische Arbeitsmethoden", Institut für Botanik, BOKU Wien. 2001.
172.Jacomet S. Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites. 2006. [Google Scholar]
173.Heiss AG. Weizen, Linsen, Opferbrote—Archäobotanische Analysen bronze- und eisenzeitlicher Brandopferplätze im mittleren Alpenraum. Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften; 2008. 214 p. [Google Scholar]
174.Recker U, Kreuz A, Schäfer E. Archäobotanisches Datenbankprogramm ArboDat 2016. Wiesbaden: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen; 2016. 102 p. [Google Scholar]
175.Kreuz A, Schäfer E-M. 1,4 Millionen auf der Bank. Das hessische Datenarchiv für archäobotanische Großreste ArboDat. hessenArchäologie. 2004;2003:170–4. [Google Scholar]
176.Ellenberg H, Leuschner C. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht. 6 ed. Stuttgart: Ulmer; 2010. [Google Scholar]
177.Stika H-P, Heiss AG. Plant cultivation in the Bronze Age. In: Fokkens H, Harding A, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 348–69. [Google Scholar]
178.Stika H-P, Heiss AG. Bronzezeitliche Landwirtschaft in Europa—Der Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung des Forschungsstandes. In: Willroth K-H, editor. Siedlungen der älteren Bronzezeit Beiträge zur Siedlungsarchäologie und Paläoökologie des zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends in Südskandinavien, Norddeutschland und den Niederlanden Workshop vom 7 bis 9 April 2011 in Sankelmark. Studien zur nordeuropäischen Bronzezeit. Neumünster: Wachholtz; 2013. p. 189–222. [Google Scholar]
179.Thompson TA, Baedke SJ. Triplot. 4.1.2 ed. Bloomington: Todd Thompson Software; 2009. [Google Scholar]
180.Esri Inc. ArcGIS Pro. 2.6 ed. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2020.
181.Valamoti SM, Marinova E, Heiss AG, Hristova I, Petridou C, Popova T, et al. Prehistoric cereal foods of southeastern Europe: an archaeobotanical exploration. J Archaeol Sci. 2019;104:97–113. 10.1016/j.jas.2018.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
182.Yang Q, Li X, Zhou X, Zhao K, Ji M, Sun N. Investigation of the ultrastructural characteristics of foxtail and broomcorn millet during carbonization and its application in archaeobotany. Chin Sci Bull. 2011;56(14):1495–502. 10.1007/s11434-011-4423-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
183.Märkle T, Rösch M. Experiments on the effects of carbonization on some cultivated plant seeds. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(Supplement 1):257–63. 10.1007/s00334-008-0165-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
184.Arranz-Otaegui A, González Carretero L, Ramsey MN, Fuller DQ, Richter T. Archaeobotanical evidence reveals the origins of bread 14,400 years ago in northeastern Jordan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(31):7925–30. 10.1073/pnas.1801071115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
185.Jakobitsch T, Trebsche P, Heiss AG. Fuel wood supply and woodland use in Prigglitz-Gasteil, the easternmost Late Bronze Age mining site in the Alps. in preparation.
186.Schwarz AS, Oeggl K. Archäobotanische und anthrakologische Analysen zur Waldnutzung in bronzezeitlichen Bergbaugebieten Westösterreichs. In: Oeggl K, Goldenberg G, Prast M, editors. Die Geschichte des Bergbaus in Tirol und seinen angrenzenden Gebieten Proceedings zum 5 Milestone-Meeting des SFB HiMAT vom 7–10102010 in Mühlbach. Conference Series. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press; 2011. p. 41–50.
187.Popovtschak M, Heiss AG, Drescher-Schneider R. Zur Umwelt. In: Lochner M, editor. Die Urnenfelderkultur im Osten Österreichs (1300/1250–800/750 v Chr). Archäologie Niederösterreichs. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; in print. p. 24–41. [Google Scholar]
188.Legge AJ. The faunal evidence. In: Shennan SJ, editor. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps Excavations at St Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. p. 231–3. [Google Scholar]
189.Gale R. The charcoal. In: Shennan SJ, editor. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps Excavations at St Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. p. 231–6. [Google Scholar]
190.Schatz I, Schatz H, Glaser F, Heiss A. Subfossile Arthropodenfunde in einer bronzezeitlichen Grabungsstätte bei Radfeld (Tirol, Österreich) (Acari: Oribatida; Insecta: Coleoptera, Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins Innsbruck. 2002;89(10):249–64. [Google Scholar]
191.Popovtschak M, Heiss AG, Stika H-P. Pflanzennutzung in der Urnenfelderzeit. In: Lochner M, editor. Die Urnenfelderkultur im Osten Österreichs (1300/1250–800/750 v Chr). Archäologie Niederösterreichs. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; in print. p. 106–33. [Google Scholar]
192.Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G, Staff RA, Hunt HV, Liu X, Jones MK. The early chronology of broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Europe. Antiquity. 2013;87(338):1073–85. 10.1017/S0003598X00049875 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
193.Kohler-Schneider M. Verkohlte Kultur- und Wildpflanzenreste aus Stillfried an der March als Spiegel spätbronzezeitlicher Landwirtschaft im Weinviertel, Niederösterreich. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 2001. 226 p. [Google Scholar]
194.Jones GEM, Halstead P. Maslins, Mixtures and Monocrops: on the Interpretation of Archaeobotanical Crop Samples of Heterogeneous Composition. J Archaeol Sci. 1995;22:103–14. [Google Scholar]
195.van der Veen M. The identification of maslin crops. In: Kroll H, Pasternak R, editors. Res Archaeobotanicae. Kiel: 1995. p. 335–43. [Google Scholar]
196.Schmidl A, Oeggl K. Subsistence strategies of two Bronze Age hill-top settlements in the eastern Alps—Friaga/Bartholomäberg (Vorarlberg, Austria) and Ganglegg/Schluderns (South Tyrol, Italy). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2005;14:303–12. [Google Scholar]
197.Mueller-Bieniek A, Bogucki P, Pyzel J, Kapcia M, Moskal-del Hoyo M, Nalepka D. The role of Chenopodium in the subsistence economy of pioneer agriculturalists on the northern frontier of the Linear Pottery culture in Kuyavia, central Poland. J Archaeol Sci. 2019;111. 10.1016/j.jas.2019.105027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
198.Stokes P, Rowley-Conwy P. Iron Age Cultigen? Experimental Return Rates for Fat Hen (Chenopodium album L.). Environmental Archaeology. 2002;7(1):95–9. [Google Scholar]
199.Edmonds JM, Chweya JA. Black nightshades: Solanum nigrum L. and related species. Gatersleben/Rome: IPK/IPGRI; 1997. 113 p. [Google Scholar]
200.Leuschner C, Ellenberg H. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe. Volume I, Ecology of Central European Forests. Cham: Springer; 2017. 992 p. [Google Scholar]
201.Oeggl K. Das Luchner Moor—Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte auf der Gnadenwaldterrasse im Raum Fritzens. Heimatkundliche Blätter. 1999;8:55–64. [Google Scholar]
202.Wahlmüller N. Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen am Götschenberg bei Bischofshofen/Salzburg. Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins Innsbruck. 1988;Suppl. 2:13–26. [Google Scholar]
203.Schantl-Heuberger H. Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen zur spät- und postglazialen Geschichte der Vegetation in Saalach- und Salzachtal (Salzburg/Austria). Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins Innsbruck. 1994;81:61–84. [Google Scholar]
204.Pirc H. Enzyklopädie der Wildobst- und seltenen Obstarten. Graz: Leopold Stocker; 2015. 416 p. [Google Scholar]
205.Münzing K. Risiken und Nebenwirkungen bei „Braunhirse“: Eine Stellungnahme der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung und Lebensmittel, Detmold. Ernährung im Fokus. 2004;4(12):336–9. [Google Scholar]
206.Lundström-Baudais K, Rachoud-Schneider A-M, Baudais D, Poissonnier B. Le broyage dans la chaîne de transformation du millet (Panicum miliaceum): outils, gestes et écofacts. In: Procopiou H, Treuil R, editors. Moudre et broyer L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mouture et de broyage dans la préhistoire et l’Antiquité. 1. Paris: Editions CTHS; 2002. p. 181–209. [Google Scholar]
207.Razavi P. Das Rezept im Bild: Bronzezeit-Risotto. BIORAMA. 2013:72–3. [Google Scholar]
208.Trebsche P, editor. Die urnenfelderzeitliche Bergbausiedlung von Prigglitz-Gasteil. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen von 2010 bis 2014in preparation.
209.Senica M, Stampar F, Veberic R, Mikulic-Petkovsek M. Processed elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.) products: A beneficial or harmful food alternative? LWT—Food Science and Technology. 2016;72:182–8. 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.04.056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
210.Tardío J, Arnal A, Lázaro A. Ethnobotany of the crab apple tree (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill., Rosaceae) in Spain. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2021;68(2):795–808. 10.1007/s10722-020-01026-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
211.Tolar T, Jacomet S, Velušček A, Čufar K. Plant economy at a late Neolithic lake dwelling site in Slovenia at the time of the Alpine Iceman. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2011;20(3):207–22. 10.1007/s00334-010-0280-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
212.Antolín F, Bleicher N, Brombacher C, Kühn M, Steiner BL, Jacomet S. Quantitative approximation to large-seeded wild fruit use in a late Neolithic lake dwelling: New results from the case study of layer 13 of Parkhaus Opéra in Zürich (Central Switzerland). Quaternary International. 2016;404(A):56–68. 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
213.Hofmann E. Die pflanzlichen Reste aus der Station See. In: Franz L, Weninger J, editors. Die Funde aus den prähistorischen Pfahlbauten im Mondsee. Materialien zur Urgeschichte Österreichs. Wien: Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien; 1927. p. 87–97. [Google Scholar]
214.Perego R. Contribution to the development of the Bronze Age plant economy in the surrounding of the Alps: an archaeobotanical case study of two Early and Middle Bronze Age sites in northern Italy (Lake Garda region) [Ph.D. thesis]: Universität Basel; 2017.
215.Jacquat C. Hauterive-Champréveyres 1. Les plantes de l’âge du Bronze. Catalogue des fruits et graines. Saint-Blaise: Editions du Ruau; 1988. 163 p.
216.Messikommer H. Die Pfahlbauten von Robenhausen: l’époque robenhausienne. Zürich: Orell Füssli; 1913. 132+48 p. [Google Scholar]
217.Penz M, Kohler-Schneider M, Szunyogh I, Czeika S. Erste Forschungsergebnisse zur endneolithischen Siedlung in Wien-Oberlaa. Fundort Wien Berichte zur Archäologie. 2019;22:4–41. [Google Scholar]
218.Bishop RR. Experiments on the effects of charring on hazelnuts and their representation in the archaeological record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2019;26:101839. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.05.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248287.r001

Decision Letter 0

Peter F Biehl

5 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-28652

Dig Out, Dig In! The plant-based diet of Late Bronze Age miners at the copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil (Lower Austria), and a few general thoughts on archaeological remains of processed food

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heiss,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All comments must be fully addressed before re-submission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Your manuscript has now been seen by a referee, whose comments are appended below. You will see from these comments that while the referees find your work of potential interest, it has raised substantial concerns that must be addressed. In light of these comments, we cannot accept the manuscript for publication, but would be interested in considering a revised version that addresses these serious concerns.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figures 2 and 3 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

2.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. We note that Figure 7 includes an image of a participant in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is an interesting article and worth publishing, with valuable new data that can enhance our knowledge and interpretation of the past

Before publishing, I would recommend restructuring the article’s focus from just a report on the findings of a research project, to how the research project findings contribute further to our understanding of Late Bronze Age economy, societies etc. Hence, I suggest the paper is not just about the Prigglitz-Gasteil site, but rather a ‘window’ into the economy and food supply to work forces linked with mining in Late Bronze Age societies of Eastern Alps, Lower Austria, Styria (where it is?- it is a regional name the majority of readers might not be familiar with) and Western Hungary – page 4

That would alter the text e.g. by deleting or modifying the text on vegetation history of the site or proximity of other Late Bronze Age sites: if such information is not used in the interpretation of the findings, maybe it is redundant? - page 8

The Abstract and Introduction do not reflect the ideas presented in the article, including cuisine, which goes beyond the idea of consumption. Further, the text cannot only focus on the description of findings without linking it into the concepts of cuisine as proposed in the first part of the article.

I am not sure how the concept of cuisine is relevant to question posed in this paper, since the question are related to the food provision and consumption.

1) The author needs to make clear that he looks only at the charred material and a small amount of parenchyma. Such remains are very valuable when talking about cuisine if the data is related to other types of plant remains as phytoliths (Saul H, Madella M, Fischer A, Glykou A, Hartz S, et al. (2013) Phytoliths in Pottery Reveal the Use of Spice in European Prehistoric Cuisine. PLoS ONE 8(8): e70583.doi:10.1371journal.pone.0070583) or protein (Hendy, J., Colonese, A.C., Franz, I. et al. Ancient proteins from ceramic vessels at Çatalhöyük West reveal the hidden cuisine of early farmers. Nat Commun 9, 4064 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06335-6).

2) It would be useful if the author could acknowledge that he is presenting only part of the picture of what is considered the chain operatoire of a cuisine, since he does not talk about ways of food preparation like baking, cooking, eating raw, or ways of consumption. Fig 22 is not sufficient to answer those questions.

3) There is no discussion on the role of wild plants, e.g. nuts or fruits, in later Bronze Age cuisine.

4) There is no discussion about the legumes as part of obtaining, preparing and consumption of food stuffs.

5) Since the focus of the article is related mainly to the charred materia,l I suggest looking at the food as material, as in plant food consumption e.g. Van der Venn, M. 2008. Food as embodied material culture: diversity and change in plant food consumption. Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 83-109. This would ground the author in the issue of plants as material culture.

The part where the data is presented is well structured and written with very good figures illustrating the points made.

In the discussion, I would suggest returning to the idea of cuisine (if it is a concept the author decides to keep), and answer the questions based on the charred and parenchyma data from the Prigglitz-Gasteil site. For example, if and how if so, the diet of the miners was restricted due to the food provisions coming from outside the site? What does the presence of legumes tell us about food production? Were they cultivated in similar a way to cereals or were they grown among cereal crops, and hence appeared in assemblages?

The wild plant remains are treated in the text as auxiliary data. Their availability during particular seasons, like elder or strawberry, indicate the part of the year work in the mines took place. Moreover, other plants like e.g. sloe, hazel, or wild fruits, indicate other seasons or storage practices as part of the food supply strategy. It is assumed in the text Last but not least: fruits and nuts that wild fruits and nuts were foraged, but by whom, the miners or food suppliers?

Were ‘The most frequent weed taxa belong to members of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae=Amaranthaceae p. p.) and to wild millets (Poaceae-Panicoideae, including e. g. Echinochloa and wild Setaria taxa). These wild millets showed an overall distribution pattern which seemed similar to the one of cultivated millets’ (p22) intentionally gathered? If so what this tell us about food preferences, food supply etc? Further, what does the consumption of cultivated and wild food tells us about Late Bronze Age economy in terms of food production and labour specialisation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Liliana Janik

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 24;16(3):e0248287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248287.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

30 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-28652

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heiss,

All comments must be fully addressed before re-submission.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

-> We have carefully re-checked the requirements and hope that our manuscript meets PLOS One’s style requirements.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

2.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

-> The map in Figure 2 was made by the first author using ArcGIS Pro. This fact, alongside with the underlying data, is now explicitly stated in the Methods section.

-> The aerial photograph in Figure 3 is freely publishable under a CC-BY license. The content permission is now added to the submission.

3. We note that Figure 7 includes an image of a participant in the study.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

-> We had already obtained informed consent from the person depicted in Figure 7, and the consent form had been properly signed and submitted with the manuscript. As the individual is not a patient but a colleague, there is no such thing as case notes. We are therefore unsure what else to do with the consent form but resubmit it.

-> We have added the suggested statement to the Methods section in an adapted form.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: It is an interesting article and worth publishing, with valuable new data that can enhance our knowledge and interpretation of the past

-> Taking these considerations into account, together with comment #5, we have now improved the section “Research goals” to make our intentions more visible, and to present the scope and limitations of the current study. Moreover, the entire manuscript structure has been reorganised. We hope that insufficiently explained thoughts are now more clearly laid out to the reader, and that the overarching questions are now addressed in a better way.

-> Toponyms have been amended accordingly.

-> We are now referring to local vegetation in the Discussion section, and are generally elaborating on gathered fruit in much greater detail.

-> We have adjusted the manuscript’s title, abstract, and introduction accordingly.

-> The discussion part has been amended accordingly.

I am not sure how the concept of cuisine is relevant to question posed in this paper, since the question are related to the food provision and consumption.

-> We think that it makes a difference to include culinary aspects into the chaîne opératoire of cereal processing: The information which elements of the various processing stages from harvested sheaves/grain to ready-to-eat dishes allows to gain information on supply chains as it has not been accessible before.

-> We have now tried to explain this in a better way, and to better highlight cuisine as the “missing link” between crop and consumption.

-> We have looked at the total assemblage of charred plant macroremains and amorphous charred objects (ACO); all ACOs larger than 2 mm were evaluated for any preserved plant tissues, resulting in their classification as cereal products and fruit parenchyma. We hope that now we have been able to explain these issues in a better way.

-> We are aware of the fact that additional remains will bring additional information, but see that this has not been explained very well. We are aware of the possibilities in proteomics, aDNA, and lipid residual analyses, however, these analyses are within the scope of the follow-up projects. We have now tried to better explain this.

-> The identified charred silica skeletons of e. g. the millet glumes are indeed phytoliths, although we did not explicitly use this term.

-> We have now elaborated on the issues the reviewer has raised, and hope that now we explain them sufficiently.

3) There is no discussion on the role of wild plants, e.g. nuts or fruits, in later Bronze Age cuisine.

-> We have added discussion on these aspects.

4) There is no discussion about the legumes as part of obtaining, preparing and consumption of food stuffs.

-> We have added discussion on these aspects.

-> We realise that we had taken for granted that plants from archaeological contexts would be considered a part of material culture, and instead immediately focused on less clear issues such as the differentiation between their “ecofacts state” (grains/seeds) and their “artefacts state” (processed foodstuffs, dishes). We have now modified the manuscript accordingly, in order to better explain our intentions.

-> The reference to Marijke van der Veen’s paper has been added.

The part where the data is presented is well structured and written with very good figures illustrating the points made.

-> We have now elaborated on all issues raised in the discussion section within the course of the general restructuring of the manuscript.

-> No evidence currently speaks against the miners/metallurgists or other “sur place” craftspeople gathering the wild fruits as well as the antlers in the surrounding woods themselves. We have now added discussion of these considerations to the manuscript.

-> The overlapping distribution patterns of cultivated and wild millets could possibly indicate their origin from the same fields, and thus a weedy character of the wild millets. The Amaranthaceae p. p. show an inverse pattern (at least when comparing T3 vs. T4). At the current state of analysis, we prefer not to interpret these weedy taxa, as the fine chronology is still missing: Although the overall temporal range of LBA activities is narrow in Prigglitz, the distribution patterns also contain depth in time. A forthcoming publication will deal with the distribution patterns of wild and cultivated species and help clear up these questions.

-> We have now pointed out these issues and considerations in the manuscript.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Liliana Janik

________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248287.r003

Decision Letter 1

Peter F Biehl

24 Feb 2021

Dig Out, Dig In! Plant-based diet at the Late Bronze Age copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil (Lower Austria) and the relevance of processed foodstuffs for the supply of Alpine Bronze Age miners

PONE-D-20-28652R1

Dear Dr. Heiss,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All questions have been fully answered and suggestions considered. I am satisfied withe the quality of the text and illustrations

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Liliana Janik

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248287.r004

Acceptance letter

Peter F Biehl

1 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-28652R1

Dear Dr. Heiss:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Peter F. Biehl

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. The charred plant remains from the Late Bronze Age layers of Prigglitz-Gasteil.

Sheet 1: counts by individual samples, sheet 2: counts summed up to phases. Red squares: Cereal-based ACOs analysed via SEM. Data: OeAW-OeAI/T. Jakobitsch, S. Wiesinger, A. G. Heiss.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(97.6KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Electronic Supplementary Materials (ESM). All archaeological plant remains are stored in the archaeological depot of the State Collections of Lower Austria and are available for scientific re-evaluation on request: Landessammlungen Niederösterreich, Bereich Urgeschichte und Historische Archäologie, MAMUZ/Schloss Asparn/Zaya, Schlossplatz 1, 2151 Asparna. d. Zaya, Österreich/Austria. E-mail: franz.pieler@noel.gv.at, phone: +43 (27 42) 90 05 – 499 12.

[pone.0248287.ref001] 1.Bartelheim M, Eckstein K, Huijsmans M, Krauß R, Pernicka E. Kupferzeitliche Metallgewinnung in Brixlegg, Österreich. In: Bartelheim M, Pernicka E, Krause R, editors. Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt / The Beginnings of Metallurgy in the Old World. Rahden: Marie Leidorf; 2002. p. 33–82. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref002] 2.Stöllner T. Die zeitliche Einordnung der prähistorischen Montanreviere in den Ost- und Südalpen—Anmerkungen zu einem Forschungsstand. In: Oeggl K, Prast M, editors. Die Geschichte des Bergbaus in Tirol und seinen angrenzenden Gebieten Proceedings zum 3 Milestone-Meeting des SFB HiMAT vom 23–26102008 in Silbertal. Conference Series. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press; 2009. p. 37–60. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref003] 3.Trebsche P. Zur Absolutdatierung der urnenfelderzeitlichen Kupfergewinnung im südöstlichen Niederösterreich. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 2015;45(1):41–60. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref004] 4.Patzelt G, Bortenschlager S. Die postglazialen Gletscher- und Klimaschwankungen in der Venedigergruppe (Hohe Tauern, Ostalpen). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie. 1973;Suppl. 16:25–72. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref005] 5.Viehweider B, Lutz J, Oeggl K. Late-Holocene land use changes caused by exploitation in the mining region of Kitzbühel (Tyrol, Austria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2015;24(6):711–29. 10.1007/s00334-015-0527-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref006] 6.Schibler J, Breitenlechner E, Deschler-Erb S, Goldenberg G, Hanke K, Hiebel G, et al. Miners and mining in the Late Bronze Age: a multidisciplinary study from Austria. Antiquity. 2011;85:1259–78. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref007] 7.Schmidt R, Kamenik C, Roth M. Der Einfluss des Klimas auf die Hochlagennutzung in den südlichen Niederen Tauern (Lungau) während der letzten 4000 Jahre. In: Schmidt R, Matulla C, Psenner R, editors. Klimawandel in Österreich. alpine space—man & environment. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press; 2009. p. 87–96. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref008] 8.Ottaway BS. Innovation, production and specialization in early prehistoric copper metallurgy. EJA. 2001;4(1):87–112. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref009] 9.Kowarik K, Reschreiter H. Provisioning a Salt Mine—On the Infrastructure of the Bronze Age Salt Mines of Hallstatt. In: Mandl F, editor. Archäologie in den Alpen—Alltag und Kult Internationales Symposium der ANISA, 16–18 Oktober 2009. Haus im Ennstal: ANISA, Verein für alpine Forschung; 2010. p. 105–16. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref010] 10.Pucher E, Barth FE, Seemann R, Brandstätter F, editors. Bronzezeitliche Fleischverarbeitung im Salzbergtal bei Hallstatt. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; 2013. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref011] 11.Stöllner T. Mining and Economy. A Discussion of Spatial Organisations and Structures of Early Raw Material Exploitation. In: Stöllner T, Körlin G, Steffens G, Cierny J, editors. Man and Mining Studies in honour of Gerd Weisgerber. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum; 2003. p. 415–46. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref012] 12.Heiss AG. Anthrakologische und paläoethnobotanische Untersuchungen im bronzezeitlichen Bergbaugebiet Schwaz—Brixlegg (Tirol) [Master thesis]. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck; 2001.

[pone.0248287.ref013] 13.Schwarz AS, Oeggl K. Vegetation change during the Bronze Age studied in a multi-proxy approach: use of wood linked to charcoal analysis. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2013;22(6):493–507. 10.1007/s00334-013-0402-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref014] 14.Breitenlechner E, Stöllner TH, Thomas PA, Lutz J, Oeggl K. An Interdisciplinary Study on the Environmental Reflection of Prehistoric Mining Activities at the Mitterberg Main Lode (Salzburg, Austria). Archaeometry. 2014;56(1):102–28. 10.1111/arcm.12010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref015] 15.Breitenlechner E, Goldenberg G, Lutz J, Oeggl K. The impact of prehistoric mining activities on the environment: a multidisciplinary study at the fen Schwarzenbergmoos (Brixlegg, Tyrol, Austria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2013;22(4):351–66. 10.1007/s00334-012-0379-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref016] 16.Green FJ. The plant remains from the Klinglberg. In: Shennan SJ, editor. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps Excavations at St Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. p. 223–31. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref017] 17.Schwarz AS, Oeggl K. Resource usage of the hilltop settlement on the Kiechlberg near Thaur (Tyrol, Austria) from Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2015;25:85–103. 10.1007/s00334-015-0529-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref018] 18.Reschreiter H, Kowarik K. Bronze Age Mining in Hallstatt. A New Picture of Everyday Life in the Salt Mines and Beyond. ArchAustr. 2019;103:99–136. 10.1553/archaeologia103s99 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref019] 19.Trebsche P, Pucher E. Urnenfelderzeitliche Kupfergewinnung am Rande der Ostalpen. Erste Ergebnisse zu Ernährung und Wirtschaftsweise in der Bergbausiedlung von Prigglitz-Gasteil (Niederösterreich). Praehist Z. 2013;88(1–2):114–51. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref020] 20.Saliari K, Pucher E, Staudt M, Goldenberg G. Continuities and changes of animal exploitation across the Bronze Age—Iron Age boundary at mining sites in the Eastern Alps. Archaeofauna. 2020;29:77–106. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref021] 21.Boenke N. Organic resources at the Iron Age Dürrnberg salt-mine (Hallein, Austria)—Long distance trade or local sources? Archaeometry. 2005;47(2):471–83. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref022] 22.Stöllner T, Aspöck H, Boenke N, Dobiat C, Gawlick H-J, Groenman-van Waateringe W, et al. The economy of Dürrnberg-bei-Hallein: An Iron Age salt-mining centre in the Austrian Alps. Antiquaries Journal. 2003;83(123–194). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref023] 23.Swidrak I, Schmidl A. Pflanzengroßreste aus der latènezeitlichen Gewerbesiedlung im Ramsautal am Dürrnberg. In: Dobiat C, Sievers S, Stöllner T, editors. Dürrnberg und Manching Wirtschaftsarchäologie im ostkeltischen Raum Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Hallein / Bad Dürmberg vom 7 bis 11 Oktober 1998. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 2002. p. 147–55. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref024] 24.Reschreiter H, Kowarik K. Vom Alltag der Bergleute. In: Kern A, Kowarik K, Rausch AW, Reschreiter H, editors. Salz-Reich 7000 Jahre Hallstatt. Veröffentlichungen der Prähistorischen Abteilung (VPA). Wien: Verlag des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien; 2008. p. 92–5. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref025] 25.Barth FE. Das Ritschert, eine urzeitliche Reminiszenz. Archäologie Österreichs. 1999;10(2):54–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref026] 26.Shennan SJ. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps. Excavations at St. Veit-Klinglberg. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. 397 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref027] 27.Heiss AG, Oeggl K. Analysis of the fuel wood used in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age copper mining sites of the Schwaz and Brixlegg area (Tyrol, Austria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(2):211–21. 10.1007/s00334-007-0096-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref028] 28.Bronk Ramsey C. OxCal 3.10. 2005.

[pone.0248287.ref029] 29.Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, et al. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon. 2013;55(4):1869–87. 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 30854509 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref030] 30.Töchterle U, Goldenberg G, Tomedi G. Recent discoveries from the Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age settlement on the Kiechlberg/Thaur (North Tyrol, Austria). The European Archaeologist. 2009/2010;32:21–2. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref031] 31.Töchterle U, Bachnetzer T, Brandl M, Deschler-Erb S, Goldenberg G, Krismer M, et al. Der Kiechlberg bei Thaur—eine neolithische bis frühbronzezeitliche Höhensiedlung. In: Goldenberg G, Töchterle U, Oeggl K, Krenn-Leeb A, editors. Forschungsprogramm HiMAT—Neues zur Bergbaugeschichte der Ostalpen. Archäologie Österreichs Spezial. Wien: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte; 2011. p. 31–58. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref032] 32.Shennan SJ. Ausgrabungen in einer frühbronzezeitlichen Siedlung auf dem Klinglberg, St. Veit im Pongau, Salzburg (1985–1988). ArchAustr. 1989;73:35–48. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref033] 33.Heiss AG, Oeggl K. The oldest evidence of Nigella damascena L. (Ranunculaceae) and its possible introduction to central Europe. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2005;14(4):562–70. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref034] 34.Stika H-P. Pflanzenreste aus der Höhensiedlung der späten Urnenfelderzeit am Kulm bei Trofaiach. Fundberichte aus Österreich. 2000;38(1999):163–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref035] 35.Heiss AG, Wiesinger S. Abschlussbericht zur archäobotanischen Grundlagenforschung im Rahmen des Projekts Interreg-SI-AT »PalaeoDiversiStyria«, und Überblick über archäobotanische Großrestanalysen in Steiermark und Kärnten. In: Črešnar M, Kiszter S, Mele M, Peitler K, Vintar A, editors. Plants—Animals—People Lively archaeological landscapes of Styria and Northeastern Slovenia / Pflanzen—Tiere—Menschen Lebendige archäologische Landschaften der Steiermark und Nordostsloweniens / Rastline—živali—ljudje Žive arheološke krajine avstrijske Štajerske in severovzhodne Slovenije. Schild von Steier, Beiheft. Graz/Ljubljana: Universalmuseum Joanneum/Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije; 2019. p. 285–371. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref036] 36.Wiesinger S, Thanheiser U. Botanische Auswertung. Fundberichte aus Österreich. 2011;50:84–5. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref037] 37.Gyulai F. Archaeobotany in Hungary. Seed, Fruit, Food and Beverage Remains in the Carpathian Basin from the Neolithic to the Late Middle Ages. Jerem E, Meid W, editors. Budapest: Archaeolingua; 2010. 478 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref038] 38.Hampl F, Mayrhofer RJ. Urnenfelderzeitlicher Kupferbergbau und mittelalterlicher Eisenbergbau in Niederösterreich. 2. Arbeitsbericht über die Grabungen d. NÖ. Landesmuseums 1953–1959. ArchAustr. 1963;33:50–106. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref039] 39.Trebsche P. Urnenfelderzeitlicher Kupferbergbau in Niederösterreich. In: Stöllner T, Oeggl K, editors. Bergauf Bergab 10000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen Wissenschaftlicher Beiband zur Ausstellung. Rahden: Marie Leidorf; 2015. p. 209–14. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref040] 40.Haubner R, Strobl S, Trebsche P. Analysis of Urnfield Period Bronze Droplets Formed during Casting. Mater Sci Forum. 2017;891:41–8. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.891.41 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref041] 41.Haubner R, Strobl S, Trebsche P. Metallographic analyses from the late Urnfield period copper mining settlement at Prigglitz-Gasteil in Lower Austria. In: Turck R, Stöllner T, Goldenberg G, editors. Alpine Copper II—Alpenkupfer II—Rame delle Alpi II—Ciuvre des Alpes II. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft. Rahden: Marie Leidorf; 2019. p. 323–32. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref042] 42.Hackenberg M. Bergbau im Semmeringgebiet. Arch f Lagerstforsch Geol B-A. 2003;24:5–97. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref043] 43.BFW. Digitale Bodenkarte von Österreich—eBOD2 Wien: Bundesforschungs- und Ausbildungszentrum für Wald, Naturgefahren und Landschaft; 2020 [cited 2020 05.06.2020]. https://bodenkarte.at/.

[pone.0248287.ref044] 44.Tüxen R. Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung: Bundesanstalt für Vegetationskartierung; 1956. 55 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref045] 45.Zukrigl K. Montane und subalpine Waldgesellschaften am Alpenostrand. Wien: Österreichischer Agrarverlag; 1973. 386 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref046] 46.Zukrigl K. Die Schwarzföhrenwälder am Alpenostrand in Niederösterreich. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum. 1999;12:11–20. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref047] 47.Wagner H. Die natürliche Pflanzendecke Österreichs. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 1989. 72 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref048] 48.Heiss AG. Fifty Shapes of Grain. New archaeobotanical approaches towards charred finds of processed cereal-based foods. I. Rahmenschrift and Original Papers [Habilitation thesis]. Wien: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU); 2019.

[pone.0248287.ref049] 49.Oeggl K. Die Paläoökologie des historischen und prähistorischen Bergbaus in den Ostalpen. Berichte der Reinhold-Tüxen-Gesellschaft. 2009;21:241–52. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref050] 50.Breitenlechner E, Hilber M, Lutz J, Kathrein Y, Unterkircher A, Oeggl K. The impact of mining activities on the environment reflected by pollen, charcoal and geochemical analyses. J Archaeol Sci. 2010;37(7):1458–67. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref051] 51.Festi D, Brandner D, Grabner M, Knierzinger W, Reschreiter H, Kowarik K. 3500 years of environmental sustainability in the large-scale alpine mining district of Hallstatt, Austria. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2021;35:102670. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102670 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref052] 52.Knierzinger W, Huang J-JS, Strasser M, Knorr K-H, Drescher-Schneider R, Wagreich M. Late Holocene periods of copper mining in the Eisenerz Alps (Austria) deduced from calcareous lake deposits. Anthropocene. 2021;33. 10.1016/j.ancene.2020.100273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref053] 53.Bakels CC. Producers and Consumers in Archaeobotany. A comment on "When method meets theory: the use and misuse of cereal producer/consumer models in archaeobotany". In: Albarella U, editor. Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Environmental Science and Technology Library. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic; 2001. p. 299–301. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref054] 54.Stevens CJ. An Investigation of Agricultural Consumption and Production Models for Prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environmental Archaeology. 2003;8(1):61–76. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref055] 55.van der Veen M, Jones GEM. The production and consumption of cereals: a question of scale. In: Haselgrove C, Moore T, editors. The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2007. p. 419–29. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref056] 56.van der Veen M, Jones GEM. A re-analysis of agricultural production and consumption: implications for understanding the British Iron Age. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2006;15:217–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref057] 57.Hillman GC. Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops. In: Mercer RJ, editor. Farming Practice in British Prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1981. p. 123–62. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref058] 58.Bakels CC. Growing grain for others or How to detect surplus production? Journal of European Archaeology. 1996;4:329–36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref059] 59.Jones M. Plant exploitation. In: Champion TC, Collis JR, editors. The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Sheffield Excavation Reports. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 1996. p. 29–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref060] 60.Schiffer MB. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. Amer Antiq. 1972;37(2):156–65. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref061] 61.Sellet F. Chaîne opératoire; the concept and its applications. Lithic Technology. 1993;18(1 & 2):106–12. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref062] 62.Hodder I. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Chichester: Wiley; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref063] 63.Hodder I. Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. J Royal Anthropol Inst. 2011;17:154–77. 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01674.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref064] 64.Twiss KC. The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2012;20(4):357–95. 10.1007/s10814-012-9058-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref065] 65.Hastorf CA. The Social Archaeology of Food: Thinking about Eating from Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. 400 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref066] 66.Samuel D. Approaches to the Archaology of Food. Petits Propos Culinaires. 1996;54:12–21. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref067] 67.Hillman GC. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: The application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: van Zeist W, Casparie WA, editors. Plants and Ancient Man Studies in palaeoethnobotany Proceedings of the 6^th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, Groningen 1983. Rotterdam/Boston: A. A. Balkema; 1984. p. 1–42. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref068] 68.Jones GEM. The application of present-day cereal processing studies to charred archaeobotanical remains. Circaea. 1990;6(2):91–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref069] 69.Kreuz A, Schäfer E. Archaeobotanical consideration of the development of Pre-Roman Iron Age crop growing in the region of Hesse, Germany, and the question of agricultural production and consumption at hillfort sites and open settlements. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(Supplement 1):159–79. 10.1007/s00334-008-0182-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref070] 70.Jones GEM. An ethnoarchaeological investigation of the effects of cereal grain sieving. Circaea. 1996;12(2):177–82. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref071] 71.Jacomet S. Use in Environmental Archaeology. In: Elias SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. 3: Elsevier; 2007. p. 2384–412. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref072] 72.Peña-Chocarro L, Zapata Peña L. Post-harvesting processing of hulled wheats. An ethnoarchaelogical approach. In: Anderson PC, Cummings LS, Schippers TK, Simonel B, editors. Le traitement des récoltes: Un regard sur la diversité du Néolithique au présent XXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Antibes: Éditions APDCA; 2003. p. 99–113. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref073] 73.Samuel D. Cereal Food Processing in Ancient Egypt, A Case Study of Integration. In: Luff R, Rowley-Conwy P, editors. Whither Environmental Archaeology? Oxbow Monograph. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 1994. p. 153–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref074] 74.Harding A. Introduction: Biographies of Things. Distant Worlds Journal. 2016;1:5–10. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref075] 75.Buccini AF. Defining ’Cuisine’: Communication, Culinary Grammar, and the Typology of Cuisine. In: McWilliams M, editor. Food & Communication: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2015. London: Prospect Books; 2016. p. 105–21. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref076] 76.Twiss KC. The Archaeology of Food: Identity, Politics, and Ideology in the Prehistoric and Historic Past. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press; 2019. 247 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref077] 77.Graff SR. Archaeology of Cuisine and Cooking. Annu Rev Anthrop. 2020;49. 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-045734 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref078] 78.Lévi-Strauss C. Le triangle culinaire. L’Arc. 1965;26:19–29. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref079] 79.Katz SH, Voigt MM. Bread and beer: The early use of cereals in the human diet. Expedition. 1986;28(2):23–35. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref080] 80.Toulemonde F. Les blocs carbonisés de millet commun de l’habitat protohistorique de Villiers-sur-Seine « Le Gros Buisson » (Seine-et-Marne): peut-on parler de préparation alimentaire? ArchéoSciences. 2014;(38):109–18. 10.4000/archeosciences.4192 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref081] 81.Valamoti SM. Ground cereal food preparations from Greece: the prehistory and modern survival of traditional Mediterranean ‘fast foods’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2011;3(1):19–39. 10.1007/s12520-011-0058-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref082] 82.Heiss AG, Antolín F, Bleicher N, Harb C, Jacomet S, Kühn M, et al. 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. 2017;12(8):e0182401. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref083] 83.Heiss AG, Berihuete-Azorín M, Antolín F, Kubiak-Martens L, Marinova E, Arendt EK, et al. Mashes to Mashes, Crust to Crust. Presenting a novel microstructural marker for malting in the archaeological record. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0231696. Epub 07.05.2020. 10.1371/journal.pone.0231696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref084] 84.Palmer C, van der Veen M. Archaeobotany and the social context of food. Acta Palaeobotanica. 2002;42(2):195–202. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref085] 85.van der Veen M. Food as embodied material culture: diversity and change in plant food consumption in Roman Britain. JRA. 2008;21:83–109. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref086] 86.Morehart CT, Morell-Hart S. Beyond the Ecofact: Toward a Social Paleoethnobotany in Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2015;22(2):483–511. 10.1007/s10816-013-9183-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref087] 87.Jones M. Environmental Archaeology. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 63–7. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref088] 88.Peacock E. Distinguishing between Artifacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England. J Field Archaeol. 1991;18(3):345–61. 10.1179/009346991791548645 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref089] 89.Miller D. Artefacts as products of human categorisation processes. In: Hodder I, editor. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p. 17–25. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref090] 90.Balme J. Artifacts, Overview. In: Pearsall DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. 1–3. London: Academic Press; 2007. p. 508–17. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref091] 91.Emery KF. Ecofacts, Overview. In: Pearsall DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London: Academic Press; 2007. p. 1111–4. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref092] 92.Schlanger N. The Chaîne Opératoire. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 18–23. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref093] 93.Bamforth DW, Finlay N. Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2008;15(1):1–27. 10.1007/s10816-007-9043-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref094] 94.Bamforth CW. Beer. Tap Into the Art and Science of Brewing. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. 233 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref095] 95.Narziß L, Back W, Gastl M, Zarnkow M. Die Bierbrauerei Band 3: Abriss der Bierbrauerei. 8 ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2017. 471 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref096] 96.McGovern PE. Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2009. 348 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref097] 97.Figoni P. How Baking Works. Exploring the Fundamentals of Baking Science. 2 ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2008. 399 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref098] 98.Samuel D. Bread in Archaeology. In: Fechner K, Mesnil M, editors. Pain, fours et foyers des temps passés Archéologie et traditions boulangères des peuples agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche Orient. Civilisations. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2002. p. 27–36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref099] 99.Samuel D. Their Staff Of Life: Initial Investigations On Ancient Egyptian Bread Baking. In: Kemp BJ, editor. Amarna Reports V. London: Egypt Exploration Society; 1989. p. 253–90. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref100] 100.Renfrew C, Bahn P. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. 7 ed. London: Thames & Hudson; 2016. 672 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref101] 101.Pettitt PB. Ideas in Absolute and Relative Dating. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 47–52. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref102] 102.Bahn P. The Three Ages. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge Key Guides. London/New York: Routledge; 2005. p. 197–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref103] 103.Heiss AG, Gail N. Brot oder nicht Brot—keine einfache Frage. Methodische Überlegungen zu verkohlten archäologischen Speiseresten und die Neubearbeitung von Funden aus dem gallo-römischen Gräberfeld von Wederath-Belginum. In: Cordie R, Haßlinger N, Wiethold J, editors. Was aßen Kelten und Römer? Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Ernährung westlich des Rheins. Schriften des Archäologiepark Belginum. Morbach: Archäologiepark Belginum; 2019. p. 73–88. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref104] 104.Hansson A-M, Isaksson S. Analyses of charred organic remains. Laborativ Arkeologi. 1994;7:21–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref105] 105.Dickson C. The identification of cereals from ancient bran fragments. Circaea. 1987;4(2):95–102. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref106] 106.Heiss AG, Pouget N, Wiethold J, Delor-Ahü A, Le Goff I. Tissue-based analysis of a charred flat bread (galette) from a Roman cemetery at Saint-Memmie (Dép. Marne, Champagne-Ardenne, north-eastern France). J Archaeol Sci. 2015;55:71–82. Epub 29.12.2014. 10.1016/j.jas.2014.12.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref107] 107.Kubiak-Martens L, Brinkkemper O, Oudemans TFM. What’s for dinner? Processed food in the coastal area of the northern Netherlands in the Late Neolithic. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2015;24(1):47–62. 10.1007/s00334-014-0485-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref108] 108.Graff SR. Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2018;26:305–51. 10.1007/s10814-017-9111-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref109] 109.Pollock S. Towards an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces. An Introduction. eTopoi. 2012;Special Volume 2:1–20.

[pone.0248287.ref110] 110.Sherratt AG. Palaeoethnobotany: from crops to cuisine. In: Queiroga F, Dinis AP, editors. Paleoecologia e arqueologia II: trabalhos dedicados a A R Pinto da Silva. Vila Nova de Famalicão: Centro de Estudos Arqueológicos Famalicenses; 1991. p. 221–36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref111] 111.Wollstonecroft MM. Investigating the role of food processing in human evolution: a niche construction approach. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2011;3(1):141–50. 10.1007/s12520-011-0062-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref112] 112.Stahl AB. Plant-food processing: implications for dietary quality. In: Harris DR, Hillman GC, editors. Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation. London/Boston/Sydney/Wellington: Unwin Hyman; 1989. p. 171–97. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref113] 113.Cappers RTJ. Digital Atlas of Traditional Food Made from Cereals and Milk. Groningen: Barkhuis/University of Groningen Library; 2018. 639 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref114] 114.Haslam M. The decomposition of starch grains in soils: implications for archaeological residue analyses. J Archaeol Sci. 2004;31(12):1715–34. 10.1016/j.jas.2004.05.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref115] 115.Samuel D. A New Look at Bread and Beer. Egyptian Archaeology. 1994;4:9–11. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref116] 116.Gong Y, Yang Y, Ferguson DK, Tao D, Li W, Wang C, et al. Investigation of ancient noodles, cakes, and millet at the Subeixi Site, Xinjiang, China. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38(2):470–9. 10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref117] 117.Chen T, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Wang B, Hu Y, Wang C, et al. Archaeobotanical study of ancient food and cereal remains at the Astana Cemeteries, Xinjiang, China. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(9):e45137. 10.1371/journal.pone.0045137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref118] 118.Hofmann-de Keijzer R, van Bommel MR, Joosten I, Hartl A, Proaño Gaibor AN, Heiss AG, et al. Die Farben und Färbetechniken der prähistorischen Textilien aus dem Salzbergbau Hallstatt / The colours and dyeing techniques of prehistoric textiles from the salt mines of Hallstatt. In: Grömer K, Kern A, Reschreiter H, Rösel-Mautendorfer H, editors. Textilien aus Hallstatt Gewebte Kultur aus dem bronze- und eisenzeitlichen Salzbergwerk / Textiles from Hallstatt Weaving Culture in Bronze Age and Iron Age Salt Mines. Archaeolingua. Budapest: Archaeolingua; 2013. p. 135–62. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref119] 119.Kern A, Kowarik K, Rausch AW, Reschreiter H, editors. Salz-Reich. 7000 Jahre Hallstatt. Wien: Verlag des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien; 2008.

[pone.0248287.ref120] 120.Heiss AG, Antolín F, Berihuete-Azorín M, Biederer B, Erlach R, Gail N, et al. The Hoard of the Rings. “Odd” annular bread-like objects as a case study for cereal-product diversity at the Late Bronze Age hillfort site of Stillfried (Lower Austria). PLOS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0216907. Epub 05.06.2019. 10.1371/journal.pone.0216907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref121] 121.Popper VS. Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In: Hastorf CA, Popper VS, editors. Current Paleoethnobotany Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press; 1988. p. 53–71. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref122] 122.Antolín F, Buxó i Capdevila R. Proposal for the systematic description and taphonomic study of carbonized cereal grain assemblages: a case study of an early Neolithic funerary context in the cave of Can Sadurní (Begues, Barcelona province, Spain). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2011;20(1):53–66. 10.1007/s00334-010-0255-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref123] 123.Boardman S, Jones GEM. Experiments on the Effects of Charring on Cereal Plant Components. J Archaeol Sci. 1990;17(1):1–11. 10.1016/0305-4403(90)90012-T [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref124] 124.Valamoti SM, Samuel D, Bayram M, Marinova E. Prehistoric cereal foods from Greece and Bulgaria: investigation of starch microstructure in experimental and archaeological charred remains. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(Supplement 1):265–76. 10.1007/s00334-008-0190-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref125] 125.Berihuete Azorín M, Stika H-P, Bourliva A, Papadopoulou L, Valamoti SM. “Fresh from the Oven”: experiments on Triticum spelta and a protocol for carbonising specimens for archaebotanical comparison collections. forthcoming. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref126] 126.Cordes A, Henriksen PS, Hald MM, Sørensen L, Nielsen PO, Xu J, et al. Identification of prehistoric malting and partial grain germination from starch granules in charred barley grains. J Archaeol Sci. 2021;125:105297. 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105297 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref127] 127.Greenwood CT. The Thermal Degradation of Starch. In: Wolfrom ML, Tipson RS, editors. Advances in Carbohydrate Chemistry. 22: Academic Press; 1967. p. 483–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref128] 128.Montoya J, Pecha B, Janna FC, Garcia-Perez M. Micro-explosion of liquid intermediates during the fast pyrolysis of sucrose and organosolv lignin. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2016;122:106–21. 10.1016/j.jaap.2016.10.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref129] 129.Werner K, Pommer L, Broström M. Thermal decomposition of hemicelluloses. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2014;110:130–7. 10.1016/j.jaap.2014.08.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref130] 130.Hillman GC, Wales S, McLaren F, Evans JG, Butler A. Identifying problematic remains of ancient food plants: a comparison of the role of chemical, histological and morphological criteria. Wld Archaeol. 1993;25(1):94–121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref131] 131.McLaren F, Evans JG. The chemical identification of ancient British bread flours: encountering and overcoming some of the obstacles. In: Fechner K, Mesnil M, editors. Pain, fours et foyers des temps passés Archéologie et traditions boulangères des peuples agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche Orient. Civilisations. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2002. p. 169–82. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref132] 132.Martínez Straumann S. Makro- und mikroskopische Untersuchungen von Speisekrusten aus Keramikgefässen. In: Jacomet S, Leuzinger U, Schibler J, editors. Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3 Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Archäologie im Thurgau: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau; 2004. p. 277–83. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref133] 133.Lannoy S, Marinval P, Buleon A, Chiron H, Mejanelle P, Pin S, et al. Étude de «pains/galettes» archéologiques français. In: Fechner K, Mesnil M, editors. Pain, fours et foyers des temps passés Archéologie et traditions boulangères des peuples agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche Orient. Civilisations. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2002. p. 119–60. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref134] 134.Oudemans TFM, Boon JJ. Molecular archaeology: Analysis of charred (food) remains from prehistoric pottery by pyrolysis—gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 1991;20:197–227. 10.1016/0165-2370(91)80073-H [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref135] 135.Pető Á, Gyulai F, Pópity D, Kenéz Á. Macro- and micro-archaeobotanical study of a vessel content from a Late Neolithic structured deposition from southeastern Hungary. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40(1):58–71. 10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref136] 136.Oudemans TFM, Erhardt D. Organic residue analysis in ceramic studies: implications for conservation treatment and collections management. Studies in Conservation. 1996;41(Supplement 1):137–42. 10.1179/sic.1996.41.Supplement-1.137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref137] 137.Rosiak A, Kałużna-Czaplińska J, Gątarek P. Analytical Interpretation of Organic Residues From Ceramics As a Source of Knowledge About Our Ancestors. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2019:1–7. 10.1080/10408347.2019.1602821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref138] 138.Zheng HP, Jiang HE, Zhang YB, Lü EG, Yang YM, Wang CS. Early Processed Triticeae Food Remains in The Yanghai Tombs, Xinjiang, China. Archaeometry. 2015;57(2):378–91. 10.1111/arcm.12110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref139] 139.Zhu Z, Yu C, Luo W, Miao Y, Lu Z, Liu L, et al. Accurate identification of the pastry contained in a ceramic pot excavated from Jurou Li’s grave from the Jin dynasty (1115–1234 CE) in Xi’an, Shaanxi, China. Archaeometry. 2020;62(1):130–40. 10.1111/arcm.12490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref140] 140.Wadsworth C, Procopio N, Anderung C, Carretero J-M, Iriarte E, Valdiosera C, et al. Comparing ancient DNA survival and proteome content in 69 archaeological cattle tooth and bone samples from multiple European sites. Journal of Proteomics. 2017;158:1–8. 10.1016/j.jprot.2017.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref141] 141.Wadsworth C, Buckley M. Characterization of Proteomes Extracted through Collagen-based Stable Isotope and Radiocarbon Dating Methods. Journal of Proteome Research. 2018;17(1):429–39. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00624 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref142] 142.Hendy J, Colonese AC, Franz I, Fernandes R, Fischer R, Orton D, et al. Ancient proteins from ceramic vessels at Çatalhöyük West reveal the hidden cuisine of early farmers. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1). 10.1038/s41467-018-06335-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref143] 143.González Carretero L, Wollstonecroft M, Fuller DQ. A methodological approach to the study of archaeological cereal meals: a case study at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2017;26(4):415–32. 10.1007/s00334-017-0602-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref144] 144.Fairbairn AS, Wright NJ, Weeden M, Barjamovic G, Matsumura K, Rasch R. Ceremonial plant consumption at Middle Bronze Age Büklükale, Kırıkkale Province, central Turkey. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2018. 10.1007/s00334-018-0703-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref145] 145.García-Granero JJ. Starch taphonomy, equifinality and the importance of context: Some notes on the identification of food processing through starch grain analysis. J Archaeol Sci. 2020;124. 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref146] 146.Staub F. Das Brot im Spiegel schweizerdeutscher Volkssprache und Sitte. Leipzig: G. Hirzel; 1868. 186 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref147] 147.Neufeld CA. Der Nahrungsmittelchemiker als Sachverständiger: Anleitung zur Begutachtung der Nahrungsmittel, Genußmittel und Gebrauchsgegenstände nach den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen. Berlin: Springer; 1907. 477 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref148] 148.Seibel W. Verwendung von Brotmehl und Bröseln bei der Backwarenherstellung. Getreide, Mehl und Brot. 1987;41:39–42. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref149] 149.Rosenstock E, Scheibner A. Fermentierter Brei und vergorenes Malz: Bier in der Vorgeschichte Südwestasiens und Europas. Mitt Anthrop Ges Wien. 2017;147:31–62. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref150] 150.Samuel D. Brewing and baking. In: Nicholson PT, Shaw I, editors. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 537–76. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref151] 151.Zarnkow M, Spieleder E, Back W, Sacher B, Otto A, Einwag B. Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen zum altorientalischen Bierbrauen in der Siedlung von Tall Bazi/Nordsyrien vor rund 3200 Jahren. TG Technikgeschichte. 2006;73(1):3–26. 10.5771/0040-117X-2006-1-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref152] 152.Ktenioudaki A, Alvarez-Jubete L, Smyth TJ, Kilcawley K, Rai DK, Gallagher E. Application of bioprocessing techniques (sourdough fermentation and technological aids) for brewer’s spent grain breads. Food Res Int. 2015;73:107–16. 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.03.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref153] 153.Jacomet S, Kreuz A. Archäobotanik. Aufgaben, Methoden und Ergebnisse vegetations- und agrargeschichtlicher Forschung. Stuttgart: Ulmer; 1999. 368 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref154] 154.Jacomet S, Hüster Plogmann H, Schibler J, Akeret Ö, Deschler-Erb S. Archäobiologischer Feldkurs 2009. Basel: Eigenverlag; 2009. 44 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref155] 155.Trebsche P. in preparation.

[pone.0248287.ref156] 156.Bronk Ramsey C. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon. 2009;51(1):337–60. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref157] 157.Filipović D, Meadows J, Dal Corso M, Kirleis W, Alsleben A, Akeret Ö, et al. New AMS ¹⁴C dates track the arrival and spread of broomcorn millet cultivation and agricultural change in prehistoric Europe. Scientific Reports. 2020;10:13698. 10.1038/s41598-020-70495-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref158] 158.Heiss AG. Ceremonial Foodstuffs from Prehistoric Burnt-Offering Places in the Alpine Region. In: Chevalier A, Marinova E, Peña-Chocarro L, editors. Plants and People: Choices and Diversity through Time. Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage (EARTH): 8,000 Years of Resilience and Innovation. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2014. p. 343–53. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref159] 159.Jacomet S, Petrucci-Bavaud M, Kühn M. Samen und Früchte. In: Schucany C, editor. Die römische Villa von Biberist-Spitalhof/SO (Grabungen 1982, 1983, 1986–1989) Untersuchungen im Wirtschaftsteil und Überlegungen zum Umland. 2. Remshalden: Bernhard Albert Greiner; 2006. p. 579–624. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref160] 160.Winton AL, Winton KB. The Structure and Composition of Foods. Volume I: Cereals, Starch, Oil Seeds, Nuts, Oils, Forage Plants. New York: Wiley; 1932. 710 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref161] 161.Gassner G, Hohmann B, Deutschmann F. Mikroskopische Untersuchung pflanzlicher Lebensmittel. 5. ed. Stuttgart: Fischer; 1989. 414 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref162] 162.Hahn H, Michaelsen I. Mikroskopische Diagnostik pflanzlicher Nahrungs-, Genuß- und Futtermittel, einschließlich Gewürze. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer; 1996. 174 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref163] 163.Hall AR, Jones AKG, Kenward HK. Cereal bran and human faecal remains from archaeological deposits—Some preliminary observations. In: Proudfoot B, editor. Site, Environment and Economy. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress; 1983. p. 85–104. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref164] 164.Fuller DQ. A Millet Atlas. Some Identification Guidance: University College London; 2006. 18 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref165] 165.Heiss AG, Galik A, Gamble M, Srienc M, Ladstätter S. The Department for Bioarchaeology at the Austrian Archaeological Institute (ÖAI), Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW). Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. 2019;10(2):167–75. 10.24916/iansa.2019.2.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref166] 166.Berggren G. Atlas of seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species with morphological descriptions. Part 3 Salicaceae-Cruciferae. Stockholm: Swedish Natural Science Research Council; 1981. 261 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref167] 167.Anderberg A-L. Atlas of seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species with morphological descriptions. Part 4 Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. Stockholm: Swedish Natural Science Research Council; 1994. 281 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref168] 168.Cappers RTJ, Bekker RM, Jans JEA. Digitale zadenatlas van Nederland / Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands. Eelde: Barkhuis; 2006. 528 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref169] 169.Bojňanský V, Fargašová A. Atlas of Seeds and Fruits of Central and East-European Flora. The Carpathian Mountains Region. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. 1046 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref170] 170.Beijerinck W. Zadenatlas der nederlandsche flora ten behoeve van de botanie, palaeontologie, bodemcultuur en warenkennis. Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen; 1947. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref171] 171.Kohler-Schneider M. Prähistorische Getreidefunde. Eine Bestimmungshilfe für verkohlte Korn- und Druschreste. Skriptum zu den UE "Archäobotanische Arbeitsmethoden", Institut für Botanik, BOKU Wien. 2001.

[pone.0248287.ref172] 172.Jacomet S. Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites. 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref173] 173.Heiss AG. Weizen, Linsen, Opferbrote—Archäobotanische Analysen bronze- und eisenzeitlicher Brandopferplätze im mittleren Alpenraum. Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften; 2008. 214 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref174] 174.Recker U, Kreuz A, Schäfer E. Archäobotanisches Datenbankprogramm ArboDat 2016. Wiesbaden: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen; 2016. 102 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref175] 175.Kreuz A, Schäfer E-M. 1,4 Millionen auf der Bank. Das hessische Datenarchiv für archäobotanische Großreste ArboDat. hessenArchäologie. 2004;2003:170–4. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref176] 176.Ellenberg H, Leuschner C. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer, dynamischer und historischer Sicht. 6 ed. Stuttgart: Ulmer; 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref177] 177.Stika H-P, Heiss AG. Plant cultivation in the Bronze Age. In: Fokkens H, Harding A, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 348–69. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref178] 178.Stika H-P, Heiss AG. Bronzezeitliche Landwirtschaft in Europa—Der Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung des Forschungsstandes. In: Willroth K-H, editor. Siedlungen der älteren Bronzezeit Beiträge zur Siedlungsarchäologie und Paläoökologie des zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends in Südskandinavien, Norddeutschland und den Niederlanden Workshop vom 7 bis 9 April 2011 in Sankelmark. Studien zur nordeuropäischen Bronzezeit. Neumünster: Wachholtz; 2013. p. 189–222. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref179] 179.Thompson TA, Baedke SJ. Triplot. 4.1.2 ed. Bloomington: Todd Thompson Software; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref180] 180.Esri Inc. ArcGIS Pro. 2.6 ed. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2020.

[pone.0248287.ref181] 181.Valamoti SM, Marinova E, Heiss AG, Hristova I, Petridou C, Popova T, et al. Prehistoric cereal foods of southeastern Europe: an archaeobotanical exploration. J Archaeol Sci. 2019;104:97–113. 10.1016/j.jas.2018.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref182] 182.Yang Q, Li X, Zhou X, Zhao K, Ji M, Sun N. Investigation of the ultrastructural characteristics of foxtail and broomcorn millet during carbonization and its application in archaeobotany. Chin Sci Bull. 2011;56(14):1495–502. 10.1007/s11434-011-4423-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref183] 183.Märkle T, Rösch M. Experiments on the effects of carbonization on some cultivated plant seeds. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2008;17(Supplement 1):257–63. 10.1007/s00334-008-0165-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref184] 184.Arranz-Otaegui A, González Carretero L, Ramsey MN, Fuller DQ, Richter T. Archaeobotanical evidence reveals the origins of bread 14,400 years ago in northeastern Jordan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(31):7925–30. 10.1073/pnas.1801071115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref185] 185.Jakobitsch T, Trebsche P, Heiss AG. Fuel wood supply and woodland use in Prigglitz-Gasteil, the easternmost Late Bronze Age mining site in the Alps. in preparation.

[pone.0248287.ref186] 186.Schwarz AS, Oeggl K. Archäobotanische und anthrakologische Analysen zur Waldnutzung in bronzezeitlichen Bergbaugebieten Westösterreichs. In: Oeggl K, Goldenberg G, Prast M, editors. Die Geschichte des Bergbaus in Tirol und seinen angrenzenden Gebieten Proceedings zum 5 Milestone-Meeting des SFB HiMAT vom 7–10102010 in Mühlbach. Conference Series. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press; 2011. p. 41–50.

[pone.0248287.ref187] 187.Popovtschak M, Heiss AG, Drescher-Schneider R. Zur Umwelt. In: Lochner M, editor. Die Urnenfelderkultur im Osten Österreichs (1300/1250–800/750 v Chr). Archäologie Niederösterreichs. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; in print. p. 24–41. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref188] 188.Legge AJ. The faunal evidence. In: Shennan SJ, editor. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps Excavations at St Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. p. 231–3. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref189] 189.Gale R. The charcoal. In: Shennan SJ, editor. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps Excavations at St Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt; 1995. p. 231–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref190] 190.Schatz I, Schatz H, Glaser F, Heiss A. Subfossile Arthropodenfunde in einer bronzezeitlichen Grabungsstätte bei Radfeld (Tirol, Österreich) (Acari: Oribatida; Insecta: Coleoptera, Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins Innsbruck. 2002;89(10):249–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref191] 191.Popovtschak M, Heiss AG, Stika H-P. Pflanzennutzung in der Urnenfelderzeit. In: Lochner M, editor. Die Urnenfelderkultur im Osten Österreichs (1300/1250–800/750 v Chr). Archäologie Niederösterreichs. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; in print. p. 106–33. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref192] 192.Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G, Staff RA, Hunt HV, Liu X, Jones MK. The early chronology of broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Europe. Antiquity. 2013;87(338):1073–85. 10.1017/S0003598X00049875 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref193] 193.Kohler-Schneider M. Verkohlte Kultur- und Wildpflanzenreste aus Stillfried an der March als Spiegel spätbronzezeitlicher Landwirtschaft im Weinviertel, Niederösterreich. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 2001. 226 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref194] 194.Jones GEM, Halstead P. Maslins, Mixtures and Monocrops: on the Interpretation of Archaeobotanical Crop Samples of Heterogeneous Composition. J Archaeol Sci. 1995;22:103–14. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref195] 195.van der Veen M. The identification of maslin crops. In: Kroll H, Pasternak R, editors. Res Archaeobotanicae. Kiel: 1995. p. 335–43. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref196] 196.Schmidl A, Oeggl K. Subsistence strategies of two Bronze Age hill-top settlements in the eastern Alps—Friaga/Bartholomäberg (Vorarlberg, Austria) and Ganglegg/Schluderns (South Tyrol, Italy). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2005;14:303–12. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref197] 197.Mueller-Bieniek A, Bogucki P, Pyzel J, Kapcia M, Moskal-del Hoyo M, Nalepka D. The role of Chenopodium in the subsistence economy of pioneer agriculturalists on the northern frontier of the Linear Pottery culture in Kuyavia, central Poland. J Archaeol Sci. 2019;111. 10.1016/j.jas.2019.105027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref198] 198.Stokes P, Rowley-Conwy P. Iron Age Cultigen? Experimental Return Rates for Fat Hen (Chenopodium album L.). Environmental Archaeology. 2002;7(1):95–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref199] 199.Edmonds JM, Chweya JA. Black nightshades: Solanum nigrum L. and related species. Gatersleben/Rome: IPK/IPGRI; 1997. 113 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref200] 200.Leuschner C, Ellenberg H. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe. Volume I, Ecology of Central European Forests. Cham: Springer; 2017. 992 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref201] 201.Oeggl K. Das Luchner Moor—Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte auf der Gnadenwaldterrasse im Raum Fritzens. Heimatkundliche Blätter. 1999;8:55–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref202] 202.Wahlmüller N. Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen am Götschenberg bei Bischofshofen/Salzburg. Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins Innsbruck. 1988;Suppl. 2:13–26. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref203] 203.Schantl-Heuberger H. Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen zur spät- und postglazialen Geschichte der Vegetation in Saalach- und Salzachtal (Salzburg/Austria). Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins Innsbruck. 1994;81:61–84. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref204] 204.Pirc H. Enzyklopädie der Wildobst- und seltenen Obstarten. Graz: Leopold Stocker; 2015. 416 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref205] 205.Münzing K. Risiken und Nebenwirkungen bei „Braunhirse“: Eine Stellungnahme der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung und Lebensmittel, Detmold. Ernährung im Fokus. 2004;4(12):336–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref206] 206.Lundström-Baudais K, Rachoud-Schneider A-M, Baudais D, Poissonnier B. Le broyage dans la chaîne de transformation du millet (Panicum miliaceum): outils, gestes et écofacts. In: Procopiou H, Treuil R, editors. Moudre et broyer L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mouture et de broyage dans la préhistoire et l’Antiquité. 1. Paris: Editions CTHS; 2002. p. 181–209. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref207] 207.Razavi P. Das Rezept im Bild: Bronzezeit-Risotto. BIORAMA. 2013:72–3. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref208] 208.Trebsche P, editor. Die urnenfelderzeitliche Bergbausiedlung von Prigglitz-Gasteil. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen von 2010 bis 2014in preparation.

[pone.0248287.ref209] 209.Senica M, Stampar F, Veberic R, Mikulic-Petkovsek M. Processed elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.) products: A beneficial or harmful food alternative? LWT—Food Science and Technology. 2016;72:182–8. 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.04.056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref210] 210.Tardío J, Arnal A, Lázaro A. Ethnobotany of the crab apple tree (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill., Rosaceae) in Spain. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2021;68(2):795–808. 10.1007/s10722-020-01026-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref211] 211.Tolar T, Jacomet S, Velušček A, Čufar K. Plant economy at a late Neolithic lake dwelling site in Slovenia at the time of the Alpine Iceman. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 2011;20(3):207–22. 10.1007/s00334-010-0280-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref212] 212.Antolín F, Bleicher N, Brombacher C, Kühn M, Steiner BL, Jacomet S. Quantitative approximation to large-seeded wild fruit use in a late Neolithic lake dwelling: New results from the case study of layer 13 of Parkhaus Opéra in Zürich (Central Switzerland). Quaternary International. 2016;404(A):56–68. 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref213] 213.Hofmann E. Die pflanzlichen Reste aus der Station See. In: Franz L, Weninger J, editors. Die Funde aus den prähistorischen Pfahlbauten im Mondsee. Materialien zur Urgeschichte Österreichs. Wien: Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien; 1927. p. 87–97. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref214] 214.Perego R. Contribution to the development of the Bronze Age plant economy in the surrounding of the Alps: an archaeobotanical case study of two Early and Middle Bronze Age sites in northern Italy (Lake Garda region) [Ph.D. thesis]: Universität Basel; 2017.

[pone.0248287.ref215] 215.Jacquat C. Hauterive-Champréveyres 1. Les plantes de l’âge du Bronze. Catalogue des fruits et graines. Saint-Blaise: Editions du Ruau; 1988. 163 p.

[pone.0248287.ref216] 216.Messikommer H. Die Pfahlbauten von Robenhausen: l’époque robenhausienne. Zürich: Orell Füssli; 1913. 132+48 p. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref217] 217.Penz M, Kohler-Schneider M, Szunyogh I, Czeika S. Erste Forschungsergebnisse zur endneolithischen Siedlung in Wien-Oberlaa. Fundort Wien Berichte zur Archäologie. 2019;22:4–41. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0248287.ref218] 218.Bishop RR. Experiments on the effects of charring on hazelnuts and their representation in the archaeological record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2019;26:101839. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.05.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Dig out, Dig in! Plant-based diet at the Late Bronze Age copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil (Lower Austria) and the relevance of processed foodstuffs for the supply of Alpine Bronze Age miners

Andreas G Heiss

Thorsten Jakobitsch

Silvia Wiesinger

Peter Trebsche

Roles

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Miners as specialist producers—And as consumers

1.2. Pork… and what else? Current state of research into Alpine Bronze Age miners’ diets

Fig 1. Rough temporal ranges of the archaeobotanically investigated Bronze Age mining sites referred to in this paper.

Fig 2. Map of regions and sites mentioned in the text.

1.3. The copper production site of Prigglitz-Gasteil

1.3.1. Location

1.3.2. Excavation and chronology

Fig 3. Aerial photograph of the excavation site.

1.3.3. Geology, soils, and vegetation cover

1.4. Research goals

2. Materials and methods

2.1. General statements

2.1.1. Availability of data and material

2.1.2. Ethics statement

2.2. Approaching the miners’ plant-based nutrition

Fig 4. Human-thing interactions along a generalised behaviour chain for food items, basing on a concept brought forward by I. Hodder [62, 63] and adapted to considerations specific to human-food interactions [64–66].

Fig 5. Illustration of a chaîne opératoire for crop processing using the example of hulled wheats.

Fig 6. Cuisine, the art of cooking, illustrated as a space of possibilities.

2.2.1. Looking at food remains as culinary artefacts

2.2.2. Prerequisites for preservation, and for analysis

2.2.3. Rough guidelines for the work with charred fragments of food preparations

2.3. The material from Prigglitz-Gasteil

2.3.1. Sampling and sample processing

Fig 7. Systematic sampling for botanical remains and micro-refuse by M. Konrad.

Fig 8. Photograph of the sediment layers on Terrace 3 (T3) at Prigglitz-Gasteil.

2.3.2. Dating and chronology

Fig 9. Representation of the Late Bronze Age phases of a) terrace T3 and b) terrace T4 in the sample material.

2.3.3. Laboratory work

Table 1. Counting method applied to conifer needles.

2.3.4. Data evaluation and documentation

3. Results

Fig 10. Overall composition of the Late Bronze Age charred archaeobotanical find assemblage at Prigglitz-Gasteil.

Fig 11. Identifiable plant macroremains from Late Bronze Age Prigglitz-Gasteil, assigned to ecogroups.

3.1. Cultivated crops

3.1.1. Seeds and grains

Fig 12. Charred finds of the most important cultivated crops from the Late Bronze Age layers at Prigglitz-Gasteil.

Fig 13. Simplified spectrum of cereal grain finds at Late Bronze Age Prigglitz-Gasteil, following Stika & Heiss [177, 178] as laid out in section 2.3.4.

3.1.2. Cereal products

Fig 14. Two fragments of charred cereal products from Late Bronze Age Prigglitz-Gasteil (see also Table 2).

Table 2. Cereal components identified in the ACOs analysed via SEM.

Fig 15. Selection of SEM micrographs of the cereal products from Prigglitz-Gasteil (see also Table 2).

3.1.3. Wild plants

Fig 16. Charred remains of wild edible fruit plants from Prigglitz-Gasteil.

4. Discussion

4.1. General observations

Fig 17. Overview of the sediment samples from the sites discussed in this paper.

Fig 18. Overall composition of the identifiable archaeobotanical remains (absolute counts) from the copper production sites discussed in this paper [6, 12, 16, 17, 26, 27].

4.2. Food plants

4.2.1. Comparative crop plant spectra

Fig 19. Comparative crop plant spectrum from Prigglitz-Gasteil.

4.2.2. Crops from field to kitchen

Fig 20. Ternary plots of the find assemblages by phase, as inspired by the work of G. E. Jones [68].

4.2.3. Comparative wild fruit spectra

4.2.4. Gathering the berries and nuts

4.3. Plant-based food

4.3.1. Cereal products

Fig 21. Typical state of preservation of the cereal grain fragments from Prigglitz-Gasteil.

Fig 22. Model for the chaîne opératoire of the charred cereal products found at Prigglitz-Gasteil.

4.3.2. What about… processed fruits and nuts?

5. Conclusions and outlook

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Peter F Biehl

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Peter F Biehl