Ethnobotanical researches reveals large amount of data which archaeologists and archaeobotanists can include into their projects. Until recently most of the interpretations in archaeology and in archaeobotany were based on analogies from ethnographical studies and to what we actually find in excavations. Ethnobotany covers all aspects of plant use, from gathering to cultivating of plants, and from harvesting wild or cultivated plants to how to process them. For example, if we can not find the remains of the leafy plants or soft fruit for food; green herbs might used as medicine or spice; or a wooden spoon or bowl; a piece of cloth, a bag or a basket we often ignored them in our interpretations. Usually archaeologists tend to limit themselves, their imaginations, scary of accusations of not being scientific, and this leads us/them to focus on non-perishable evidences, that we can find. Ethnobotanical studies of living cultures provides a larger framework which we might explain some patterns of repetition, or possible reasons behind the lack of some traits. However, the culture of any given society is very complicated and has a human factor of different choices, perceptions, preferences, as well as the social differentiation in every society, the limitations of reaching to some resources, or possibilities related to wealth, age and sex creates so many factors that has to be taken into account.
Archaeologically, faunal and botanical remains are primary sources of evidence for investigating patterns of subsistence. It is important, in this respect, however, not to assume that these assemblages are direct reflections of all consumed foods or of local food production (Gerritsen 2000). Usually we do have very limited data on the actual range and amount of wild plants gathered either for food or for other purposes. Some evidence provided by microwear analysis on the teeth of Neanderthal and both archaic and anatomically modern human specimens, reveals that the latter two hominids possessed teeth that show wear typical of what one would expect from a diet consisting proportionally of more vegetable matter than meat, while the Neanderthals showed more carnivorous diet (Curtis 2001:51; Lalueza et al. 1996). This data somehow indicator of the amount taken from different sources, but not the range or depth of gathering from wild.
Plant gathering not only for food and shelter, but for medicine, fuel, fodder, producing cloths and strings, nets, bags, dyes and other daily materials were ongoing/ never ending activity in all archaeological sites.
When we accept this assumption we may try to search and apply various methods, such as starch studies, pollen, phytolith, trace analysis, and caprolite/feaces analysis when available to find out more evidence.
Various ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies have been focused on different aspects of harvesting and post harvesting methods in various parts of the world (e.g. Jones 1984, 1990; Hillman 1984, 1985; and for ethnographic work see Sigault 1988). Harvesting of cereals can vary from uprooting by hand to application of various tools to reape, such as sickles, scythes, or stripping tools such as mesorias (two sticks to strip ears in Northwest Spain) and some aiding tools like hand protectors (see in the pictre below). Legumes usually harvested by uprooting, except fresh green beans, peas and broad beans for vegetable use collected by hand due to that they mature unequally. Drying and threshing may fallow harvest immediately if the grain will be threshed in bulk or it can be delayed and threshed peacemeal in the barns. This can be done again in many different ways: Sigault explains three different methods observed in the Mediterranean, in North Europe and in the Atlantic coast (1988:21-24): In the Mediterranean system, harvesting is done with sickles, usually by men; and threshing is done in the open, usually whole crop threshed at a time with the help of animals (e.g. oxens, horses), either by making them trot over the stalks (trampling), or by harnessing them to threshing sledges, rollers. Winnowing follows threshing, and made by women, and the stalk is then carried away to stored for fodder. The grain is then stored usually in underground silos or wooden boxes or in specially carved caves. In the North European system, reaping sickle was frequently used by women, and the binding of sheaves made by men, winter threshing made in barns usually with flail (Sigault 1988).
People developed many techniques and tools to process plants. Among them fire, thus baking, roasting and cooking was probably one of the earliest processing technique for all plant types, particularly change the edibility and taste of grains and tuberous plants. Changes in processing are almost often discussed in contexts of changing patterns of resource explotation, betraying a linkage between a specific resource and a given technology, while a resource can be processed in numerous ways resulting in different nutritional 'payoffs' (Stahl 1989).
‘the game of cooking was about imitation, invention and improvisation; it was about glorifying the ordinary and domesticating the exotic’ (Friedensohn 2005:241).
Actual preparation of food can be started from cleaning, chopping and even butchering in case of animals. Plant processing is not always a necessity to eat a leafy plant or a fruit. But at least we wash the plants to remove the dirt before eating. Various plants needs leaching to remove toxic substances, grinding to reduce excessive mastication and to improve digestibility, and even fermentation to produce a more palatable food or intoxicating beverage (Wickens 2001:151). Some foods, such as wild green leaves and salads, some vegetables, nuts, fruits can be eaten raw, while most others need some kind of process. While some plants need more processing, such as toxic ones, others, such as most of collected wild edible greens can just be eaten as it is: raw may be addition of a bit salt. Together with bread or as salad. They can be mixed with other wild plants or vegetables as onion and garlic, eggs or grain, and can be boiled, roasted or fried. It can be considered as a main dish with added cereals like a soup or gruel, can be a side dish in the presence of meat or fish or just a salad.
When archaeologists talk about plant processing, one of the main issue comes to mind is grinding cereals or various ways of preparations to make them more tastier, more palatable, more nutritious. Both grinding and baking/cooking affects our ingestion and our intake of food/diet. The glycemic index reflects how rapidly glucose from carbohydrates enters the blood after ingestion and baking increase this intake (Piperno et al 2004: 671; The question of when foragers first utilized technologies to pound and grind the wild cereals or other grains to make them palatable is recently answered by starch grain analysis. Starch grains recovered from a ground stone artefact from the Upper Paleolithic site of Ohala II in Israel indicate grinding the grains were practiced about 12.000 years before their domestication (Piperno et al. 2004). Exceptional preservation of this waterlogged site provide us with evidences of numerous charred grains of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) and emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccoides) as well as other grass species (e.g. Bromus sp) and 150 starch grains preserved on grinding stone actually indicate they were processed and used in human diet. Their status of baking in an oven like structure is not certain, as no baked product is preserved.
Ethnobotanical studies usually do not focus on issues like cooking, baking and various recepies applied to particular plants, but a wide range of ethnobotanical studies available about detoxification of plants (Johns 1990; Pieroni etal 2002; Ertug 2000; Savvides 2000). For example, the detoxification process of Leopoldia comosa (syn. Muscari comosum) bulbs and Clematis vitalba shoots by a modern rural society in Italy is given as: The bulbs, which have a very strong bitter taste if eaten raw, are cut and macerated overnight (or even over a period of several days) in cold water before being cooked (fried or pickled). People justify this procedure as an action to ‘decrease the bitterness’, which is considered too high in the unprocessed bulbs and not, however, as a detoxification procedure. In the case of Leopoldia, this operation seems to have a ‘phytochemical’ rationality and likely reaches the double aim of decreasing both the potential toxicity of the bulbs and their bitterness. (Pieroni et al. 2002:178). While the bulbs of Leopoldia/ Muscari are commonly consumed in Greece (e.g. Savvides 2000) after similar processes, they do not considered edible in Turkey.
Food processing technologies and their change through time has been quite widely studied by anthropologists, archaeologists and historians, and its implications on society were debated (e.g. Curtis 2001; Dennell 1974; Kuhnlein and Turner 1991; Leach 1999; Levi-Strauss 1970; Sigaut 1988). Cooking or drying, pickling or fermenting are also ways to preserve plants for later use, some of these techniques will be explained under storage. Palmer 2002
Animal fodder preparation took an important part of animal husbandry. In areas with long, harsh or wet winters it is particularly important to protect animals in a dry stable and provide food for them. An important part of rural life and agriculture based on providing feed to animals in return to meat, eggs and dairy products. The distinction of food and fodder in the archaeological record has been debated among archaeobotanists for so long (e.g. Charles et al. 1998; Miller 1996; Valamoti and Charles 2005), and some of the points below can be useful to solve some problems.
Fuel is a very important element of subsistence, as it is still a necessity for cooking and heating in some countries. In the past the firewood is also used in lighting and in particular crafts, such as firing of pottery. Firewood gathering forged close links between a community and its environment, and the acquisition of firewood is determined primarily by the environment since it was a frequent and repeated activity requiring abundant resources, a degree of control is usually exercised over some of the gathered species which were intended for some purposes such as building timber (Dufraisse 2006). Different management strategies and clues about the social organisation can be detected through careful charchoal analysis as shown in the studies of some waterlogged sites (Dufraisse 2006;). An increasing literature is available especially related to forest and agroforestry management, fuelwood pressure in developing countries, and more research needed on the affects of fuel use on environment.
Plants used for crafts and their techniques of production are among the most unique examples that we can trace their exact analogies today or in the recent past. Cords, ropes, nets, mats, baskets, containers and bags were the essentials of any prehistoric society and particularly hunter-gatherer way of life. All our ancestors used whatever plant available around them, with quite simple techniques, such as plaiting, braiding, twisting and coiling, and by using a few simple tools. Textiles on the other hand needs more tools, know-how and technology than from cord making and basketry.
Storing of food, medicinals, fuel and fodder are important factors of humans survival. Storage were known to hunter-gatherers, but storage concept and storage facilities increased with the earliest sedentary villages. Actually storing foods and goods as major investments began with the sedentism, and the bulk storage can be possible only after agriculture. In a seminal paper, Flannery (1972) identified household storage as the defining characteristic of early agricultural villages; through private storage, households formally took on the risks and rewards of producing for their own use (Bogaard et al. in press). Storage bins, containers, pits, baskets, poaches were used by various societies to keep their stored goods, and various plants were also used as insectisides. Although quite a number of ethnographical literature is available, very few overviews, and even less ethnobotanical studies is available on plant storage.
Ethnobotanical and ethnographical surveys provide clues about how goods traded in domestic level and within national borders (Ertug-Yaras 1997). In a traditional system and within subsistence economy, trade or barter has a very important role in providing the goods, and non-available items that people can not produce or find in their surrounding landscape.
People trade their extra production with the food items they need, or peddlers, initirant merchants trade their goods with eggs, dried fruit or pelts. Some craftsmen also trade their production or service with crops, grains or wool. Ironsmith, horse-shoer, village barber collects their year around service payments as grain after the harvest, pottery sellers barter their pots with the amount of grain those pots can be filled with.