4.4 Article

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 Opera in Zurich (Central Switzerland)

Journal

QUATERNARY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 404, Issue -, Pages 56-68

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.003

Keywords

Archaeobotany; Palaeoeconomy; Subfossil plant macroremains; Diet; GIS

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [CR3012_149679/1]
  2. canton and town of Zurich

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A specific sediment sampling strategy was applied to a late Neolithic settlement phase (dendrodated to around 3160 BC) in the pile-dwelling site of Parkhaus Opera (Zurich, Switzerland). It consisted in a systematic collection of over 2100 large-volume samples (3-10 L) in an area of similar to 3000 m(2), of which 255 were selected for archaeobotanical analysis. Over 80,000 plant macroremains of large size (>2 mm) were recovered and a rich assemblage of large-seeded wild fruits was evaluated. Hazelnuts (Corylus avellana L.), acorns (Quercus sp.), apples/pears (Malus/Pyrus), sloes (Prunus spinosa L.), wild rose fruits (Rosa sp.), beech nuts (Fagus sp.) and wayfaring tree fruits (Viburnum lantana L.) were among the most frequently and abundantly gathered and consumed wild fruits at the settlement. Three methods of quantification were used to evaluate their importance in the economy taking into account the samples retrieved from 16 fully excavated structures: total average density of fruit items, total estimated amount of fruits, and their calorific contribution. The estimation of the caloric importance of large-seeded wild fruits depends on assumptions on taphonomic biases. A first estimation suggested that they probably provided between 1.5% and 15% of the total calorific input by the settlement's inhabitants. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available