Advertisement

After the harvest: investigating the role of food processing in past human societies

  • Aylen Capparelli
  • Soultana Maria Valamoti
  • Michèle M. WollstonecroftEmail author
Editorial

Plant processing provides an essential framework for archaeobotanical interpretation since practices of processing lie between the ancient acquisition of plants and the preserved remains of archaeology. Crop-processing stages have received much attention as they contribute towards the interpretation of plants recovered from archaeological sites, linking them to routine human activities that generated these plant remains. Yet, there are many other important aspects of the human past that can be explored through food processing studies that are much less often investigated, e.g. how culinary practices may have influenced resource selection, plant domestication and human diet, health, evolution and cultural identity. Therefore, this special issue of AAS on “Food Processing Studies in Archaeobotany and Ethnobotany” brings together recent pioneering methodological and interpretive archaeobotanical approaches to the study of ancient food processing. This new research, which involves archaeobotany, ethnoarchaeology, ethnobotany and experimental methods, encompasses investigations into dietary choice, cultural traditions and cultural change as well as studies of the functional properties (i.e. performance characteristics) of edible plants, and the visibility as well as dietary benefits and consequences of different food processing methods.

This volume builds on a history of experimental food processing in archaeobotany that dates back almost 40 years. Dennell (1972, 1976) was the first to model explicitly the importance of plant processing activities in shaping the archaeobotanical record. However, it was Hillman (see Willcox 2009; Hillman 1973, 1981, 1984) who, using an ethnoarchaeological approach, pioneered methods for linking the archaeobotanical record with the types of human plant-use activities that they potentially represent. As a result of his observations of the non-mechanised crop-processing techniques used by modern Turkish farmers, and his systematic sampling of the macro-botanical materials produced during each stage in the crop-processing sequence, Hillman found that each stage produces a distinct plant assemblage that can be recognised from the specific types and condition of the plant parts represented. Building on Hillman’s methods, Jones (1984, 1987) applied similar methods in Greece and instituted the use of quantitative methods to characterise the different plant macro-remain assemblages produced in each stage of the crop-processing sequence. More recently, Jones, along with Amy Bogaard, Mike Charles and their colleagues (e.g. see Jones 1992; Jones et al. 2005; Bogaard 2005; Charles et al. 2003) introduced functional ecology methods (FIBS) to further explore the types of information that the biological and ecological attributes of weeds found in archaeobotanical assemblages can provide about ancient crop-husbandry practices (crop sowing times, cultivation intensity and even ancient irrigation regimes). Such information is relevant to processing plants for food or other uses because crop-husbandry practices inevitably affect the composition and condition of harvested batches of a crop as well as the character of the “clean” (threshed, raked, winnowed and sieved) grain (cf Hillman 1973).

Indeed, crop-processing studies have become an established component of archaeobotanical methodology, particularly among archaeobotanists studying the origins, evolution and spread of cereal agriculture in Europe, the Near East, North Africa and the Americas (e.g. Anderson et al. 2003; Anderson-Gerfaud 1991; D’Andrea 2003; D’Andrea and Haile 2002; Hastorf 1988, 1998; Johanessen et al. 1990; Butler et al. 1999; Peña-Chocarro 1999; Peña-Chocarro and Zapata Peña 2003; Peña-Chocarro et al. 2009; Stevens 2003; van der Veen 1992), similar methodologies have also been implemented in the Far East and South Asia, e.g. ethnographic research on millet crop processing in Nepal and India by Lundström-Baudais et al. (2002) and Reddy (1997), respectively, and Thompson’s (1998) study of rice crop processing in Thailand. Moreover, not only plant macro-remains but also, for the first time, micro-remains, such as phytoliths, have been used to investigate crop-processing in the work of Harvey and Fuller (2005).

Investigations into plant processing for the preparation of meals and/or specific food products, as well as applicable to other plant uses, with techniques such as pulverising, grinding, milling, boiling, roasting and baking, have more often been studied through processing equipment and resulting artefacts rather than the processed substance/mater resulting in the archaeobotanical remains incorporated in archaeological deposits (e.g. Andreoni 2010; Cueto et al. 2010; D’Andrea 2003; 10; Lyons and D’Andrea 2003; Peacock 2002; Procopiou and Treuil 2002a, b; Prevost-Demarkar 2002; Wright 1994, 2005). Procopiou and Treuil’s (2002a, b) edited two-volume publication Moudre et Broyer I and II, for example, is a comprehensive collection of ethnographic and experimental studies on artefacts, tools and installations related to grinding and milling.

Archaeobotanical studies of plant processing for the preparation of specific foods, include those of Samuel (1997, 2000, 2006) on bread and beer, Mangafa et al. (1998, 2001) on wine, Valamoti (2002) and Valamoti et al. (2008) on ground cereals, Capparelli (2008) on Andean legumes and Wollstonecroft (2007 and Wollstonecroft et al. 2008) on wild wetland tubers. These experimental studies involved ethnographic observations and the replication of plant processing methods, followed by the examination of the resulting foods under high power microscopy, and subsequent comparisons of their morphological and anatomical features with those of archaeological plant remains. Among the objectives of these studies are the creation of comparative materials to assist in the identification of archaeological food and fibre types, as well as learning about the types of equipment, materials, stages and labour involved in the preparation of various plant products, e.g. food, baskets, thread, etc. (Palmer 2002; Ertug 2000a, b, 2006). Additionally, these types of studies have provided a means for investigation connections between the plant-related activities and the social relationships of the group(s) under study, e.g. the rise of social hierarchies and gender issues (Hosoya 2009; Hastorf 1996, 1998).

Another important but less known branch of food processing research encompasses studies of the dietary aspects of ancient food processing (Hillman 2004 and in preparation; Samuel 1997, 2006; Wandsnider 1997; Wollstonecroft 2007; Wollstonecroft et al. 2008). Yen (1980, 1989) and later Stahl (1984, 1989) were among the first to consider the dietary and nutritional benefits of food processing as well its potential for increasing abundance and influencing human dietary selection and dietary change. Yen (1980) observed that processing provided people with a means of expanding the food uses of individual resources by permitting the production of a variety of foods from a single plant/plant part and/or preservation and storage. Stahl (1984, 1989) investigated the dietary advantages of food processing, observing that processing can facilitate the release of energy, nutrients and other important compounds (e.g. antioxidants) from foods (see also Johns 1999), as well as ensuring wholesomeness by improving palatability and destroying undesirable compounds. Given the universality of food processing among human societies, its likely time depth and the dietary implications, Stahl (1989) concluded that archaeologists should regard processing “…as an independent variable in our attempts to model the subsistence decisions made by prehistoric populations” (p 171).

Eight archaeobotanical/ethnobotanical/experimental studies on food processing are included in this volume. Six of these studies were first presented at the V International Congress of Ethnobotany (ICEB), in Bariloche, Argentina, September 2009, in a symposium organised by Capparelli, Valamoti and Wollstonecroft on “Recent research in post-harvest traditions in human prehistory: Old and New World palaeoethnobotanical approaches to linking the archaeology and ethnobotany of plant processing”, briefly summarised in the ICEB conference proceedings (Pochettino et al. 2010).

The papers presented here expand on the ICEB papers, providing detailed case studies on ancient food processing from three different continents (Asia, Europe and South America). Hosoya investigates ancient nut (e.g. chestnuts, pasanea nuts) processing and consumption through a combined use of archaeobotanical remains and ethnographic observations on modern nut processing in various parts of East Asia (Japan and China), highlighting the significance of such studies towards our understanding of the contribution of nuts to diets of past human populations; Valamoti describes and discusses archaeobotanical recognition and the economic and nutritional significance of specific ways of bulk processing of cereal grain for piecemeal consumption through a combined examination of archaeobotanical, ethnographic and textual evidence, as well as food science research, from Greece and circum-Mediterranean countries; and Stika investigates cereal malting and fermenting techniques used in the production of beers in Late Iron Age and early Medieval Germany. Borrowing a “post-harvest” approach from agronomy (see Wollstonecroft 2007; Capparelli and Lema 2010; Capparelli et al. 2010), Capparelli and Lema, Capparelli, Lema, Lopez et al. and Wollstonecroft investigate the functional links between the technological choices of ancient peoples and physiological properties of the plants that they processed; based on the data gathered from these investigations, these authors subsequently discuss the implied ecological and technological skills and knowledge of the ancient people under study. Capparelli and Lema, Capparelli and Lopez et al. explore the visibility of legume (Prosopis spp.) and pseudocereal (Chenopodium quinoa) processing in prehistoric Andean contexts of Northwest Argentina and Bolivia, and Lema analyses how processing and preservation practices may have influenced gourd (Cucurbita maxima) domestication. Wollstonecroft examines how innovations in food processing by Homo ancient ancestors may have influenced human evolution.

We are confident that the contributions of this special AAS issue will stimulate archaeologists to recognise that plant processing is a critical variable in human economies and social and symbolic systems; therefore it is essential to include it when modelling the life ways of past societies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the 5th ICEB organisers, Maria Lelia Pochettino and Anna Ladio (2010) for providing the initial opportunity for us to meet and discuss issues on ancient food processing in archaeobotany (ICEB conference Bariloche, Argentina, September 2009). Valamoti gratefully acknowledges the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki for providing funding for her participation in the conference and the AUTH Research Committee for financial support on her research on prehistoric processed cereals. Wollstonecroft’s research and travel are supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship and the UCL Institute of Archaeology. Great thanks to Dorian Fuller and the other editors of Anthropological and Archaeological Sciences for welcoming this special issue and to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Anderson PC, L. Scott Cummings, TK Schippers and B Simonel (eds.). 2003. Le traitement des rrécoltes: Un regard sur la diversité, du Néolithique au présent. Actes des XXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Antibes, Éditions APDCAGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson-Gerfaud PC (ed) (1991) Préhistoire de l’Agriculture. Nouvelles Approches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques. Centre de Recherches Archéologiques, ValbonneGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni D (2010) Propuesta metodológica para reconocer las prácticas asociadas al uso de pipas arqueológicas Proceedings of the XVII National Congress of Argentinian Archaeology, Mendoza, 1211–1216Google Scholar
  4. Bogaard A (2005) ‘Garden agriculture’ and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeol 37:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler A, Tesfay Z, D’Andrea C, Lyons D (1999) The ethnobotany of Lathyrus sativus L. in the highlands of Ethiopia. In: van der Veen M (ed) The exploitation of plant resources in ancient Africa. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 123–136Google Scholar
  6. Capparelli A (2008) Caracterización cuantitativa de productos intermedios y residuos derivados de alimentos del algarrobo (Prosopis flexuosa DC y P. chilensis (Mol.) Stuntz, fabaceae): aproximación experimental aplicada a restos arqueobotánicos desecados. Darwiniana 46(2):175–201Google Scholar
  7. Capparelli A, V Lema (2010) Prácticas “post-aprovisionamiento” de recursos vegetales: una perspectiva paleoetnobotánica integradora aplicable al desarrollo de la arqueobotánica Argentina. Proceedings of the XVII National Congress of Argentinian Archaeology, Mendoza, pp 1171–1176Google Scholar
  8. Capparelli A, Valamoti S, Wollstonecroft M (2010) Recent research in post-harvest traditions in human prehistory: Old and New World palaeoethnobotanical approaches to linking the archaeology and ethnobotany of plant processing. In: Pochettino ML, Ladio A, Arenas P (eds) Traditions and transformations in Ethnobotany, Cyted, S.S. de Jujuy. pp. 104Google Scholar
  9. Charles M, Hoppe C, Bogaard A, Jones G, Hodgson JH (2003) Using weed functional attributes for the identification of irrigation regimes in Jordan. J Archaeol Sci 30:1429–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cueto M, Capparelli A, Ciampagna L, Paunero M, Castro A (2010) Prácticas poscolecta y material leñoso: análisis de residuos y huellas microscópicas de origen vegetal, sobre artefactos de roca tallada utilizados en contextos experimentales. Proceedings of the XVII National Congress of Argentinian Archaeology, Mendoza, pp 1205–1210Google Scholar
  11. D’Andrea AC (2003) Social and technological aspects of non-mechanised emmer processing. In: Anderson PC, Cummings LS, Schippess TS, and Simonel B (eds) The Traitement des Récoltes: Un Regard sur la diversité néolithique au présent. Éditions, Antibes, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  12. D’Andrea AC, Haile M (2002) Traditional emmer processing in highland Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol 22:179–217Google Scholar
  13. Dennell RW (1972) The interpretation of plant remains: Bulgaria. In: Higgs S (ed) Papers in economic prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149–159Google Scholar
  14. Dennell RW (1976) The economic importance of plant resources represented on archaeological sites. J Archaeol Sci 3:229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ertug F (2000a) Linseed oil mills in Central Turkey Flax/Linum and Eruca, important oil plants of Anatolia. Anatolian Stud 50:171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertug F (2000b) An ethnobotanical study in Central Anatolia (Turkey). Econ Bot 54:155–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ertug F (2006) An overview of the plaited crafts of turkey (Anatolia and Thrace). In: Ertug F (ed) Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of Ethnobotany (ICEB 2005), Yayinlari, Turkey, pp 297–306Google Scholar
  18. Harvey E, Fuller DQ (2005) Investigating crop processing through phytolith analysis: the case of rice and millets. J Archaeol Sci 32:739–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hastorf C (1988) The use of paleoethnobotanical data in prehistoric studies of crop production, processing and consumption. In: Hastorf C, Popper V (eds) Current paleoethnobotany. Analytical methods and cultural interpretations of archaeological plant remains. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 119–144Google Scholar
  20. Hastorf C (1996) Gender, space and food in prehistory. In: Preucel RW, Hodder I (eds) Contemporary archaeology in theory. Blackwell Press, Oxford, pp 460–484Google Scholar
  21. Hastorf C (1998) The cultural implications of crop introductions in andean prehistory. In: Gosden C, Hather J (eds) The prehistory of food. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillman GC (1973) Crop husbandry and food production: modern models for the interpretation of plant remains. Anatolian Stud 23:241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hillman GC (1981) Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In: Mercer R (ed) Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 123–162Google Scholar
  24. Hillman GC (1984) Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: Van Zeist W, Casparie W (eds) Plant and ancient man. studies in palaeoethnobotany. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  25. Hillman GC (2004) The rise and fall of dietary diversity. Paper presented at the 2004 meeting of the Society of Economic Botany, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillman GC In Prep. Foraging and processing wild roots, seeds, berries and greens: foods of our hunter-gatherer forbearersGoogle Scholar
  27. Hosoya L (2009) Sacred commonness: an archaeobotanical approach to Yayoi social stratification: the ‘Central Building Model’ and the Osaka Ikegami Sone Site. Interactions between hunter-gatherers and farmers: from prehistory to present. In: Ikeya K, Ogawa H, Mitchell P (eds) Senri ethnolgical studies 73. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, pp 99–178Google Scholar
  28. Johanessen S, Goette S, Hastorf C (1990) Modern and ancient maize fragments: an experiment in variability. J Quant Anthropol 2:179–200Google Scholar
  29. Johns T (1999) The chemical ecology of human ingestive behaviours. Annu Rev Anthropol 28:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones G (1984) Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: ethnographic models from Greece. In: Van Zeist W, Casparie W (eds) Plants and ancient man. A Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 43–61Google Scholar
  31. Jones G (1987) A statistical approach to the archaeological identification of crop processing. J Archaeol Sci 14:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones G (1992) Weed phytosociology and crop husbandry: identifying a contrast between ancient and modern practice. Rev Palaeobot Palynol 73:133–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones G, Charles M, Bogaard A (2005) The functional ecology of present-day arable weed floras and its applicability for the identification of past crop husbandry. Veg Hist And Archaeobotany 14:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lundström-Baudais KA, Rachoud-Schneider M., Baudais D, Poissonnier B (2002) Le broyage dans la chaîne de transformation du millet (Panicum miliaceum): outils, gestes et écofacts. In: Procopiou H and Treuil R (eds) Moudre et Broyer: I. Méthodes. Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris, pp 155–180Google Scholar
  35. Lyons D, D’Andrea AC (2003) Griddles, ovens, and agricultural origins: an ethnoarchaeological study of bread baking in Highland Ethiopia. Am Anthropol 105:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mangafa M, Kotsakis K, Andreou S (1998) Αμπελοκαλλιέργεια στην προϊστορική Μακεδονία. Τα δεδομένα της προϊστορικής Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης (Viticulture in prehistoric Macedonia; the archaeobotanical evidence from Toumba Thessalonikis). In History of the Grape Vine and Viticulture in Macedonia and Thrace: 158–169. Athens, ETBA publicationsGoogle Scholar
  37. Mangafa M, Kotsakis K, Stratis I (2001). Πειραματική απανθράκωση προϊόντων της αμπέλου και διερεύνηση της χρήσης της κατά την αρχαιότητα (Experimental charring of grape vine products and an investigation of their use in antiquity). In Bassiakos Y, Aloupi E, Fakorellis G (eds) Αρχαιομετρικές Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Προϊστορία και Αρχαιότητα (Archaeometric Studies in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity). Athens, Greek Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messinian and Archaeological StudiesGoogle Scholar
  38. Palmer C (2002) Milk and cereals: identifying food and food identity among Fallahin and Bedouin in Jordan. Levant 34:173–195Google Scholar
  39. Peacock S (2002) Perusing the pits: the evidence for prehistoric root resource processing on the Canadian Plateau. In: Mason SLR, Hather JG (eds) Hunter-gatherer archaeobotany: perspectives from the Northern Temperate Zone. UCL Institute of Archaeology, London, pp 44–61Google Scholar
  40. Peña-Chocarro L, Zapata Peña L, González Urquijo JE, Ibáñez Estévez JJ (2009) Einkorn (Triticum monococcum L.) cultivation in mountain communities of the western Rif (Morocco): an ethnoarchaeological project. In: Fairbairn A, Weiss E (eds) Ethnobotanist of distant pasts: archaeological and ethnobotanical studies in honour of Gordon Hillman. Oxbow, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Peña-Chocarro L (1999) Prehistoric agriculture in Spain. The application of ethnographic models, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, 1999 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 818)Google Scholar
  42. Peña-Chocarro L, Zapata Peña L (2003). Post-harvesting processing of hulled wheats. An ethnoarchaeological approach. In: Anderson PC, Scott Cummings L, Schippers T and Simonel B (eds) Le traitement des récoltes: Un regard sur la diversité, du Néolithique au présent. Actes des XXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Éditions APDCA, Antibes, pp 99–113. Google Scholar
  43. Pochettino ML, Ladio A, Arenas P (eds) (2010) Traditions and transformations in Ethnobotany. In: Proceedings of the V International Congress of Ethnobotany, ICEB 2009. Cyted, S.S. de JujuyGoogle Scholar
  44. Prevost-Demarkar S (2002) Les foyers et les fours domestiques en Egee au Neolithique et a l’Age du Bronze. Civilisations 49:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Procopiou H, Treuil R (eds) (2002a) Moudre et Broyer, Volume I. Méthodes, Paris, CTHSGoogle Scholar
  46. Procopiou H, Treuil R (eds) (2002b) Moudre et Broyer, Volume II. Archéologie ethistoire, Paris, CTHSGoogle Scholar
  47. Reddy SN (1997) If the threshing floor could talk: integration of agriculture and pastoralism during the Late Harappan in Gujarat. India J Anthropol Archaeol 16:162–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Samuel D (1997) Cereal food and nutrition in ancient Egypt. Nutrition 13:579–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Samuel D (2000) Brewing and baking. In: Nicholson PT, Shaw I (eds) Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 537–576Google Scholar
  50. Samuel D (2006) Modified starch. In: Torrence R, Barton H (eds) Ancient starch research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 205–216Google Scholar
  51. Stahl AB (1984) Hominid dietary selection before fire. Curr Anthropol 25:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stahl AB (1989) Plant-food processing: implications for dietary quality. In: Harris DR, Hillman GC (eds) Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London, pp 171–196Google Scholar
  53. Stevens CJ (2003) An investigation of agricultural consumption and production models for prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environ Archaeol 8:61–76Google Scholar
  54. Thompson J (1998) Subsistence and environment: the botanical evidence. The biological remains (part II), volume IV of the excavation of Khok Phanom Di, a prehistoric site in Central Thailand. The Society of Antiquaries, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Valamoti SM (2002) Food remains from Bronze Age Archondiko and Mesimeriani Toumba in northern Greece? Veg Hist Archaeobot 11:17–22Google Scholar
  56. Valamoti SM, Samuel D, Bayram M, Marinova E (2008) Prehistoric cereal foods from Greece and Bulgaria: investigation of starch microstructure in experimental and archaeological charred remains. Veg Hist Archaeobot 17(suppl 1):265–276Google Scholar
  57. van der Veen M (1992) Crop husbandry regimes (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8). J. R. Collis Publications, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  58. Wandsnider L (1997) The roasted and the boiled: food composition and heat treatment with special emphasis on pit-hearth cooking. J Anthropol Archaeol 16:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willcox G (2009) Gordon Hillman’s pioneering influence on Near Eastern archaeobotany, a personal appraisal. In: Fairbairn A, Weiss E (eds) From foragers to farmers. Oxbow, Exeter, pp 15–18Google Scholar
  60. Wollstonecroft M (2007) Post-harvest intensification in late pleistocene Southwest Asia: plant food processing as a critical variable in epipalaeolithic subsistenceand subsistence change. Unpublished PhD thesis, UCL Institute of Archaeology, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Wollstonecroft M, Ellis PR, Hillman GC, Fuller DQ (2008) Advancements in plant food processing in the Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic and implications for improved edibility and nutrient bioaccessibility: an experimental assessment of sea club-rush (Bolboschoenus maritimus (L.) Palla). Veg Hist Archaeobotany 17(suppl 1):S19–S27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wright K (1994) Groundstone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: implications for transition to farming. Am Antiquity 59:238–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wright K (2005) The emergence of cooking in western Asia. Archaeol Int 2004–2005:33–37Google Scholar
  64. Yen DE (1980) Food crops. In: Ward RB, Proctor A (eds) South pacific agriculture: choices and constraints. Agricultural Development Bank, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  65. Yen DE (1989) The domestication of environment. In: Harris DR, Hillman GC (eds) Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London, pp 55–75Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aylen Capparelli
    • 1
  • Soultana Maria Valamoti
    • 2
  • Michèle M. Wollstonecroft
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Departamento Científico de ArqueologíaMuseo de Ciencias Naturales de La PlataLa PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Department of ArchaeologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.UCL Institute of ArchaeologyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations