411Arheološki vestnik 75, 2024, 411–440; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.75.13; CC BY-SA 4.0 Izvleček Arheobotanično sta bila raziskana dva konteksta vzorcev s kolišča Stare gmajne: prepleti mahov in polnila posod. Opravljene so bile tudi lesnoanatomske analize nekaterih lesenih najdb in oglja. Poleg nabiranja gozdnega mahu dveh vrst, makroostanki rastlin v analiziranih vzorcih dokazujejo prehrano kot tudi okoljsko rastje v eneolitiku (3521−3366 cal BC). Ugotovljen je velik pomen nabiranja divjih rastlin in gojenja šest vrst kultivarijev. Rezultati, predstavljeni v pričujočem članku, kažejo pomembne razlike med obema izkopanima sondama kot tudi med različnimi stratigrafskimi enotami. Vprašanja, kot sta, ali lahko z rastlinskimi makroostanki dokažemo spremembe v nivoju vode in ali lahko ugotovimo, kje (npr. ob obali ali ne) so stala kolišča, bodo zagotovo predmet nadaljnjih arheobotaničnih raziskav tako stratigrafskih in profilnih stolpcev kot tudi sistematično odvzetih vzorcev sedimenta iz obeh sond (4 in 5). Lok, čeprav manjših dimenzij, je izdelan iz lesa tise. Leseni obročki so izdelani iz leske. Pomemben zaključek pričujoče študije je dokaz o dandanašnji izjemni ogroženosti arheoloških organskih ostankov v tleh Ljubljanskega barja. Ključne besede: Slovenija; Ljubljansko barje; Eneolitik; arheobotanika; kolišča; mah; polnila posod; leseni izdelki Abstract The archaeobotanical research of the Stare Gmajne pile-dwelling site included analyses of samples taken from moss remains and vessel contents, as well as wood anatomical analyses of several wooden artefacts and charcoal pieces.The moss of two forest species and other macroremains provide evidences of human diet and gathering as well as surrounding vegetation in the Eneolithic (3521−3366 cal BC). The results show the inhabitants collected wild plants and cultivated crops, with six cultivars identified. For the wooden artefacts, they show the bow was made of yew and the rings of hazel. They also reveal significant differences between the two excavated trenches and between different stratigraphic units. Further research of the systematically sampled sediments will address questions concerning the possibility of detecting changes in water levels and the location of the Eneolithic settlement. What is already clear is that the organic remains in the present-day Ljubljansko barje soil are highly endangered. Keywords: Slovenia; Ljubljansko barje; Eneolithic; archaeobotany; pile dwellings; mosses; vessel contents; wooden artefacts Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne, an Eneolithic pile-dwelling site: mosses, vessel contents and the analysis of the wooden artefacts Arheobotanična analiza po presoji odvzetih vzorcev z eneolitskega kolišča Stare gmajne: mah, polnila posod in leseni artefakti Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA 412 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA More than forty pile-dwelling sites from the 5th to the 3rd millennium BC have so far been documented in the marshy area of the Ljubljansko barje, central Slovenia (Velušček 2004a; 2014). Of those from the 4th millennium BC (Fig. 1), ar- chaeobotanical investigations have been conducted at Hočevarica (Jeraj 2002; 2004; Jeraj, Velušček, Jacomet 2008), Stare gmajne (Tolar et al. 2010; 2011), Maharski prekop (Šercelj 1975; Šercelj 1981−1982; Culiberg, Šercelj 1991; Tolar 2018), Črešnja pri Bistri (Velušček et al. 2004), Strojanova voda (Tolar 2018) and Črnelnik (Velušček et al. 2018), of those from the 3rd millennium BC (Fig. 1) at Parte near Ig (Culiberg, Šercelj 1980; Šercelj, Culiberg 1980; Šercelj 1981−1982; Culiberg 1984; Culiberg 1999), Dušanovo (not published yet) and Špica (Andrič et al. 2017; archaeobotany not published yet). We should first briefly discuss the archaeobotanical evidence (Tab. 1) from the pile-dwelling sites from the 4th millennium BC that are contemporaneous with Stare gmajne site. The Hočevarica site is located in the southwestern Ljubljansko barje, near the present-day riverbed of the Ljubljanica, and dates to the mid-4th mil- lennium BC (Velušček 2004b). It was discovered in 1992 by Andrej Šemrov from the National Museum of Slovenia. Six years later, ZRC SAZU, Institute of Archaeology1 conducted a small-scale 1 Hereafter ZRC SAZU. excavation (Velušček 2004c) that included sampling for archaeobotanical and palynological analyses. For the former, sediment samples were wet sieved using different mesh sizes (3, 1 and 0.5 mm) and then air-dried. The analysis revaled the remains of cultivated and gathered plants, as well as algae and mosses (Jeraj 2002; 2004; Jeraj, Velušček, Jacomet 2008; see Tab. 1). Particularly noteworthy is a large amount of grape seeds (Vitis vinifera ssp.). The ra- diocarbon date (3650−3380 cal BC (2 sigma); Jeraj 2004, 63) confirms the grapes were harvested by the inhabitants, and the morphological analyses of the seeds suggest a wild (V. vinifera ssp. sylvestris) rather than domesticated Vitis subspecies (i.e., V. vinifera ssp. vinifera) (Korenčič Tolar, Jakše, Korošec-Koruza 2008). The Maharski prekop and Strojanova voda sites are located in the southeastern Ljubljansko barje and also date to the mid-4th millennium BC. The former was discovered in 1953 (Jesse 1954) and most extensively excavated in 1970−1977 (Bregant 1974a; 1974b; 1975; 1976; 1996; Šercelj 1975; 1981–1982; Culiberg, Šercelj 1991). Its investigations in 2005 included dendrochronological analyses of the vertical piles (Velušček, Čufar 2008). In addition, samples for archaeobotanical and archaeozoologi- cal analyses were systematically taken from the cultural layer in two test pits measuring 1 m² each. The samples were wet-sieved using mesh sizes of 3 and 1 mm and then air-dried (Tolar 2018, 465−466). The analysis revealed hard and Fig. 1: Map of the Ljubljansko barje showing the main pile-dwelling sites from the 4th and 3rd millennia BC with archa- eobotanical remains recovered. Sl. 1: Zemljevid Ljubljanskega barja z najpomembnejšimi arheobotanično raziskanimi kolišči iz 4. in 3. tisočletja pr. Kr. 413Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... lignified plant macroremains such as fragments of hazelnuts (Corylus avellana), acorns (Quercus sp.) and blackberries (Rubus sp.), while fragile seeds/fruits such as flax (Linum usitatissimum) and poppy (Papaver somniferum) were completely absent, most likely destroyed during sieving and drying (Tolar 2018; see Tab. 1), which makes the archaeobotanical results unrepresentative and un- realistic. The Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, also studied the site, focusing on detecting the human activities in the Ljubljansko barje during the Holocene (Mlekuž, Budja, Ogrinc 2006; Mlekuž et al. 2012). The artefacts from the Črešnja pri Bistri area were found randomly during infrastructure con- structions such as a railway viaduct and water supply lines (Jesse 1975; Velušček 1997, 9; Velušček et al. 2004). In 2003, ZRC SAZU collected wood samples (i.e. of piles) in the drainage ditches at the site for the purposes of a dendrochronologi- cal analysis. The cultural layer was also sampled and wet sieved for possible small-sized artefacts. The site has been dated to the 36th century BC and the pottery has parallels with those from the Hočevarica site. The archaeobotanical remains included charcoal, as well as waterlogged and dried seeds/fruits of cultivated and gathered plants (see Tab. 1; Velušček et al. 2004). The Strojanova voda site was discovered already in 1875 (Deschmann 1876), but only archaeologi- cally excavated in 1953 (Jesse 1954) and again in 2012, the latter a rescue excavation while deepen- ing the local drainage ditch. The main objective, as in 2005 at Maharski prekop, was to sample the vertical wooden piles for dendrochronological analyses (Čufar et al. 2015). At the same time, two profile columns of sediment samples were taken for archaeobotanical analysis. It was the first time this sampling method (i.e. profile or stratigraphic column samples) was used for analysing plant macroremains in Slovenia. Appropriate methods were used, i.e. fine wet sieving with half-flotation and keeping the plant macroremains waterlogged (Tolar 2018, 464). The investigation recovered a large amount of plant remains, mostly non- carbonised, that include flax, poppy seeds and cereal chaff (Tolar 2018, 466−472; see Tab. 1). Radiocarbon analyses of red dogwood (Cornus sanguinea) fruit remains and barley (Hordeum vulgare) rachis fragments from Strojanova voda yielded an approximate date of 3865−4196 cal BC (median values of six 14C dates; Tolar 2018, 470). Of particular interest is the large quantity of fragmented red dogwood (Cornus sanguinea) fruits, as experimental work and chemical analyses confirm these unedible fruits may have been used to produce oil, possibly even for cleaning dishes and/or as soap (Tolar, Vovk, Jug 2021). The Črnelnik archaeological site is located in the central Ljubljansko barje, near Kamnik pod Krimom. It was discovered during the 2014 ar- chaeological monitoring in advance of construct- ing the village sewerage system. The site probably dates to the first half of the 4th millennium BC. Its cultural layer was sampled randomly. The sampled area was small and the sample volume low, but it nevertheless revealed several characteristic culti- vated and gathered plant macroremains (see Tab. 1; Velušček et al. 2018, 22−25). The samples and ecofacts from Črnelnik in- clude a dog coprolite (Velušček et al. 2018; Tolar, Galik 2019), moss remain sand a fragment of a tree fungus. Two moss species were identified: Neckera crispa and Anomodon viticulosus. The tree or wood-decay fungus was identified as tin- der fungus (Fomes fomentarius), which thrives on beech (Fagus sylvatica) (Velušček et al. 2018, 26). The macroanalysis of the prehistoric dog coprolite, performed for the first time in Slovenia, showed the diet of the Eneolithic dog and the season the dog defecated (Tolar, Galik 2018). Stare gmajne lies at Verd, village near Vrhnika, not far from Hočevarica site (Velušček 2009a). It dates to the 4th millennium BC and was inhabited in two phases. Dendrochronological evidence shows a settlement gap of about 170 years between the early and late phases (Čufar et al. 2009; 2010; 2015). A team of ZRC SAZU discovered the site in 1992 and conducted archaeological surveys here in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 (Velušček 2009a) and most recently in July 2021.2 Systematic archaeobo- tanical sampling was carried out in 2007. Samples were taken from three grid squares in Trench 3 (Velušček 2009a, 55, 62). Each grid square mea- sured 1 m² and was systematically sampled from the beginning to the end of the cultural layer; i.e. from top to bottom. This was the first time that fine wet-sieving with half-flotation method and examination in wet conditions were performed in Slovenia (after Hosch, Zibulski 2003; Tolar et al. 2010). The newly applied methods led to 2 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar, Arheološke raziskave na najdišču Stare gmajne – prazgodovinsko kolišče. Prvo strokovno poročilo o raziskavi 21-0293, 2022 (unpublished report; kept in ZVKDS OE Ljubljana and ZRC SAZU). 414 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA the identification of 93 plant taxa. The cultivars included flax (Linum usitatissimum) remains and non-carbonised cereal chaff, found for the first time at archaeological sites in Slovenia (Tolar, Velušček 2009; Tolar et al. 2010; 2011). In addi- tion to 6 cultivars, analysis revealed 16 gathered, 16 weed/ruderal and 28 lakeshore/aquatic plant taxa (Tolar et al. 2011; see Tab. 1). A large loom weight was found during the excava- tions in 2006. It broke during lifting and revealed its unfired clay interior, which was removed and finely wet-sieved. A large amount of carbonised and half-carbonised cereal chaff of barley (Hor- deum vulgare), emmer (Triticum dicoccum) and einkorn (Triticum monococcum) was collected in the 0.355 mm sieve fraction, which indicates not only the cultivation and processing techniques used in the Eneolithic agriculture, but also the use of by-products and waste material (Tolar, Jacomet, Velušček 2016). Dog coprolites (16 pieces) were first found at Stare gmajne during the excavations in 2007, but did not raise much attention until the promising study of the Črnelnik dog coprolite (Tolar, Galik 2018). The uniform coprolites from Stare gmajne were stored in waterlogged conditions and analysed in 2019−2021 (Tolar et al. 2021). In addition to macro-analyses (of plant and animal remains), 6 items were also subjected to micro-analyses (i.e. palynology, palaeoparasitology and a-DNA extrac- tion) (Tolar et al. 2021). The great potential for recovering new coprolites and the wish for continuing research at Stare gmajne led to new archaeological investigations at the site in the summer of 2021 as part of the project “Dog or its master? The scientific study of human or canine coprolites from the prehistoric pile-dwelling site of Stare gmajne, Slovenia”. Partners from for- eign institutions (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna University of Technology and University of Bourgogne Franche-Comte, France) were included to conduct new types of analyses (e.g. biochemical palaeoparasitological analyses) on potential new coprolite finds. Investigations did indeed unearth 9 new coprolites, which are undergoing analyses.3 Other remains were judgement sampled and some interesting wooden artefacts were found that are discussed below. The term “judgement sampling”, first used by Jones (1991) and others, means “hu- man subjective” sampling of archaeological layers that are regarded as important and interesting or 3 Tolar, Caf, Le Bailly, 2023. appear to be rich in plant macroremains and are of special interest to archaeologists (and archaeo- botanists). Since then, the expression has become commonplaced in archaeobotanical literature (e.g. Jacomet, Kreuz 1999, 97; Campbell, Moffett, Straker 2011, 11, Tab. 4). Two types of judgement samples obntained in 2021 at Stare gmajne are presented here: moss remains and vessel contents. Moss may have been used for different purposes and the archaeobotanical analysis is the first step towards finding what those were. The samples taken from or around vessels provide direct evidence of the food prepared or stored in them. The contribution presents the results of the ar- chaeobotanical analyses conducted in 2021 at Stare gmajne, one of the most important pile-dwelling sites in Slovenia that already revealed dog coproli- tes in 2007 (Tolar et al. 2021). It focuses on the archaeobotanical analyses of the judgement sam- pled material (see above; Jones 1991, 55; Jacomet, Kreuz 1999, 97; Van der Veen 1987, Fig. 105) and on the wood anatomical analyses of three wooden rings and a small, probably child’s bow. The following questions will be addressed: 1 − can we ascertain the purposes of gathering moss, i.e. are there any coprolites or food/fodder/ litter residues preserved in it or is its content si- milar to the sediment that we usually get in the cultural layer, 2 − are there any traces of prepared food survi- ving in or around the broken vessels, or are these merely filled with soil (i.e. cultural layer) and 3 − was the choice of wood for the bow and the three rings deliberate – what kind of wood was preferred and why? MATERIALS AND METHODS Excavation in 2021 Decades of research at Stare gmajne (see above) and especially the 16 dog coprolites found in 2007 (Trench 3) prompted new excavation in 2021 (Tren- ches 4, 5; see Fig. 2). Two trenches were excavated next to the spot where coprolites were found in 2007 (see Fig. 2).4 Previous research has shown that the site consists of two spatially separate parts, the eastern and the western, which lie more than 100 m apart. Dendrochronological research has shown that the western part was inhabited twice, first in 4 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022 (unpublished report). 415Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... Fig. 2: Stare gmajne, Trench 3 excavated in 2007 and east of it Trenches 4 and 5 excavated in 2021 with their grid squares and Profiles P1001 and P1004. Sl. 2: Stare gmajne, sonda 3, raziskana v letu 2007 ter sondi 4 in 5 iz leta 2021 z mrežami kvadratov in legami profilov P1001, P1004. (coordinate system / koordinatni sistem: D48/GK) Fig. 3: Stare gmajne 2021, east profile of Trench 4 (P 1004). Scale = 1:20. Sl. 3: Stare gmajne 2021, vzhodni profil sonde 4 (P 1004). M. = 1:20. Further analyses of the coprolites found in 2021 are in progess and will be published separately. Trench 4 was 4 metres long, 2 metres wide and divided into eight grid squares (A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4, B4). Two metres to the south was Trench 5, which was 2 m long, 2 m wide and divided into four grid squares (B-3, C-3, B-4, C-4) (Fig. 2). The two trenches were systematically excavated according to stratigraphic units (SU), while the cultural layer was documented arbitrarily per 10 cm thick levels. Five stratigraphic units and 11 arbitrary levels were documented in Trench 4, 5 statigraphic units and 4 arbitrary levels in Trench 5 (Fig. 3, 5). Sediments in Trench 4 from SU 004 down were sampled for wet sieving. The stratigraphy is simple. In Trench 4, turf (or grass; SU 001) and topsoil (SU 002) covered a greyish clay layer (SU 003), the lower part of which already contained remains of wood, in some places also charcoal. Its thickness varied (thicker towards the south; see Fig. 3). Beneath it, the cultural layer (SU 004) contained many stones and archaeolo- gical finds, and was dated to 3521−3366 cal BC (Velušček, Leghissa, Tolar 2021).6 It was thickest in the north (see Fig. 3). It covered a layer of grey clay (SU 007) that contained the odd find in the upper 6 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 19, 32 (unpublished report). the 34th and then in the 32nd century BC. The eastern part held a much larger settlement, inhabited in the 32nd century BC and known for the discovery of a wooden wheel with an axle, two oak dugouts and other important finds. The western part is smaller and probably held a metallurgic workshop, as the 2007 excavation revealed (Velušček 2009a, 11; Čufar et al. 2009, 177). In 2021, Trenches 4 and 5 were excavated east/ southeast of Trench 3 from 2007 (Fig. 2). Only one cultural layer was documented in Trench 4, which the radiocarbon dating of a hazelnut shell showed to be dated to 3521−3366 cal BC.5 Archaeobotanical investigation involved sys- tematic, profile and judgement sampling. The contribution presents the archaeobotanical remains (of seeds, fruits and charcoal) in the judgement sampled material (mosses remains, sediment in and around the fragmented vessels) and the analysis of several wooden artefacts from the cultural layer. 5 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 32 (unpublished report). 416 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA part, probably infiltrated from above. Under SU 007 was a lake sediment (lake marl, polžarica) (Fig. 3). The cultural layer documented in Trench 4 was thinning out towards the south and was absent in Trench 5. The stratigraphy in Trench 5 consisted of the turf (SU 001), topsoil (SU 002), greyish clay layer (SU 003), layer with pottery, planks and other wooden objects (SU 005; same as SU 007 in Trench 4) and lake marl (SU 006, polžarica). The archaeological finds present in the upper part of SU 005 (Fig. 4) were probably infiltrated or de- posited there as a result of changes in the water levels. The relativelly small sizes of the wooden piles in both trenches suggest we are not dealing with the remains of wooden houses on piles, but other elements, most likely used at the edge of the settlement.7 Archaeobotanical investigation in both trenches involved systematic surface sampling, stratigraphic (column and profile) sampling (e.g. Fig. 5) and judgement sampling. Mosses and vessel contents were judgement sampled, wooden artefacts and coprolites were collected. All together 26 archaeobotanical samples from both trenches consisted of 13 judgement samples, 4 samples for wood anatomical analysis and 9 coprolites (see Tab. 2, 3). Materials Trench 4 The cultural layer (SU 004) consisted of dark brown clayey silt with several patches of sand. It began about 60 cm below the current surface (Fig. 3). Most of the archeological finds (pottery, bioarchaeological, wood and stone) were found in this layer, as were vertical and horizontal piles and other remains of wood. The layer was thickest (64 cm) in the north and thinnest (24 cm) in the south. Under it, SU 007 of grey clay also contained pottery and wood. The vertical piles were also driven into the lowest layer, of lake marl. Most archaeobotanical samples were collected from Trench 4. The 21 samples consist of 5 samples of moss remains, 4 samples of sediments in and around the fragmented vessels, 3 wooden artefacts (a bow and two rings) and 9 coprolites. 7 of the 9 dog/human coprolites were found while wet sie- ving the systematically taken samples (see Tab. 2). 7 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 23 (unpublished report). Fig. 4: Stare gmajne 2021, north profile of Trench 5 (P 1001). Scale = 1:20. Sl. 4: Stare gmajne 2021, severni profil sonde 5 (P 1001). M. = 1:20. Fig. 5: Stare gmajne 2021, stratigraphic sampling in Trench 4 with three 50 cm long plastic tubes with a diameter of 7 cm. Sl. 5: Stare gmajne 2021, sonda 4: vzorčenje stratigrafskih stolpcev sedimenta s tremi 50 cm dolgimi plastičnimi cevmi premera 7 cm. 417Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... Seventeen of these samples derive from SU 004 and 4 from lower SU 007 (see Tab. 2). Trench 5 This trench revealed no cultural layer, only some artefacts that were deposited (or infiltrated) in it.8 Five archaeobotanical samples were collected: 4 sediment samples in and around fragmented vessels and one wooden ring. Two samples came from SU 003 and three from SU 005 (see Tab. 3). The 2021 excavation at Stare gmajne yielded a total of 5 samples of moss remains, 8 sediment samples from vessel contents, a small but completely preserved bow, 3 wooden rings and 9 dog/human coprolites. The results of the archaeobotanical analyses presented here exclude the coprolites, which are studied separately using special (micro) methods. Methods The samples were stored in a refrigerator up to 4 degrees Celsius to prevent decay. In addition to wooden artefacts and coprolites, 13 samples (mosses and vessel contents) totalling 5,767 ml of sediment were collected for fine wet sieving in the archaeobotanical laboratory. The remains of seeds/fruits, wood, charcoal, mosses and fish remains were sorted out and analysed. The food remains detected on the walls of the broken pottery were carefully removed and sent for biochemical analysis. Wood and charcoal artefacts were ana- tomically examined and identified to the level of tree species or genus. The judgement samples (Tab. 2, 3) were finely wet-sieved using the half-flotation method with 2 and 0.355 mm mesh sieves. For each sample, there is a worksheet with data on the location of the find (layer), the volume taken in situ and the volume after wet sieving (of 2 mm and of 0.355 mm frac- tions; data on sample size noted in Tab. ESM 1, 2).9 The organic samples from the 2 mm and 0.355 mm fractions were examined when still wet and sorted under a Leica MZ75 stereomicroscope at 6.3−50× magnification. The large fraction (2 mm) was examined on a whole, while the small frac- tion (0.355 mm) was subsampled. A subsample of 20 ml proved large enough for statistically reliable 8 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 23 (unpublished report). 9 http://av.zrc-sazu.si/AV_75/Tolar_AV_75_2024_Tab_ ESM1.xlsx; http://av.zrc-sazu.si/AV_75/Tolar_AV_75_2024_ Tab_ESM2.xlsx archaeobotanical results (Ven der Veen, Fieller 1982; Tolar et al. 2010). All recognizable organic remains larger than 0.355 mm were sorted out and divided into seeds and fruits, charcoal, small mammal (bones, teeth, coprolites) and fish finds (scales, teeth, bones). Charcoal and animal remains (bones and teeth) were air dried, while the mostly waterlogged, frag- ile and thin seeds/fruits were stored in a special solution of methanol, glycerol, thymol and distilled water after identification to prevent microbial degradation. The same storage medium was used for fine and fragile fish scales preserved in water- logged samples. Large (> 8 mm fragments) and small complete fish scales were stored separately. Coprolites and wooden artefacts were stored in wet and cold conditions. Plant macroremains were identified using our own reference collections of seeds and fruits, charcoal and wood at ZRC SAZU, and with the help of specialised literature (e.g. Berggren 1981; Schweingruber 1990; Torelli 1991; Anderberg 1994; Gale, Cutler 2000; Cappers, Bekker, Jans 2006; Jacomet 2006a). Plant nomenclature fol- lows Zohary, Hopf (2000) and Binz, Heitz (1990) for cultivated plants. Slovenian nomenclature and ecological characteristics of plants follow Mala flora Slovenije (Martinčič et al. 1999). We also used the commercial computer programme INTKEY for identifying deciduous wood (Richter, Dallwitz 2000). After identification and quantification, the number of seeds/fruits was converted into concen- trations per liter of sediment sample to facilitate comparison of results. Cereal chaff was converted into the number (MNI, minimum number of individuals) of cereal grains in such a way that 1 rachis fragment of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and 1 spikelet fork of glume wheat (Triticum monococcum and T. dicoccum) corresponded to 1 cereal grain, and 1 glume base of a glume wheat to half of a grain, while 2 glume bases represented 1 grain (for better understanding, see Andrič, Tolar, Toškan 2016, 51). Because of fragmentation, only the bases of some seeds/fruits such as oak acorns (Quercus sp.) and hazel nuts (Corylus avellana) were counted (see e.g. Andrič, Tolar, Toškan 2016, 70). We counted the bases and tips of the fruits (nuts) of water chestnut (Trapa natans), the larger ends of capsules (with triangular tips) and whole seeds of flax (Linum usitatissimum), whole seeds and seed bases of apple and pear (Malus/Pyrus sp.), although 418 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA their pericarp fragments were also numerous (see Tab. ESM 1, 2). Also analysed were 41 charcoal fragments (ranging in size from 0.2 to 8 cm) taken from 13 vessel and moss samples. As we are dealing with small-volume (25−200 ml for moss and 140−1200 ml for vessel samples; see Tab. 5 and 7) judgement samples, and as the main aim was to analyse (or identify) plant (and animal) macroremains (seeds, fruits) potentially used as food, the possible uses of mosses and traces of food in vessels were tried to figure out. The charcoal fragments, probably accidentally trapped in the samples, were not one of the major research objects. Therefore only one to six charcoal fragments (depending on sample size and the number of charcoal fragments surviving in it) were randomly selected from each sample. The main goal regarding charcoal was merely to determine whether the samples contained diverse charcoal taxa and whether some taxa dominated. Statistically reliable charcoal analysis will be done during the archaeobotanical analysis of the syste- matically taken samples. The identification of wood species was made with the help of transversal, tangential and radial wood anatomical sections. We manually broke a larger piece of charcoal to obtain three anatomical planes; for smaller pieces, we used a scalpel. The prepared charcoal sections were fixed in plasticine and/or sand for examina- tion under stereo and light microscopes (Fig. 6). To analyse the waterlogged artefacts (wooden rings and bow), we froze a sample of wet wood to facilitate cutting thin anatomical sections. Each wooden section was placed between two glasses and soaked in distilled water (Fig. 6) for examina- tion under a light microscope with an up to 400× magnification. The sections were examined with a 6.3−50× Leica MZ75 stereomicroscope and a Nikon Eclipse ME 600 light microscope. Seven samples (6 from Trench 4; Tab. 4) of pos- sible food residues were collected from the vessels for biochemical analyses. They were scraped from the interior walls and bottoms of vessels (Fig. 7; Tab. 4). The samples were stored in distilled water in the refrigerator for further analysis, which will be carried out by Dr Erwin Rosenberg.10 Fish teeth, bones and scales were found in all judgement samples from Stare gmajne except in VZ 185, where only scales were found, probably due to the small volume (only 5 ml; see Tab. 5). Larger fish scales (fragment size over 8 mm) of larger fish species and well-preserved small scales of smaller species were sorted out and sent to Dr Alfred Galik11 for further analysis. 10 Institute of Chemical Technologies and Analytics at the Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien). 11 Austrian Archaeological Institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW). Fig. 6: Wood and charcoal samples prepared for identification. Sl. 6: Primeri vzorcev lesa in oglja za identifikacijo. Fig. 7: Stare gmajne 2021, a – organic (possibly food) residues at the bottom of the fragmented vessel (PN 35), b – organic remains scraped from the vessel (VZ 134) and prepared for biochemical analysis. Sl. 7: Stare gmajne 2021, a – organski ostanki (verjetno hrana) na dnu fragmentirane posode (PN 35), b – organ- ski ostanki, postrgani iz posode (VZ 134), pripravljeni za biokemijske analize. 419Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... The two coprolites (VZ 134 and VZ 182; Fig. 8) found in Trench 4 were carefully lifted and stored in cold waterlogged conditions. Further 7 coprolites recovered during later wet sieving of the systematically taken samples from Trench 4 (see Tab. 2) probably belong to either dogs or humans/ pigs. VZ 182 (Fig. 8) was found in situ and VZ 134 during fine wet sieving of the judgement sample from the vessel marked PN 35 (see Tab. 2 and 4). Six coprolites were separated into subsamples for palynological, palaeoparasitological and biochemical micro-analyses. The rest was fine wet-sieved for the identification of plant and animal macroremains. The remaining coprolites (3) are still stored in wet and cold conditions at ZRC SAZU for possible further analyses such as aDNA. RESULTS Moss samples Five samples of moss remains were collected, all from Trench 4 (Fig. 9). They were taken from two SUs (004 and 007) and three grid squares (A4, B2 and B4; see Tab. 2, 5; Fig. 2). Two moss species were identified: Neckera crispa and Anomodon viticulosus. Several plant and fish remains were caught in the moss. Two moss samples (VZ 84 and VZ 185) did not contain suf- ficient sediment or the sediment sample was not measured before sieving (see Tab. 5), making the identified macroremains from these two samples Fig. 8: Stare gmajne 2021, most probably dog coprolite (VZ 182, Trench 4). Sl. 8: Stare gmajne 2021, najverjetneje pasji koprolit (VZ 182, sonda 4). statistically unreliable (volumes ˂ 5 ml). The dis- cussion below thus only considers 3 samples (VZ 121, VZ 133 and VZ 184; Tab. 5). Number of ID seeds/fruits in moss samples A total of 769 seeds/fruits were identified in 3 moss samples, 96% of them are preserved in waterlogged, i.e. non-carbonised condition. Only some crop macroremains are carbonised (6%), mainly cereals (30%). Crop macroremains predominate (371 ID seeds/ fruits; 48%) in all three samples, followed by weeds/ ruderal (193 ID seeds/fruits; 25%), gathered (106 ID seeds/fruits; 14%) and environmental (lakeshore and aquatic) plants (99 ID seeds/fruits; 13%) (Fig. 10). Plant taxa in moss samples We identified 27 taxa in all 3 samples. The gathered plant group predominates with 11 taxa (which is 41%), followed by cultivated and lake- shore/aquatic plants with 6 taxa (22%), while the weed/ruderal group is slightly less diverse (4 taxa; 15%) (Fig. 11). Concentrations of ID seeds/fruits in individual moss samples Interestingly, almost all ID taxa (26) come from the two samples from SU 004 (VZ 121 and VZ 133) while only 5 plant taxa were found in the VZ 184 sample from SU 007 despite being larger in volume (32 ml) than VZ 133 (25 ml; see Tab. 5). Table 6 shows a slight dominance of Triticum over Hordeum in both moss samples from SU 004. Papaver, Linum and Brassica are fairly equally abun- dant in VZ 133, while Papaver is overrepresented in VZ 121. Among gathered plants, Fragaria, Malus/ Pyrus, Rubus, Quercus and Abies are represented Fig. 9: Stare gmajne 2021, moss remains from Trench 4. Sl. 9: Stare gmajne 2021, primer prepleta mahu iz sonde 4. 420 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA in all samples, while Physalis, Corylus, Trapa, Crataegus and Cornus are only present in VZ 121; this is most likely the result of the sample’s great volume (200 ml; see Tab. 5). Vessel samples The 8 sediment samples from broken vessels (Fig. 12) consist of 4 taken from Trench 4 and 4 from Trench 5. The former were taken from two SUs (004 and 007) and four grid squares (A2, A3, A2/ B2, and B4), the latter from two SUs (003 and 005) and three grid squares (B-3, B-4, C-4; see Tab. 7). With the exception of PN 51 and VZ 61, all samples contained sufficient plant macroremains (i.e. 384 seeds/fruits) for a statistically reliable archaeobotanical interpretation (after Van der Veen, Fieller 1982). The vessels revealed seeds/ fruits larger than 0.355 mm, charcoal and some fish remains. Possible food residues were scraped and collected for biochemical analyses (see Fig. 7; Tab. 4). Number of ID seeds/fruits in vessel samples A total of 5,054 seeds/fruits were identified in the 8 samples, of which 96% survived in a water- logged, i.e. non-carbonised condition. Only some macroremains of crops are carbonised (19%), mainly cereals (67%). The remains of environmental (lakeshore and aquatic) plants predominate with 1,681 ID seeds/ Fig. 10: Stare gmajne 2021, percentages of counted seeds/ fruits by plant groups in three moss samples (VZ 121, 133, 184) from Trench 4. For taxa in each plant group, see Tab. 6. Sl. 10: Stare gmajne 2021, odstotki preštetih semen/plodov po skupinah rastlin v treh vzorcih mahu (VZ 121, 133, 184) iz sonde 4. Za rastlinske taksone v posamezni skupini rastlin glej Tab. 6. Fig. 11: Stare gmajne 2021, percentages of identified taxa by plant groups in three moss samples (VZ 121, 133, 184) from Trench 4. For taxa in each plant group, see Tab. 6. Sl. 11: Stare gmajne 2021, odstotki identificiranih rastlinskih taksonov po skupinah rastlin v treh vzorcih mahu (VZ 121, 133, 184) iz sonde 4. Za rastlinske taksone v posamezni skupini rastlin glej Tab. 6. Fig. 12: Stare gmajne 2021, broken vessels in situ. Sl. 12: Stare gmajne 2021, ostanki posod in situ. 421Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... fruits (33%). For nutritional plants, the gathered macroremains (with 1,325 ID seeds/fruits; 26%) dominate slightly over the cultivated plants (1,029 ID seeds/fruits; 20%). These are followed by fewer remains of weed/ruderal plants (975 ID seeds/fruits; 19%) and finally fewest grassland plants (21 ID seeds/fruits; 1%) and macroremains of trees with non-edible fruits such as birch, alder and maple (23 ID seeds/fruits; 1%; Fig. 13). Plant taxa in the vessel samples These samples revealed 54 taxa. The lakeshore/ water plant group is the most diverse with 16 taxa (30%), followed by the gathered plants with 13 taxa (24%). The groups of cultivated plants (6 taxa; 11%) and non-nutritional trees (4 taxa; 7%) are the least diverse. The weed/ruderal (8 taxa; 15%) and grassland (7 taxa; 13%) groups show slightly greater diversity (Fig. 14). Vessel samples from Trench 4 A total of 2,958 seeds/fruits were identified in the 4 samples from Trench 4. Except for PN 51 (from SU 7), all samples derive from SU 4 (see Tab. 7). Forty taxa were identified (Tab. 8). The group of collected plants with 12 taxa (30%) and the group of lakeshore/water plants with 11 taxa (29%) are the most diverse. Cultivated and weed/ruderal plant groups, each with 6 taxa (15%), have a sli- ghtly lower diversity, while non-nutritional trees with 3 taxa (8%) and grassland plants with 2 taxa (5%) are least diverse (Fig. 15). Fig. 13: Stare gmajne 2021, percentages of counted seeds/ fruits by plant groups in eight vessel samples (VZ 12, 81, 134, 22, 61, 62 and PN 6, 51) from Trenches 4 and 5. For taxa in each plant group, see Tab. 8 and 9. Sl. 13: Stare gmajne 2021, odstotki preštetih semen/plodov po skupinah rastlin v osmih vzorcih iz posod (VZ 12, 81, 134, 22, 61, 62 in PN 6, 51) iz obeh sond. Za rastlinske taksone v posamezni skupini rastlin glej Tab. 8 in 9. Fig. 14: Stare gmajne 2021, percentages of identified taxa by plant groups in eight vessel samples (VZ 12, 81, 134, 22, 61, 62 and PN 6, 51) from Trenches 4 and 5. For taxa in each plant group, see Tab. 8 and 9. Sl. 14: Stare gmajne 2021, odstotki identificiranih rastlinskih taksonov po skupinah rastlin v osmih vzorcih iz posod (VZ 12, 81, 134, 22, 61, 62 in PN 6, 51) iz obeh sond. Za rastlinske taksone v posamezni skupini rastlin glej Tab. 8 in 9. Fig. 15: Stare gmajne 2021, percentages of identified taxa by plant groups in four vessel samples (VZ 12, 81, 134 and PN 51) from Trench 4. For taxa in each plant group, see Tab. 8. Sl. 15: Stare gmajne 2021, odstotki identificiranih rastlinskih taksonov po skupinah rastlin v štirih vzorcih iz posod (VZ 12, 81, 134 in PN 51) iz sonde 4. Za rastlinske taksone v posamezni skupini rastlin glej Tab. 8. Fig. 16: Stare gmajne 2021, percentages of identified taxa by plant groups in four vessel samples (VZ 22, 61, 62 and PN 6) from Trench 5. For taxa in each plant group, see Tab 9. Sl. 16: Stare gmajne 2021, odstotki identificiranih rastlin- skih taksonov po skupinah rastlin v štirih vzorcih iz posod (VZ 22, 61, 62 in PN 6) iz sonde 5. Za rastlinske taksone v posamezni skupini rastlin glej Tab. 9. 422 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA lariform perforation plates (Schweingruber 1990, 74, 92). Castanea sativa/Fraxinus sp. can also not always be distinguished, both are ring porous and have uni- to bi-seriate rays and simple perforation plates. The radial distribution of pores character- istic of Castanea is often not clearly recognizable (Schweingruber 1990, 86, 102). Charcoal in Trench 4 The 29 randomly selected charcoal fragments in 9 samples (4 of vessel contents and 5 of mosses) from Trench 4 were wood anatomically analysed (Tab. 11). Wood of diffuse porous deciduous tree taxa predominated: Corylus avellana 11, Rosaceae 6, followed by Alnus sp. 3, Sorbus sp. 2, Fagus sylvatica 1, and cf. Carpinus betulus 1. Only 5 charcoal fragments were of ring-porous deciduous tree taxa: Fraxinus sp. (4 fragments) and Quercus sp. (1 fragment) (Tab. 11). There is no significant difference in the taxa diversity between the samples from vessels and mosses. Both show 4 identical taxa (hazel, ash, Rose fam. and alder) and 2 other tree taxa in each (vessels: service tree and hornbeam; mosses: beech and oak). A total of 8 taxa of charcoal were determined in 9 samples from Trench 4. Charcoal in Trench 5 In contrast, a smaller number of judgement (only vessel) samples was collected from Trench 5 (see section on Materials; Tab. 3) and only 12 charcoal fragments have been analysed. Diffuse porous de- ciduous wood predominates: Corylus avellana 5, followed by Alnus sp. 2, Rosaceae 1, Acer sp. 1, and Corylus avellana/Alnus sp. 1. Only two fragments Vessel samples from Trench 5 A total of 2,096 seeds/fruits were identified in the 4 samples from Trench 5. Two samples (VZ 22 and PN 6) were from SU 003 and two from SU 005 (see Tab. 7). Fifty plant taxa were identified (Tab. 9). The group of lakeshore/aquatic plants is slightly more diverse with 15 taxa (30%) than the group of gathe- red plants with 12 taxa (24%). This is followed by grassland plants with 7 taxa (14%). The cultivated and weed/ruderal plant groups are slightly less diverse (6 taxa; 12%), the non-nutritional trees are least diverse (4 taxa; 8%) (Fig. 16). Charcoal Charcoal analysis is less significant as we are dealing with extremely small judgement samples taken due to: 1 – remains of indicia of the use of mosses and 2 – possible food residues in the broken vessels. Charcoal was not abundant, but was present and should be mentioned. The analysis involved only 41 charcoal fragments from 13 judgement samples. Nine samples (with 29 ID charcoal frag- ments) were collected from Trench 4 and 4 (with 12 ID charcoal fragments) from Trench 5. All were of deciduous tree taxa (Fig. 17). Fragments of diffuse porous wood predominated with 83%. The most common species were Corylus avellana (hazel), Rosaceae (Rose fam.), Alnus sp. (alder), Acer sp. (maple), cf. Carpinus betulus (white hornbeam), Fagus sylvatica (common beech) and Sorbus sp. (service tree). Only 17% belong to ring-porous tree species, the most common being Fraxinus sp. (ash), Quercus sp. (oak), Fraxinus sp./Castanea sativa (ash or chestnut) (see Tab. 10). Corylus wood is characterized by aggregate rays, scalariform perforation plates (with 5−10 bars) and heterogeneous rays (Schweingruber 1990, 92). Rose family (or Rosaceae) includes e.g. Crataegus sp., Rhamnus sp., Malus, Pyrus etc., all with very similar wood anatomical characteristics, hence identification to the species level is often not pos- sible. They are all diffuse porous, have simple and/ or scalariform perforation plates and quite thin rays (i.e. bi- to tri-seriate rays in tangential section). The exact wood species could not be identified in two examples (Corylus avellana/Alnus sp.; see Tab. 10) due to the small size of the charcoal pieces and very similar characteristics of the two species: diffuse porous wood with aggregate rays and sca- Fig. 17: Stare gmajne 2021, ratios of ring porous (RPW) and diffuse porous (DPW) charcoal fragments in moss and vessel samples in Trenches 4 and 5. For tree taxa in each group, see Tab 10. Sl. 17: Stare gmajne 2021, deleža venčastoporoznih (VPL) in difuznoporoznih (DPL) odlomkov oglja v prepletih mahu in vzorcih iz posod v obeh sondah. Za drevesne taksone v posamezni skupini glej Tab. 10. 423Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... were found to be of ring porous wood: Fraxinus sp. and Castanea sativa/Fraxinus sp. (Tab. 12). A total of 6 taxa were identified in Trench 5, which are identical to those from Trench 4 with the exception of maple (Acer sp.). Wooden artefacts The finds from the 2021 excavations at Stare gmajne included several wooden artefacts surviv- ing in the waterlogged sediments, namely a bow, three wooden rings (Fig. 18) and two fragments of worked wood (with visible traces of cutting and/ or chopping). The bow and two wooden rings (VZ 115, N 6 and NN) were found in Trench 4, SU 004, while the third wooden ring (VZ 61) came from Trench 5, SU 005. The worked wood fragments were found while wet sieving VZ 134 (sediment sample from a vessel from Trench 4, SU 004). The wood anatomical examination of the bow shows it is made of conifer wood, more precisely yew (Taxus baccata). This wood is hard and elastic, devoid of resin canals (Schweingruber 1990, 66); it also has cupressoid pits and helical thickeninigs in the tracheid walls (Schweingruber 1990, 66; Čufar 2006, 23). All three wooden rings (VZ 61, N 6 and NN) are made of diffuse porous wood with aggre- gated rays, most probably hazel (Corylus avellana) or hazel/alder (Corylus avellana/Alnus sp.). The main characteristics of hazel and alder wood are aggregated rays and scalariform perforation plates. Hazel wood has 5–10 bars, while alder has 15–25 bars in the perforation. Because the perforations in VZ 61 and NN were destroyed or not sufficiently preserved, the ID remains unidentified for the two rings (Corylus avellana or Alnus sp.), while the N 6 ring is made of hazel. Two pieces of wood and a bark with signs of working were found while wet sieving VZ 134 (judgement sample from a vessel from Trench 4). Both wood remains are of diffuse porous deciduous tree taxa, more specifically alder (Alnus sp.) with characteristically aggregated rays, scalariform perforation plates (with 15–25 bars) and homo- geneous rays. The bark remain belongs to maple (Acer sp.), with characteristic broad rays (with up to 6 cells in width) and simple perforation plates. DISCUSSION The archaeobotanical material from the 2021 excavation at Stare gmajne originates from three types of remains: moss remains, vessel contents and wooden artefacts. It revealed three different types of plant macroremains: waterlogged mosses and seeds/fruits, waterlogged wood and charcoal. In addition to plant macroremains, analyses of pollen, palaeoparasites and biochemical analyses, as well as analyses of fish remains are in progress using some of the judgement samples. The contribution presents the results of the ar- chaeobotanical (i.e. plant macroremains) analyses of 13 judgement samples and the wood-anatomical analyses of 4 wooden artefacts unearthed in Trenches 4 and 5, both with a total surface of 12 m2. Trench 4 was archaeobotanically richer, which is consistent with the archaeological findings.12 12 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 5 (unpublished report). Fig. 18: Stare gmajne 2021, wooden artefacts: a – small bow and b – three wooden rings. Sl. 18: Stare gmajne 2021, lesene najdbe: a – majhen lok in b – trije leseni obročki. 424 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA Moss remains (interweavings or tangles of moss) were only found in the layers with archaeological finds, i.e. the cultural layer SU 004 and the clay layer SU 007 below it in Trench 4, which confirms that collecting moss was of importance to the inhabit- ants. The analysed mosses belong to two species, namely Neckera crispa and Anomodon viticulosus, which thrive in fir-beech forests and have already been detected at other pile-dwelling sites such as Črnelnik (Velušček et al. 2018, 51) and Hočevarica (Jeraj 2004, 60–61; Jeraj, Velušček, Jacomet 2008; Tab. 1). The inhabitants intentionally gathered moss and brought it to the settlement (Velušček et al. 2018, 58–59). It may have been used for dif- ferent purposes, e.g., as raw material for fillings, making soles, cleaning dishes, wrapping food, hygiene (instead of toilet paper) etc. (Velušček et al. 2018, 58–59 with references). Found inside the moss were plant macroremains (seeds, fruits, charcoal) and fish remains. Analyses confirm the moss was part of the cultural remains, while the observed (identified) plant macroremains entangled into the moss are all usually found also in the cultural layers of the pile-dwelling settlements in the Ljubljansko barje (e.g. Jeraj, Velušček, Jacomet 2008; Tolar et al. 2011; Tolar 2018; see Tab. 1). The recovered remains of gathered, cultivated, weed/ ruderal and lakeshore/aquatic plant taxa are all typical of the Eneolithic pile-dwellings in Slove- nia. As at other European sites, the results from Slovenia confirm the early farmers consumed a variety of plants that included cultivated cereals, legumes and oil plants, as well as various gathered resources depending on environmental conditions (e.g. Antolin et al. 2021). The moss samples from Stare gmajne revealed 6 cultivated crop taxa: two glume wheats, i.e. einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer (Triticum dicoccum), as well as barley (Hordeum vulgare), flax (Linum usitatissimum), poppy (Papaver somniferum) and possibly cul- tivated turnip (Brassica rapa). Only one taxon, i.e. pea (Pisum sativum), characteristic but rarely found at waterlogged sites due to taphonomy (Jacomet 2006b, 2009), is absent in the analysed moss samples from Stare gmajne. The reason for this absence may be non-carbonised preservation and small sediment samples (25−200 ml) (Tolar et al. 2010; Antolin et al. 2021). The same is true of the gathered plant taxa. Although 11 taxa (Fragaria vesca, Abies alba, Rubus fruticosus, Malus/Pyrus sp., Corylus avellana, Physalis alkekengi, Trapa natans, Cornus sanguinea etc.; see Tab. 6) were noted in the moss entangles, some plant remains otherwise common in the Slovenian pile-dwelling settlements from the 4th millennium BC are absent here (e.g. Viscum album, Solanum nigrum, Prunus spinosa, Rosa sp., Sambucus sp., Fagus sylvatica, Vitis vin. sylvestris; see Tab. 1), which is most likely due to the small volume judgement samples. The remains of natural, environmental plant taxa, considered non-nutritional, have also become entangled in the mosses. They prove the existence of a shallow lake or slow-flowing river and marshy or lakeshore habitats (e.g. Mentha aquatica, Oenanthe aquatica, Schoenoplectus lacustris etc.; see Tab. 6), as well as an antropogenic environment, i.e. weeds/ruderals or plants characteristic of the surroundings of settlements, paths and fields. Tab. 6 shows that the mosses from SU 004 in Trench 4 contained much more plant macroremains than from SU 007 that stretched some 30 cm under SU 004, proving that the cultural layer in the deeper SU 007 was thinning out and mostly contained only infiltrated finds. Surprisingly, no plant macroremains of lakeshore and aquatic vegetation were found in the mosses from SU 007. Could this be an indication of changes in the water level? This will certainly be the subject of further archaeobotanical investigation, while the small-volume judgement samples presented here (i.e. only 32 ml of sediment for VZ 184/SU 007; Tab. 5) are not sufficiently representative for such a conclusion. Two archaeobotanically richest moss samples (VZ 121 and VZ 133) are from SU 004, from conjoining grid squares A4 and B4. They yielded quite similar archaeobotanical finds, with some minor differences such as VZ 121 (grid square A4) containing much more Papaver seeds and VZ 133 (grid square B4) containing slightly more Chenopodium seeds and gathered plant macroremains (Fragaria, Quercus, Malus/Pyrus sp. and Rubus). On the other hand, the diversity of gathered plants is higher in VZ 121 (with 11 taxa compared to 5 taxa in VZ 133; see Tab. 6). Could this indicate two sites within 2 m2 with different food preparation activities? Again, this is a subject for future archaeobotanical study of larger-volume systematic surface, stratigraphic profile and column samples. For the time being, we may suggest the difference is the consequence of the insufficient volumes of the sediment samples collected from the field along with the judgement sampled mosses (VZ 121 of 200 ml was by far the largest , and VZ 133 only contained 25 ml of sedi- ment; see Tab. 5). The fact that both moss samples (VZ 121 and VZ 133), despite their small volume, contained 6 cultivated plant taxa, with Papaver 425Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... Fig. 19: Stare gmajne 2021, a – flax (Linum usitatissimum) and b – poppy (Papaver somniferum) macroremains in poor condition. Sl. 19: Stare gmajne 2021: a – lan (Linum usitatissimum) in b – mak (Papaver somniferum) makroostanki v slabem stanju. seeds standing out, as well as quite diverse remains of gathered plant taxa (fruits/seeds of Fragaria, Rubus and Maloideae), with the needles of Ab- ies standing out (see Tab. 6), proves that we are dealing with an archaeobotanically rich Eneolithic cultural layer with good research opportunities. Unfortunately, the use of the mosses from Stare gmajne remains unclear, as we found no traces of fodder, litter, food, coprolites or anything else that would provide indications to that effect. Moss was most probably collected in the nearest fir-beech forest and deposited in the settlement, ready for use. The very usual plant remains caught in it were probably just sedimented in the aggregates of mosses and deposited there. The samples of vessel contents (in and around the fragmented vessels) were larger, i.e. 600–1000 ml, and are therefore more representative. Six of them contained more than 384 ID seeds/fruits, which gives them statistical reliability (Ven der Veen, Fieller 1982). Half (i.e. 4) of the samples derive from Trench 4 (SU 004 and SU 007) and the other half from Trench 5 (SU 003 and SU 005). Consid- ering the seed/fruit remains from both trenches, the lakeshore and aquatic plant group is the most diverse (16 plant taxa) and numerous (1,681 ID seeds/fruits), followed by the gathered (13 taxa and 1,325 ID seeds/fruits) and cultivated (6 taxa and 1,029 ID seeds/fruits) plants. The weeds and ruderals group (8 taxa and 975 ID seeds/fruits) is also close. Plant spectra more or less common in the Slovenian Eneolithic pile-dwelling sites were found in both trenches (Tolar et al. 2011; Tolar 2018). As in the moss samples, the judgement samples from the broken vessels indicate we are dealing with the common sediment deposits from the time of the settlement and not with a rare find such as the remains of prepared food in the vessels; further biochemical analyses (see Tab. 4) will confirm or reject this conclusion. As in the moss samples, the vessel samples are missing one cultivated taxon (Pisum sativum) and some gath- ered plants (Tolar et al. 2011). The importance of legumes (i.e. Pisum) and possibly additional wheat taxa (i.e. new glume wheat and tetraploid naked wheat), which were occasionally found at Neolithic sites in the western Mediterranean and northern Italy (see e.g. Antolin et al. 2021), but not yet in Slovenia, will be reconsidered and better demonstrated in future archaeobotanical studies on larger-volumed, systematically collected sedi- ment samples from Stare gmajne. The gathered plants include one taxon identified in the vessel samples (namely wild grapevine, Vitis vinifera ssp. sylvestris) that is absent in the moss samples. There are minor differences in plant diversity and number of seeds/fruits identified in vessels between Trench 4 (2,958 seeds/fruits; 40 plant taxa) and Trench 5 (2,096 seeds/fruits; 50 plant taxa). In both trenches, the remains of 6 cultivars and 12 gathered fruits/nuts/needles were identified (see Tab. 8 and 9). In Trench 4, the gathered plant group (12 taxa) slightly outnumbers the lakeshore/ water plant group (11 taxa), while in Trench 5, the lakeshore/water plant group (15 taxa) outnumbers the gathered plant group (12 taxa). The differences in identified plant taxa are minor, especially when considering nutritional plant taxa, whereas there are clear differences between the trenches in the concentrations of seeds/fruits (Tab. 13): 5,737 crop plant seeds/fruits per litre of sediment sample were identified in Trench 4 versus 1,592 in Trench 5, 4,279 seeds/fruits of gathered plants in Trench 4 versus 781 in Trench 5, 5,237 weed/ ruderal seeds/fruits in Trench 4 versus 1,754 in Trench 5, 5,628 seeds/fruits of lakeshore/water plants in Trench 5 compared to 2,049 in Trench 4, 77 seeds/fruits of non-edible trees/shurbs in 426 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA Trench 5 compared to 31 in Trench 4, 577 seeds/ fruits of grassland plants in Trench 5 compared to 19 in Trench 4 (see Tab. 13). It is quite clear that the macroremains of cul- tivated, gathered and weed/ruderal plant groups are significantly more numerous in Trench 4 compared to Trench 5. Conversely, the numbers of remains from the ecological (environmental, i.e. lakeshore/water, trees/shurbs and grassland) plant groups are higher in Trench 5. This corroborates the observation in Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar13 regarding “not documenting a cultural layer in Trench 5”. There are indications of anthropogenic influence (i.e. crops and weeds remains) in Trench 5, but considerably fewer compared with Trench 4; this is logical given that the two trenches are only two meters apart from each other (see Fig. 2) and anthropogenic remains do not end abruptly, but rather gradually decrease in number. They show that we were likely excavating at the edge of the settlement. Further analyses of the systematically taken sediment samples will certainly provide additional evidence. The vessel content samples from Trench 4 were mainly taken from SU 004, only one from SU 007, which had the least botanical macroremains of both nutritional and environmental plant groups (Tab. 7, 8); the same is true of the moss samples. SU 007 lies under SU 004, suggesting the former is not a cultural layer (or just the beginning of it), though some anthropogenic influences travelled down the wet and clayey soils of the Ljubljansko barje. Two samples of vessel contents in Trench 5 were taken from SU 003 and two from SU 005; no characteristic differences in plant diversity were found between them (Tab. 9). The contribution of Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar14 correlates SU 005 in Trench 5 with SU 007 in Trench 4. Let us take a look at the archaeobotanical evidence for this correlation. The average concentration of ID seeds/fruits in SU 007 of Trench 4 is 1,094, while it is 1,883 in SU 005 of Trench 5. SU 007 (Trench 4) revealed slightly more remains of cultivated plants and weeds/ruderals, but fewer remains of gathered plants and significantly fewer remains of the environmental plant groups (lakeshore/water plants, grassland plants and non-nutritional trees/ shrubs) compared to SU 005 (Trench 5). The same was observed for the moss samples from Trench 13 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 23 (unpublished report). 14 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 23 (unpublished report). 4 (SU 004 vs. SU 007; Tab. 6) and when compar- ing the concentrations of seeds/fruits of different plant groups in the vessel contents from Trench 4 and Trench 5 (Tab. 13). This is evidence of dif- ferent environmental conditions (or water levels) in the different SUs and trenches. It suggests the existence of a lake or slow flowing river in close proximity to Trench 5, SU 005. These and other similar questions, such as whether the equation of SU 005 in Trench 5 and SU 007 in Trench 4 is correct, will certainly be the subject of discus- sion in further archaeobotanical, palynological, geological and archaeological studies. One of the probable explanations is that we are dealing with an area that was either not settled or lay at the edge of the settlement (i.e. Trench 5 and SU 007 in Trench 4), where the water level changes were quite frequent. In general, Trench 5 contained more remains of a diverse coastal vegetation with water- tolerant, moisture-loving trees and shrubs (such as Salix, Betula, etc.) and grassland plants (such as Ranunculus, Rumex, etc.), as well as lakeshore/ water plants compared with Trench 4 (see Tab. 13). The abundance of edible plant taxa stands out in both moss and vessel samples, especially in SU 004 of Trench 4. Most evident is the abundance of Papaver, Fragaria, Rubus, Malus/Pyrus, Chenopo- dium seeds/fruits and of Abies needles. While the first five, including the Chenopodium weed (e.g. Schlichterle 1981; Brombacher 1997), are important gathered and/or possibly cultivated plants, the evergreen fir (Abies) twigs are important winter fodder and bedding for livestock (e.g., Jacomet, Leuzinger, and Schibler 2004, 400). In permanent settlements, the gathered wild plants play an im- portant role, especially those that can be dried or otherwise stored for winter and/or collected in winter/spring, for example charred apple halves, fir needles, eagle fern (Pteridium) leaves and others. Opium poppy (Papaver) was an integral part of the Neolithic diet as well, although it is not clear whether it was the cultivated or wild form (Tolar et al. 2011; Antolin et al. 2021). Further study of systematically collected archaeobotanical samples is needed to calibrate the role of wild plants in the diet of the Stare gmajne pile-dwellers. This contribution only offers a preliminary insight, albeit through small-volume judgement samples. We have found most of the cultivated and gathered plant macroremains common for the Eneolithic pile-dwelling sites in the Ljubljansko barje with the exception of Pisum sativum, Prunus spinosa, Rosa sp. and Sambucus sp. (see Tab. 1). 427Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... An important result of this study is also the alarming condition of the remains surviving in the soils of the Ljubljansko barje, the pile-dwelling sites of which were included in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2011. The plant macroremains and dog/human/pig coprolites from the 2021 excavation at Stare gmajne are significantly less well preserved than those from the 2007 excavations (see Fig. 8 and 19; Tolar et al. 2011, Fig. 6; Tolar et al. 2021, Fig. 2b; Velušček, Leghissa, Tolar 2021). In addition to seeds/fruits, some charcoal fragments were also trapped in the mosses and sediments in and around vessel fragments. As charcoal analysis was not the focus of the study, only 41 largest pieces of charcoal were analysed to offer a rough picture of whether they represented deliberately (1–2 taxa) or randomly selected tree taxa. Charcoal was mainly found in the samples from Trench 4 (29 ID specimens) and only pointed to deciduous tree taxa (mainly diffuse porous wood). Corylus avellana is the most common species, identified with 39% (representing 16 of the 41 analysed charcoal pieces). The second most frequently identified wood is from the rose family (Rosaceae) with 7 specimens, representing 17%. Fraxinus sp. and Alnus sp. were identified in 5 specimens (12% each). All other taxa (Sorbus sp., Quercus sp., Fagus sylvatica, Acer sp., cf. Carpinus betulus) were identified in single specimens (2.5% each). The charcoal spectrum is similar to that from Hočevarica, a neighbouring pile-dwelling site from the 4th millennium (ca. 3600) BC (see above; Fig. 1). In Hočevarica, Corylus and Alnus predominate with 25% each. The remaining 50% are represented by Fraxinus, Fagus, Quercus, Acer, Sorbus, Pyrus/ Malus, Prunus, Populus, Betula, Crataegus and other, mostly shrub species (Jeraj 2004, 60). Unlike the charcoal remains from Stare gmajne, Hočevarica also revealed coniferous wood (Abies, Juniperus, Taxus and Pinus), albeit in a smaller share (Jeraj 2004, 60). The large number of firewood species at Hočevarica is most likely the result of larger, systematically collected sediment samples as well as a larger excavation area: 580 charcoal fragments (Jeraj 2004, 60) identified at Hočevarica compared to 41 pieces at Stare gmajne. The charcoal analysis for the pile-dwelling site at Črešnja pri Bistri (36th century BC) identified 155 fragments (Velušček at el. 2004, 45) of a broader wood spectrum (13 taxa, compared to 10 taxa in Stare gmajne 2021); Alnus and Corylus predominate, Fraxinus and Quercus are also common, while the shares of the other 9 shrub taxa are much lower at Črešnja pri Bistri. Charcoal from conifers was found neither at Črešnja nor at Stare gmajne 2021. Although the number of charcoal samples analysed at Stare gmajne 2021 is low, it shows together with the results for Hočevarica and Črešnja pri Bistri that the inhabitants of the Ljubljansko barje practiced non-specific collection of firewood. Hazel, alder and species from the Rose family are present with a higher percentage, in contrast to larger tree species like fir, beech and maple, which were obviously not the first choice for fire-making. We can conc- lude that selection was governed by accessibility of smaller growing trees and bushes rather than by the type of wood (that burns longer or gives more heat, e.g. beech, oak or hornbeam). Oak and ash may occur among the charcoal remains also as the remnant of wood used in pile cons- tructions. Further wood anatomical analysis of the charcoal surviving in the larger systemati- cally collected archaeobotanical samples (not yet studied) is necessary for a more representative discussion on fire management at Stare gmajne. It has already been shown that the wood for artefacts (equipment and tools) was specifically and carefully selected (e.g. Tolar, Zupančič 2009; Velušček, Čufar, Zupančič 2009; Tolar, Velušček, Čufar 2012; see below), and was very likely not the same species as used for firewood. Apparently, taxa (especially shrub species) of poorer wood properties, but more easily accessible were used for fire making (also Velušček et al. 2004, 44). The wooden artefacts unearthed during the excavation in 2021 include a bow (small, measur- ing 37 cm in length; see Fig. 18a) made of yew (Taxus baccata), a common and very likely highly suitable wood species for the purpose (Velušček, Čufar 2001; Tolar, Zupančič 2009, 241). Another two bows had come to light at Ljubljansko barje pile dwellings, both of yew wood (Velušček 2004c, 41–44; Velušček 2009b, 72; Tolar, Zupančič 2009, 241–242). The bow from Hočevarica (122.3 cm long) is believed to have been used by adolescents, while another one from Stare gmajne is shorter (64.4 cm) and has been ascribed to children. Even though the latter is short and probably intended for very young children to play with, it is still made of the best wood material. The three rings of unknown use were most likely all made of Corylus wood, which was useful as firewood (see above), but is also flexible and easily split, thus suitable for wickerwork such as baskets and wattle-and-daub. It is possible that the high percentage of hazel in the charcoal assemblage is 428 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA also due to common and varied use of hazel wood including fire making. The archaeobotanical remains recovered from the Stare gmajne judgement samples provide information on the dietary habits and gathering economy (e.g. moss and firewood), but also on the environmental conditions at and around the site. As common for cultural layers, the remains of weeds/ruderals are the most numerous among the non-nutritional plant taxa (Fig. 10, 13). Plants from this group are usually multiseeded and thrive in places where people are active, which explains why their seeds are so numerous in the cultural layer. In second place in terms of the number of identified seeds/fruits, but in first place regard- ing their diversity (16 ID plant taxa; Fig. 14, 15, 16) is the group of lakeshore/water plants, which confirms the settlement was located near a slow- flowing river or most likely shallow lake (Velušček, Čufar, Zupančič 2009; Tolar 2018; Velušček et al. 2018; Tolar et al. 2011). These two nutritionally less important plant groups (excluded Chenopodium), identified from the moss and vessel samples, pre- dominate alongside the few remains of grassland plants (e.g. Hypericum perforatum, Ranunculus acris, Rumex sp.) and non-edible trees/shrubs (such as Acer, Betula, Alnus, Salix), and indicate the main environmental conditions at the site during the habitation period. The charcoal assemblages confirm a mixed deciduous forest and forest edges, similar to today, which was easily accessible. Nu- merous records of Corylus, Rosaceae fam., Alnus and Fraxinus charcoal indicate an open and moist landscape at the edge of the lake and on the other side at the forest edge. CONCLUSION The judgement sampled archaeobotanical material presented in this study comes from two types of contexts: moss remains and vessel contents taken from the cultural layer excavated at the Stare gmajne pile-dwelling site in 2021 (Trenches 4 and 5). The wooden artefacts from the same cultural layer are presented as well. Three types of archaeobotanical remains were analysed: 1 – waterlogged remains of moss and seeds/fruits, 2 – waterlogged wood and 3 – charcoal remains. Collecting moss from the forest was again proved to be an important task of the Eneolithic pile-dwellers. The remains of nutritional plant taxa (cultivated and gathered) and weeds/ruderals confirm the economy of the Eneolithic Stare gmajne pile-dwellers. The identified cultivated plants comprise Triticum monococcum, T. dicoccum, Horedum vulgare, Papaver somniferum, Linum usitatissimum and Brassica rapa. The identified gathered plants show a great importance of Fragaria, Rubus, Malus/ Pyrus, Physalis, Quercus, Corylus and Abies. The role of wild plants in the diet, the importance of legumes (e.g. Pisum sativum) and possibly additional wheat taxa (e.g. new glume wheat and tetraploid naked wheat) occasionally found at other European Neolithic sites can better be assessed when examining larger, systematically collected archaeobotanical samples. Further study is therefore needed to better substantiate or confirm the list of food taxa established in the small-volume judgement samples. The most common firewood identified in this study was Corylus, Rosaceae, Alnus and Fraxinus. More easily accessible taxa were apparently used for fire making. The wooden artefacts included a bow made from Taxus and rings from Corylus wood. The distribution and diversity of macroremains of non-nutritional (i.e. environmental) plant taxa differ to some extent between the two excavated trenches and their stratigraphic units. The differ- ence pertains not to the spectra of cultivated and gathered plants (6 cultivars and 12 gathered plant taxa found in both), but to the diversity of other plant group taxa, i.e. the lakeshore/water, grassland and non-edible tree/shrub (50; 32 non-nutritional in Trench 5 versus 40; 22 non-nutritional in Trench 4). The current results raise many questions for further archaeobotanical study of the systemati- cally collected sediment samples and stratigraphic columns, such as what happened within a distance of just a few metres and when (e.g. change in water level, food preparation in specific places, edge of the settlement). Can plant macroremains show evidences of changes in water level or clues as to where (e.g. near the shore or not) dwellings were constructed? The samples (systematically and stratigraphically taken) from Trench 5 are parti- cularly promising, as the current results indicate more natural vegetation and less human influence. In addition to plant macroremains, analyses of pollen, palaeoparasites and biochemical analyses, as well as analyses of fish remains will be conducted on the judgement samples (e.g. food remains from vessels) and dog coprolites excavated at Stare gmajne in 2021. The study also discloses the extremely poor state of preservation of the cultural remains at 429Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... Stare gmajne and alerts to the danger of destroy- ing the World Heritage sites that have survived well preserved for more than 5,000 years in the water-saturated deposits of the Ljubljansko barje. Continuous drying and climate warming are visibly destroying the invaluable plant history at all the pile-dwelling sites in Slovenia. There is an urgent need for a rescue programme. Acknowledgments Dolores Matika from the University of Zadar was fi- nancially supported as part of the Erasmus+ programme (project 2020-1-HR01-KA103-077099). Many thanks to Dr Anton Velušček, head of the 2021 excavation at Stare gmajne, and to Dr Elena Leghissa, Dr Primož Pavlin, Dr Matija Turk, Dr Borut Toškan, Dr Nina Caf, Lucija Lavrenčič, Tilen Podobnik, Dragutin Valoh and Tamara Korošec, all ZRC SAZU, who participated in the excavation. Dragutin Valoh and Elena Leghissa prepared the illustrations and photographs. Special thanks to Elena Leghissa for the archaeological data and the discussions necessary for the archaeobotanical interpretation. ANDERBERG, A.-L. 1994, Atlas of Seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species (Sweden, Norway, Den- mark, East Fennoscandia, and Iceland) with morphological descriptions 4. Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. – Uddevalla. ANDRIČ, M., T. TOLAR, B. TOŠKAN 2016, Okoljs- ka arheologija in paleoekologija: palinologija, arheo- botanika in arheozoologija. – Ljubljana. https://doi. org/10.3986/9789610503484 ANDRIČ et al. 2017 = M. Andrič, T. Verbič, J. Lomax, T. Tolar 2017, Človekov vpliv na okolje v prazgodovini: primer z obrežja Ljubljanice pri Špici (Ljubljana) / Embankment of the Ljubljanica River at Špica (Lju- bljana) and human impact on the environment in late prehistory. – Arheološki vestnik 68, 479–498. ANTOLIN et al. 2021 = F. Antolin, L. Bouby, L. Martin, M. Rottoli, A. Jesus 2021, Archaeobotanical Evidence of Plant Food Consumption among Early Farmers (5700–4500 BC) in the Western Mediterranean Re- gion. – Food & History 19/1-2, 235–253. https://doi. org/10.1484/J.FOOD.5.126406 BERGGREN, G. 1981, Atlas of Seeds and small fruits of Northwest-European plant species (Sweden, Norway, Den- mark, East Fennoscandia and Iceland) with morphological descriptions 3. Saliacaceae – Cruciferae. − Stockholm. BINZ, A., C. HEITZ 1990, Schul- und Exkursionsflore für die Schweiz, mit Berücksichtigung angrenzender Gebiete. − Basel. BREGANT, T. 1974a, Kolišče ob Maharskem prekopu pri Igu – raziskovanja leta 1970 (Der Pfahlbau am Maharski-Kanal bei Ig – Untersuchungen aus dem Jahre 1970). − Poročilo o raziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 3, 7–36. BREGANT, T. 1974b, Kolišče ob Maharskem prekopu pri Igu – raziskovanja leta 1972 (Der Pfahlbau am Maharski-Kanal bei Ig – Untersuchungen aus dem Jahre 1972). − Poročilo o raziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 3, 39–68. BREGANT, T. 1975, Kolišče ob Maharskem prekopu pri Igu – raziskovanja 1973. in 1974. leta (Der Pfahlbau am Maharski-Kanal – Forschungen aus dem Jahren 1973 und 1974). − Poročilo o raziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 4, 7–114. BREGANT, T. 1976, Prispevek biološko-tehničnih disciplin k proučevanju kulture Ljubljanskega barja. – Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 13, 85–96. BREGANT, T. 1996, Starejša, srednja in mlajša kamena doba ter bakrena doba / Early, Middle and Late Stone Ages, Copper Age. – In: B. Dirjec, N. Pirnat-Spahič, L. Plesničar-Gec, J. Rebolj, I. Sivec (eds.), Pozdravljeni prednamci! Ljubljana od prazgodovine do srednjega veka / Ancestral ecounters. Ljubljana from prehistory to the Middle Ages, 18–45. – Ljubljana. BROMBACHER, C. 1997, Archaeobotanical investigations of Late Neolithic lakeshore settlements (Lake Biel, Switzerland). – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 6, 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01372569 CAMPBELL, G., L. MOFFETT, V. STRAKER 2011, En- vironmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods from sampling and recovery to post-excavation. –Swindon. CAPPERS, R., R. M. BEKKER, J. E. A. JANS 2006, Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland (Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands). − Groningen Archaeological Studies 4. CULIBERG, M. 1984, Karpološke in ksilotomske raziskave kolišča na Partih, izkopavanja 1981 (Karpologische und Xylotomische Forschungen im Pfahlbau auf Parti – Aus- grabungen 1981). – Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 12, 91–100. CULIBERG, M. 1999, Palaeobotany in Slovene Archaeology / Paleobotanika v slovenski arheologiji. – Arheološki vestnik 50, 323−331. CULIBERG, M., A. ŠERCELJ 1980, Pelodne, ksilotomske in karpološke analize s kolišča na Partih, izkopavanja 1979 (Palynologische, Xsylotome und Karpologische Analysen aus dem Pfahlbau uaf Parti – Ausgrabungen 1979). – Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji VIII, 89–94. CULIBERG, M., A. ŠERCELJ 1991, Razlike v rezultatih mak- roskopskih rastlinskih ostankov s kolišč na Ljubljanskem barju in pelodnih analiz – dokaz človekovega vpliva na gozd (Die Unterschiede zwischen den Resultaten der Untersuchungen der makroskopischen Reste aus den Pfahlbauten und den Pollenanalysen – ein Beweis für den Einfluss des Menschen). – Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji XIX, 249–256. 430 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA ČUFAR, K. 2006, Anatomija lesa. – Ljubljana. https:// repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?id=136023&lang=slv ČUFAR et al. 2009 = K. Čufar, A. Velušček, T. Tolar, B. Komer 2009, Dendrokronološke raziskave na koliščarskih naselbinah Stare gmajne in Blatna Brezovica / Dendro- chronological research at the Pile-Dwelling settlements Stare gmajne and Blatna Brezovica. – In: A. Velušček (ed.), 2009a, 117–197. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545611 ČUFAR et al. 2010 = K. Čufar, B. Kromer, T. Tolar, A. Velušček 2010, Dating of 4th millennium BC pile dwellings on Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia. – Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2031–2039. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.008 ČUFAR et al. 2015 = K. Čufar, W. Tegel, M. Merela, B. Kromer, A. Velušček 2015, Eneolithic pile dwellings south of the Alps precisely dated with tree-ring chronologies from the north. − Dendrochronologia 35, 91−98. DESCHMANN, K. 1876, Bericht über die Pfahlbaute- naufdeckungen im Laibacher Moore im Jahre 1876. – Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 84, 471–484. GALE, R., D. CUTLER 2000, Plants in Archaeology. Identi- fication manual of artefacts of plant origin from Europa and the Mediterranean. – Kew. HOSCH, S., P. ZIBULSKI 2003, The influence of incon- sistent wet-sieving procedures on the macroremains concentration in waterlogged sediments. – Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 849–857. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0305-4403(02)00263-7 JACOMET, S. 2006a, Bestimmung von Getreidefunden aus archäologischen Ausgrabungen. https://ipna.duw.unibas. ch/fileadmin/user_upload/ipna_duw/PDF_s/AB_PDF/ Getreidebestimmung_D.pdf JACOMET, S. 2006b, Plant economy of the northern Alpine lake dwelling area – 3500–2400 cal. BC.– Environmental Archaeology 11/1, 65–85. https://doi. org/10.1179/174963106x97061 JACOMET, S. 2009, Plant economies and village life in Neolithic lake dwellings at the time of the Alpine Ice- man. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-007-0138-2 JACOMET, S., A. KREUZ 1999, Archäobotanik. – Stuttgart. JACOMET, S., U. LEUZINGER, J. SCHIBLER 2004, Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon. Bleiche 3. Umwelt und Wirtschaft. − Archäologie im Thurgau 12. JERAJ, M. 2002, Archaeobotanical evidence for early ag- riculture at Ljubljansko barje (Ljubljana Moor), central Slovenia. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11, 277−288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003340200040 JERAJ, M. 2004, Paleobotanične raziskave na kolišču Hočevarica / Paleobotanical analyses of the Hočevarica pille dwelling. – In: A. Velušček (ed.), 2004b, 56−64. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545055 JERAJ, M., A. VELUŠČEK, S. JACOMET 2008, The diet of Eneolithic (Copper Age, Fourth millennium cal B.C.) pile dwellers and the early formation of the cultural landscape south of the Alps: a case study from Slovenia. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18/1, 75−89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-008-0144-z JESSE, S. 1954, Poročilo o sondiranju v okolici Iga pri Ljubljani (Rapport sur les sondages faits à Ig près Lju- bljana). – Arheološki vestnik 5, 95−111. JESSE, S. 1975, Borovnica. – In: Arheološka najdišča Slo- venije, 175. JONES, M. 1991, Sampling in Palaeoethnobotany. –In: W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, K.-E. Behre (eds.), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. A retrospective view on the occasion of 20 years of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, 53−63. – Rotterdam. KORENČIČ TOLAR, T., J. JAKŠE, Z. KOROŠEC-KORUZA 2008, The oldest macroremains of Vitis from Slovenia. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-008-0192-4. MARTINČIČ et al. 1999 = A. Martinčič, T. Wraber, N. Jogan, V. Ravnik, A. Podobnik, B. Turk, B. Vreš 1999, Mala flora Slovenije. Ključ za določanje praprotnic in semenk. – Ljubljana. MLEKUŽ, D., M. BUDJA, N. OGRINC 2006, Complex settlement and the landscape dynamic of the Iščica floodplain (Ljubljana Marshes, Slovenia). – Documenta Praehistorica 33, 253–271. MLEKUŽ et al. 2012 = D. Mlekuž, A. Žibrat Gašparič, M. Horvat, M. Budja 2012, Houses, pots and food: the pottery from Maharski prekop in context. – Documenta Praehistorica 39, 325–338. RICHTER, H. G., M. J. DALLWITZ 2000, Commercial timbers: descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. https://www.delta-intkey.com/ wood/index.htm SCHWEINGRUBER, F. H. 1990, Mikroskopische Holzana- tomie. – Birmensdorf. SCHLICHTHERLE, H. 1981, Cruciferen als nutzpflanzen in neolithischen ufersiedlungen Sudwestdeutschlands und der Schweiz. – Zeitschrift für Archaologie 15, 113–124. ŠERCELJ, A. 1975, Analize makroskopskih in mikro- skopskih rastlinskih ostankov s kolišča ob Maharskem prekopu, izkopavanja leta 1973 in 1974 (Die Analysen der Pflanzlichen Makro- und Mikroreste vom Pfahlbau Maharski-kanal, Grabung 1973 und 1974.) – Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji IV, 115–123. ŠERCELJ, A. 1981–82, Pomen botaničnih raziskav na koliščih Ljubljanskega barja. – Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji IX–X, 101–106. ŠERCELJ, A., M. CULIBERG 1980, Paleobotanične razi- skave kolišča na Partih. Izkopavanja 1978. – Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji VIII, 83–87. TOLAR, T. 2018, Primerjava različnih metod vzorčenja in priprave arheobotaničnih vzorcev z eneolitskih kolišč Strojanova voda in Maharski prekop na Ljubljanskem barju / Comparison of different sampling and treatment methods in order to reconstruct plant economies at the Eneolithic pile-dwellings of Strojanova voda and Maharski prekop at Ljubljansko barje. – Arheološki vestnik 69, 461–498. https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/av/article/ view/7758/7268 TOLAR, T., A. VELUŠČEK 2009, Discovery of flax (Linum usitatissimum) at Ljubljansko barje, Slovenia. – Histria Antiqua 18, 187–194. 431Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... TOLAR, T., M. ZUPANČIČ 2009, Novoodkrite lesene najdbe s Starih gmajn pri Verdu / Newly discovered wooden finds from Stare gmajne at the Ljubljansko barje. – In: A. Velušček (ed.), 2009a, 235–245. https:// doi.org/10.3986/9789612545611 TOLAR, T., A. GALIK 2019, A Study of Dog Coprolite from Late Neolithic Pile-Dwelling Site in Slovenija. – Archaeological Discovery 7, 20–29. https://www.scirp. org/pdf/AD_2019011416233715.pdf TOLAR, T., A. VELUŠČEK, K. ČUFAR 2012, Arheobotanične raziskave na kolišču Stare gmajne, datiranem na osnovi raziskav lesa. – Les/Wood 64/5, 106–115. TOLAR, T., S. JACOMET, A. VELUŠČEK 2016, Cereal chaff used as temper in loom-weights: new evidence from a Slovenian Eneolithic pile-dwelling site (ca. 3100 cal BC). – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 25, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-015-0549-4 TOLAR, T., I. VOVK, U. JUG 2021, The use of Cornus sanguinea L. (dogwood) fruits in the Late Neolithic. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 30/3, 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00788-w TOLAR, T., N. CAF, M. LE BAILLY 2023, The dog or its master? Interdisciplinary study on coprolite from the Pile-Dwelling Site Stare Gmajne. − V: V. Koprivnik, D. Salecl (ed.), Srečanja tisočletij. Zbornik mednarodnega simpozija 19.−21. 10. 2023 / The convergence of mil- lennia. The collected volume of the symposium 19.−21. 10. 2023, Museoeurope 8, 78−91. https://museum-mb. si/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/MuseoEurope_2023.pdf TOLAR et al. 2010 = T. Tolar, S. Jacomet, A. Velušček, K. Čufar 2010, Recovery techniques for waterlogged archaeological sediments: a comparison of different treatment methods for samples from Neolithic lake shore settlements. − Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 19, 53−67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-009-0221-y TOLAR et al. 2011 = T. Tolar, S. Jacomet, A. Velušček, K. Čufar 2011, Plant economy at the late Neolithic lake dwelling site in Slovenia at the time of the Alpine Iceman. – Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-010-0280-0 TOLAR et al. 2021 = T. Tolar, A. Galik, M. Le Bailly, B. Dufour, N. Caf, B. Toškan, E. Bužan, L. Zver, F. Janžekovič, A. Velušček 2021b, Multi-proxy analysis of waterlogged preserved Late Neolithic canine excrements. – Vegeta- tion History and Archaeobotany 30, 107–118. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00805-y TORELLI, N. 1991, Makroskopska in mikroskopska iden- tifikacija lesa (ključi). Ljubljana. VAN DER VEEN, M. 1987, The plant remains. − In: D. H. Heslop (ed.), The excavation of an Iron Age settlement at Thorpe Thewles, CBA Research Reports 65, 93−99. VAN DER VEEN, M., N. FIELLER 1982, Sampling seeds. – Journal of Archaeological Science 9, 287−298. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(82)90024-3 VELUŠČEK, A. 1997, Metodologija naselbinskih raziskovanj na barjanskih tleh, 1. del. – Unpublished Master‘s thesis / Neobjavljeno magistrsko delo, Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. VELUŠČEK, A. 2004a, Past and present lake-dwelling studies in Slovenia, Ljubljansko barje (the Ljubljana Marsh). – In: F. Menotti (ed.), Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe, 150 years of lake dwelling research, 69–82. – London. VELUŠČEK, A. (ed.) 2004b, Hočevarica. Eneolitsko kolišče na Ljubljanskem barju / Hočevarica. An Eneolithic pile dwelling in the Ljubljansko barje. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 8. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545055 VELUŠČEK, A. 2004c, Terenske raziskave, stratigrafija in najdbe / Field research, stratigraphy and the material finds. – In: A. Velušček (ed.), 2004b, 33–55. https://doi. org/10.3986/9789612545055 VELUŠČEK, A. (ed.) 2009a, Koliščarska naselbina Stare gmajne in njen čas. Ljubljansko barje v 2. polovici 4. tisočletja pr. Kr. / Stare Gmajne pile-dwelling settlement and its era. The Ljubljansko barje in the 2nd half of the 4th millennium BC, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 16. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545611 VELUŠČEK, A. 2009b, Koliščarska naselbina Stare gmajne pri Verdu / Stare gmajne pile-dwelling settlement near Verd. – In: A. Velušček (ed.), 2009a, 49−121. https:// doi.org/10.3986/9789612545611 VELUŠČEK, A. 2014, Absolutna kronologija slovenskega neo- in eneolitika − prispevek za razpravo / Absolute chronology of the Slovenian Neo- and Eneolithic − contribution to discussion. ‒ In: B. Teržan, M. Črešnar (eds.), Absolutno datiranje bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem / Absolute dating of Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia. ‒ Katalogi in monografije 40, 629-644. VELUŠČEK, A., K. ČUFAR 2001, 5600 let star lok z Ljubl- janskega barja. – Gea, 11/1, 48−49. VELUŠČEK, A., K. ČUFAR 2008, Novoopredeljeni najdišči keramike z brazdastim vrezom na Ljubljanskem barju / Newly determined sites with pottery with furrowed incisions from the Ljubljansko barje. – Arheološki vestnik 59, 31–48. VELUŠČEK A., K. ČUFAR, M. ZUPANČIČ 2009, Prazgo- dovinsko leseno kolo z osjo s kolišča Stare gmajne na Ljubljanskem barju / Prehistoric wooden wheel with an axle from the pile-dwelling Stare gmajne at the Ljubl- jansko barje. – In: A. Velušček (ed.), 2009a, 197–222. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545611 VELUŠČEK, A., E. LEGHISSA, T. TOLAR 2021, Stare gmajne pri Verdu. Arheološko najdišče presežkov (Stare gmajne near Verd – An archaeological site of superla- tives). – Palafittes. Pfahlbauten. Palafitte. Kolišča. Pile Dwellings. News 21, 100−105. VELUŠČEK et al. 2004 = A. Velušček, K. Čufar, M. Culi- berg, B. Toškan, J. Dirjec, V. Malez, F. Janžekovič, M. Govedič 2004, Črešnja pri Bistri, novoodkrito kolišče na Ljubljanskem barju (Črešnja pri Bistri. A newly discovered pile-dwelling settlement in the Ljubljansko barje). – Arheološki vestnik 55, 39–54. VELUŠČEK et al. 2018 = A. Velušček, B. Podpečan, T. Tolar, B. Toškan, J. Turk, M. Merela, K. Čufar 2018, Črnelnik in Devce, novoodkriti najdišči iz bakrene dobe na Ljubljanskem barju / Črnelnik and Devce, Newly discovered Copper Age sites at Ljubljansko barje. – Arheološki vestnik 69, 9–68. ZOHARY, D., M. HOPF 2000, Domestication of plants in the Old World. – Oxford.w 432 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA Arheobotanična analiza po presoji odvzetih vzorcev z eneolitskega kolišča Stare gmajne: mah, polnila posod in leseni artefakti Povzetek V uvodnem delu je na kratko predstavljeno stanje arheobotaničnih raziskav na barjanskih koliščih iz 4. tisočletja pr. n. št. (sl. 1; tab. 1). Pregled zgo- dovine raziskav se zaključi z eneolitskim koliščem Stare gmajne, ki je tudi predmet tega prispevka. Kolišče naj bi bilo poseljeno dvakrat, prvič v 34. stoletju in drugič v 32. stoletju pr. n. št., z vmesno približno 170-letno prekinitvijo (Čufar et al. 2009; 2010; 2015). Kolišče je bilo odkrito leta 1992, raziskave so se izvajale v letih 2002, 2004, 2006 in 2007 (Velušček 2009a), tokrat pa predstavljamo rezultate iz leta 2021.1 Leta 2007 je bila izkopana in raziskana sonda 3 (Velušček 2009a, 54–55), iz katere so bili prvič v zgodovini slovenske arheobotanike posebej odvzeti vzorci sedimenta za arheobotanične raziskave in obdelani v laboratoriju (Tolar et al. 2010; 2011). V tej sondi so bili odkriti in prepoznani tudi dokaj številni in zelo dobro ohranjeni domnevno pasji koproliti (tj. fosilizirani iztrebki). Prve raziskave teh so bile izvedene šele v letih 2019−2021 (Tolar et al. 2021). Velik raziskovalni potencial koprolitov tako na kolišču Črnelnik (Velušček et al. 2018; To- lar, Galik 2019) kot tudi na Starih gmajnah (Tolar et al. 2021) je botroval k novim raziskavam v letih 2021−2023. V začetku poletja leta 2021 sta bili v neposredni bližini sonde 3 iz leta 2007 izkopani novi sondi (sondi 4 in 5) (sl. 2). Med sondiranjem so bile izvedene tudi arheobiološke raziskave in sistematično iskanje koprolitov (npr. sl. 8; glej tudi tab. 2). Po izkopavanjih je bilo ugotovljeno, da obe novi sondi zajemata le starejšo fazo poselitve.2 Po trenutni interpretaciji je kulturna plast ohranjena samo v sondi 4, medtem ko so bili v sondi 5 odkriti zgolj posamični artefakti, ki naj bi se tja infiltrirali ali sekundarno deponirali.3 Za arheobotaniko so bili sistematično odvzeti površinski vzorci sedimenta iz posameznih poglobi- 1 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar, Arheološke raziskave na najdišču Stare gmajne – prazgodovinsko kolišče. Prvo strokovno poročilo o raziskavi 21-0293, 2022 (neobjavljeno poročilo; hranita ZVKDS OE Ljubljana in ZRC SAZU). 2 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022 (neobjavljeno poročilo). 3 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 23 (neobjavljeno poročilo). tev znotraj različnih SE (npr. sl. 3−4), več profilnih stolpcev iz obeh sond, pet stratigrafskih stebričkov sedimenta iz sredine obeh sond (npr. sl. 5) in v tem prispevku predstavljeni arheobotanični vzorci, odvzeti z vzorčenjem po presoji (tab. 2−3; tab. ESM4 1−2). Gre za tri kontekste vzorcev: prepleti mahov (npr. sl. 9−11; tab. 5−6; tab. ESM 1), polnila posod (npr. sl. 12−16; tab. 7−9; tab. ESM 2) in leseni artefakti (sl. 18). Vsi vzorci so bili obdelani v arheobotaničnem laboratoriju po ustaljenih metodah dela (npr. Tolar et al. 2010). Vrstno determinirani so bili vsi rastlinski makroostanki, večji od 0,355 mm (semena, plodovi, iglice, mahovi, les), iz skupno 17 po presoji odvzetih vzorcev: 5 prepletov mahov, 8 polnil posod, 3 leseni obročki in 1 lok (tab. 2−3). Poleg lesnoanatomskih analiz na artefaktih oz. izdelkih (sl. 18; tab. 2−3) so bili naključno odbrani in pregledani tudi nekateri odlomki oglja (sl. 6; 17; tab. 10–12). Pri delu so bili poleg stereomikroskopa in svetlobnega mikroskopa uporabljeni lastna referenčna zbirka rastlinskih delov (semen, plodov, lesa in oglja) ter slikovni določevalni ključi, npr. Cappers, Bekker, Jans (2006), Schweingruber (1990) in drugi. Ob koncu izkopavanj in mokrega sejanja vzor- cev sedimenta je bilo skupno najdenih 9 pasjih oz. človeških koprolitov (sl. 8; tab. 2), ti so še v analizi (npr. Tolar, Caf, Le Bailly 2023). Poleg tega so bili med čiščenjem keramike skrbno vzorčeni tudi domnevni ostanki hrane iz sedmih posod (sl. 7; tab. 4) za biokemijske analize, ki so prav tako v teku. Rezultati in zaključki Radiokarbonska datacija ostanka lešnikove lupine, ki je izvirala iz drugega nivoja kulturne plasti SE 4 v sondi 4, je pri kalibraciji 2 σ pokazala razpon 3521–3366 cal BC (95,4 %).5 Odkriti prepleti mahov dokazujejo nabiranje gozdnega mahu dveh vrst, Nec- kera crispa in Anomodon viticulosus. Makroostanki 4 http://av.zrc-sazu.si/AV_75/Tolar_AV_75_2024_Tab_ ESM1.xlsx; http://av.zrc-sazu.si/AV_75/Tolar_AV_75_2024_ Tab_ESM2.xlsx 5 Leghissa, Velušček, Tolar 2022, 6 (neobjavljeno poročilo). 433Arheobotanična analiza po presoji odvzetih vzorcev z eneolitskega kolišča Stare gmajne: mah, polnila posod ... rastlin (semena/plodovi in oglje; tab. ESM 1−2; tab. 10), ujeti v mahovne preplete, in tudi tisti iz vzorcev posod dokazujejo tako uporabo prehranskih kot tudi obstoj okoljskih rastlin na kolišču. Ponovno je bil ugotovljen velik pomen nabiranja divjih sadežev, oreškov in vej, kot so jagoda (Fragaria vesca), robida/malina (Rubus sp.), jabolko/hruška (Maloideae), volčje jabolko (Physalis alkekengi), hrast (Quercus sp.), leska (Corylus avellana) in jelka (Abies alba), ter gojenja dveh vrst pšenice (Triticum monococcum, T. dicoccum), ječmena (Horedum vulgare), maka (Papaver somniferum), lanu (Linum usitatissimum) in ogrščice (Brassica rapa) (tab. 1, 6, 8−9). Ugotovljeni taksoni dokazujejo, da imamo opravka z običajno kulturno plastjo kolišča iz 4. tisočletja pr. n. št. (prim. tab 1), in ne s posebnim arheobotaničnim kontekstom. V vzorcih iz posod smo pričakovali ohranjene ostanke kuhane (npr. kaše) ali skladiščene hrane (npr. pridelki, sadeži/oreški). Iz analize prepletov mahu pa smo si obetali ugotoviti pomen nabiranja mahu. Ta je namreč vsestransko uporaben, denimo za mašenje razpok v bivališčih, tudi drevakih, za celjenje ran, v izolacijske namene, za zavijanje in hrambo hrane, pa tudi v higienske namene, saj dobro vpija vodo. Rezultati te študije dopolnjujejo nabor uporab- nih rastlin in tudi okoljskega rastja na eneolitskih koliščih Ljubljanskega barja. Za ovrednotenje vlog divjih oz. udomačenih rastlin v njihovi prehrani in gospodarstvu bo potrebna študija sistematično zbranih arheobotaničnih vzorcev, ki bodo uporabni tudi pri analizi distribucije in raznolikosti okoljskega rastja, zlasti vodnih in obrežnih rastlin. Opozoriti namreč kaže na pomembne razlike v naboru in številčnosti posameznih taksonov, ugotovljene v okviru predstavljene arheobotanične raziskave. Opazne so tako med obema izkopanima sondama (4 in 5; torej horizontalno) kot tudi med različnimi stratigrafskimi enotami (vertikalno). Vprašanja, kot sta, ali lahko z rastlinskimi makroostanki dokažemo spremembe v nivoju vode in ali lahko ugotovimo, kje (npr. ob obali ali ne) so stala kolišča, bodo zagotovo predmet nadaljnjih arheobotaničnih raziskav tako stratigrafskih in profilnih stolpcev kot tudi sistematično odvzetih vzorcev sedimenta iz obeh sond (4 in 5). Trenutni rezultati, čeprav samo na podlagi po presoji odvzetih vzorcev, kažejo očitne razlike v prisotnosti semen/plodov okoljskega rastja v sondah 4 in 5 (tab. 13). V sondi 5 je bilo determiniranih 10 taksonov okoljskega rastja več kot v sondi 4; tudi koncentracije semen/ plodov okoljskega rastja (tj. obrežnih, vodnih, traviščnih in drugih prehransko nepomembnih vrst, npr. lesno/grmovnih, kot sta jelša in breza) so višje v sondi 5. Po drugi strani pa je v sondi 4 zaznati višje vrednosti (tako v raznolikosti taksonov kot tudi v koncentracijah semen/plodov) gojenih in nabiranih rastlin ter plevelne vegetacije. Ta rezultat kaže, da so se na teh lokacijah (sonda 4 v primer- javi s sondo 5) dogajale različne aktivnosti (npr. v naselbini oz. zunaj nje) ali pa da so se na območju sonde 5 pogosto pojavljale poplave, morda celo odplavljanje kulturne plasti, česar na terenu ni bilo mogoče opaziti. Iskanje odgovorov na ta vprašanja bo nedvomno predmet prihodnjih raziskav, tudi na arheobotaničnih vzorcih, prepojenih z vodo, ki jih hranimo v hladilnici Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU. Nabirani mahovi in koproliti npr. niso bili ugotovljeni v sondi 5 (glej tab. 5, 2), medtem ko je bilo število fragmentiranih posod, katerih vsebino smo arheobotanično pregledali, v obeh sondah enako (glej tab. 7). V sondi 5 je bil odkrit le en izrezljan lesen obroček, v sondi 4 pa dva obročka in manjši lesen lok (glej tab. 2–3; sl. 18). Trenutna analiza oglja – čeprav iz volumensko manjših, tj. po presoji odvzetih vzorcev mahu in vsebin iz posod – kaže na uporabo raznolikih predvsem difuzno poroznih drevesnih in grmov- nih vrst, kot so leska (Corylus avellana), rožnice (Rosaceae), jelša (Alnus glutinosa) in jesena (Fraxi- nus sp.). Poleg naštetih smo identificirali še vsaj 6 lesnih vrst, ki so bile uporabljene za kurjavo (tab. 10–12). Vsi ugotovljeni taksoni so najverjetneje rasli v bližini kolišč na vlažnih in poplavnih tleh ter na obrobju gozda. Raznolik nabor lesnih vrst ter tudi ugotovljene prehranske rastline potrjujejo dosedanje raziskave oglja in drugih rastlinskih makroostankov na istodobnih koliščih z Ljubljan- skega barja (tab. 1; npr. Šercelj 1975; Jeraj 2004; Tolar et al. 2011; Tolar 2018; Velušček et al. 2004; 2018). Tudi lok, čeprav manjših dimenzij, je bil izdelan iz lesa tise (Taxus baccata), kar se sklada z dosedanjimi analiziranimi primeri z Ljubljanskega barja (npr. Velušček, Čufar 2001; Tolar, Zupančič 2009). Vsi trije izrezljani leseni obročki so bili izdelani iz leske (Corylus avellana). Pomemben zaključek opravljene študije je vsekakor tudi neposredna ogroženost arheoloških ostalin v tleh Ljubljanskega barja. Te so bile zelo dobro ohranjene več kot 5000 let v glinenih, anoksičnih in z vodo prepojenih tleh Ljubljanskega barja, danes pa so zaradi namernega izsuševanja tal, invazivnega kmetijstva in toplejšega podnebja žal v veliki ne- varnosti pred propadom. Rastlinski makroostanki z izkopavanj v letu 2021 so namreč opazno slabše ohranjeni kot tisti, izkopani leta 2007 (sl. 19). 434 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA Sample / Vzorec Type of find / Tip najdbe Grid square / Kvadrat SU / SE Altitude (m a.s.l.) / Višina (m n.m.) VZ 84 moss / mah A4 004 n.d. VZ 121 moss / mah A4 004 288.64 VZ 133 moss / mah B4 004 288.62 VZ 184 moss / mah A4 007 288.37 VZ 185 moss / mah B2 007 n. d. VZ 12 vessel fillings of PN 2 / polnilo posode PN 2 B4 004 288.90 VZ 81 vessel fillings of PN 27 / polnilo posode PN 27 A2 004 288.54 VZ 134 vessel fillings of PN 35 / polnilo posode PN 35 A2/B2 004 288.60 PN 51 vessel fillings / polnila posod A3 007 288.01 VZ 115 bow / lok A3/A4 004 ca 288.70 N 6 wooden ring / lesen obroček A4 004 n. d. NN wooden ring / lesen obroček B1 004 ca 288.56 VZ 134 coprolite / koprolit A2/B2 004 288.60 VZ 182 coprolite / koprolit A4 007 288.39 SG MS 9 coprolite / koprolit A1 004 288.53 SG MS 11 coprolite / koprolit B4 004 288.90 SG MS 58 coprolite / koprolit B4 004 288.90 SG MS 68 coprolite / koprolit B4 004 288.90 Tab. 2: Stare gmajne 2021, archaeobotanical samples from Trench 4. Tab. 2: Stare gmajne 2021, arheobotanični vzorci iz sonde 4. Pile-dwelling site / Kolišče Plant taxon / Rastlinski takson Hočevarica Stare gmajne Maharski prekop Črešnja pri Bistri Strojanova voda Črnelnik Hordeum vulgare × × × × × × Triticum sp. × × × Triticum mono- and dicoccum × × × Linum usitatissimum × × × Papaver somniferum × × × Pisum sativum × × Brassica rapa × × × × Cornus mas/sanguinea × × × × × × Corylus avellana × × × × × × Crataegus monogyna × × Fragaria vesca × × × × × Malus/Pyrus sp. × × Prunus spinosa × × Physalis alkekengi × × × × Rosa sp. × Rubus idaeus/fruticosus × × × × × × Quercus sp. × × × × × × Sambucus ebulus × × × × × Trapa natans × × × × × Vitis vinifera sylvestris × × × × × × Anomodon viticulosus (moss/mah) × Drepanocladaceae (moss/mah) × Neckera crispa (moss/mah) × × × CHARCOAL/OGLJE (mainly/večinoma) Corylus, Alnus, Fraxinus n. d. n. d. Alnus, Cory- lus, Fraxinus, Quercus n. d. n. d. n. d. – no data / ni podatka; × – present / prisotno Tab. 1: Plant macroremains (of cultivated and gathered taxa) at Stare gmajne and contemporaneous 4th millennium BC pile-dwelling sites in the Ljubljansko barje. Cultivated taxa and mosses are shaded. Tab. 1: Rastlinski ostanki (kulturnih in nabiranih taksonov) na Starih gmajnah in sočasnih koliščih iz 4. tisočletja pr. n. št. na Ljubljanskem barju. Gojeni taksoni in mahovi so osenčeni. 435Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... Tab. 3: Stare gmajne 2021, archaeobotanical samples from Trench 5. Tab. 3: Stare gmajne 2021, arheobotanični vzorci iz sonde 5. Sample / Vzorec Type of find / Tip najdbe Grid square / Kvadrat SU / SE Altitude (m a.s.l.) / Višina (m n.m.) VZ 22 vessel fillings of PN 4 / polnilo posode PN 4 B–4 003 288.75 VZ 61 vessel fillings of PN 23 / polnilo posode PN 23 B–3 005 288.46 VZ 62 vessel fillings of PN 25 / polnilo posode PN 25 C–4 005 288.47 PN 6 vessel fillings / polnila posod B–3 003 288.61 VZ 61 wooden ring / lesen obroček B–3 005 288.46 PN – special find / posebna najdba Sample / Vzorec (Vessel find / Najdba posode) Trench / Sonda SU / SE Grid square / Kvadrat Location of the org. remains in the vessel / Lega org. ost. v posodi VZ 12 (PN 2) 4 004 B4 bottom / dno VZ 22 (PN 4) 5 003 B–4 body / ostenje VZ 134 (PN 35) 4 004 A2/B2 bottom / dno PN 37 4 004 B2 rim / ustje PN 50 4 007 B3 bottom / dno N 6 4 004 A4 vessel fragments / odlomki N 94 4 007 A1 body / ostenje PN – special find / posebna najdba; N – find / najdba Tab. 4: Stare gmajne 2021, list of samples for biochemical analyses of possible food remains from the rims, bodies and bottoms of ceramic vessels. Tab. 4: Stare gmajne 2021, seznam vzorcev verjetnih ostankov hrane iz keramičnih posod (z ustij, ostenij in dna posod) za biokemijske analize. SG MS 68 coprolite / koprolit B4 004 288.90 SG MS 68 coprolite / koprolit B4 004 288.90 SG MS 73 coprolite / koprolit A4 004 n. d. PN – special find / posebna najdba; n. d. – no data / ni podatka Sample / Vzorec VZ 84 VZ 121 VZ 133 VZ 184 VZ 185 Trench / Sonda 4 4 4 4 4 SU / SE 004 004 004 007 007 Grid square / Kvadrat A4 A4 B4 A4 B2 Volume of sediments before sieving / Volumen sedimenta pred spiranjem n. d. 200 ml 25 ml 32 ml n. d. Volume of examined fraction / Volumen pregledane frakcije n. d. 100 ml 15 ml 17ml 5 ml No. ID seeds, fruits / Št. ID semen, plodov 129.5 644 118 7 4 No. ID taxa / Št. ID taksonov 18 26 17 5 5 n. d. – no data / ni podatka; No. ID / Št. ID – number of identified / število identificiranih Tab. 5: Stare gmajne 2021, archaeobotanically analysed moss samples from Trench 4. Tab. 5: Stare gmajne 2021, arheobotanično raziskani vzorci mahu iz sonde 4. 436 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA VZ 121 SE / SU 004 VZ 133 SE / SU 004 VZ 184 SE / SU 007 CULTIVATED PLANTS / KULTURNE RASTLINE 4,173 1,160 125 Cerealia (cereals / žita) 31 Hordeum vulgare (barley / ječmen) 210 200 Triticum dicoccum (emmer / dvozrna pšenica) 78 Triticum monococcum (einkorn / enozrna pšenica) 38 T. mono/dicoccum (einkorn/emmer wheat / eno/dvozrna pšenica) 366 320 Brassica rapa (turnip / ogrščica) 138 200 Linum usitatissimum (flax / lan) 38 160 94 Papaver somniferum (poppy / mak) 3,305 280 GATHERED PLANTS / NABIRANE RASTLINE 702 800 62 Abies alba (fir / jelka) 213 160 Cornus mas (cornel / rumeni dren) 5 Cornus sanguinea (dogwood / rdeči dren) 10 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 20 Crataegus sp. (hawthorn / glog) 5 Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry / jagodnjak) 303 440 Malus/Pyrus sp. (wild apple/pear / divje jabolko/hruška) 48 80 31 Physalis alkekengi (bladder cherry / volčje jabolko) 13 Rubus fruticosus (blackberry / robida) 70 80 Quercus sp. (acorn / želod, hrast) 5 40 31 Trapa natans (water chestnut / vodni orešek) 10 WEED OR RUDERAL PLANTS / PLEVELNE OZ. RUDERALNE RASTLINE 1,516 2,160 31 Arenaria serpyllifolia (thyme-leaf sandwort / navadna peščenka) 31 Chenopodium album (goosefoot / bela metlika) 1,463 2,120 Fallopia convolvulus (wild buckwheat / navadni slakovec) 15 Urtica dioica (nettle / kopriva) 38 40 LAKE-SHORE AND WATER PLANTS / VODNE IN OBREŽNE RASTLINE 797 600 0 Epilobium hirsutum (hairy willowherb / dlakavi vrbovec) 38 Mentha aquatica (water mint / vodna meta) 163 120 Oenanthe aquatica (water dropwort / vodni sovec) 295 120 Ranunculus aquatilis (water-crowfoot / vodna zlatica) 118 160 Schoenoplectus lacustris (lakeshore bulrush / jezerski biček) 178 200 Sparganium sp. (bur-reed / ježek) 5 Tab. 6: Stare gmajne 2021, moss samples: concentrations of seeds/fruits (per litre of sediment) for individual taxa, listed in plant groups according to ecology and/or economy and sum of the concentrations for each plant group. Tab. 6: Stare gmajne 2021, vzorci mahu: koncentracije semen/plodov (v litru sedimenta) posameznih rastlinskih taksonov po skupinah rastlin in vsota koncentracij vseh taksonov posamezne skupine rastlin. Sample / Vzorec VZ 12 VZ 81 VZ 134 PN 51 VZ 22 PN 6 VZ 61 VZ 62 Trench / Sonda 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 SU / SE 004 004 004 007 003 003 005 005 Grid square / Kvadrat B4 A2 A2/B2 A3 B–4 B–3 B–3 C–4 V before sieving / V pred spiranjem 1,000 ml 700 ml 850 ml 140 ml 1,200 ml 330 ml 650 ml 640 ml V of examined fraction / V pregledane frakcije 400 ml 220 ml 320 ml 35 ml 90 ml 50 ml 80 ml 50 ml No. ID seeds; fruits / Št. ID semen; plodov 1,140 699 966 154 602 581 302 612 No. ID taxa / Št. ID taksonov 29 34 34 23 37 40 34 35 V – volume / volumen; No. ID / Št. ID – number of identified / število identificiranih Tab. 7: Stare gmajne 2021, archaeobotanically analysed samples from the vessels from Trenches 4 and 5. Tab. 7: Stare gmajne 2021, arheobotanično analizirani vzorci iz posod iz sond 4 in 5. 437Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... VZ 12 SE / SU 004 VZ 81 SE / SU 004 VZ 134 SE / SU 004 PN 51 SE / SU 007 CULTIVATED PLANTS / KULTURNE RASTLINE 3,771 851 805 310 Cerealia (cereals / žita) 12 7 1 Hordeum vulgare; 6-rowed hulled (glumed barley / ječmen s plevami) 70 104 20 Hordeum vulgare; 6-rowed naked (naked barley / ječmen brez plev) 14 48 7 Triticum dicoccum (emmer / dvozrna pšenica) 87 13 11 Triticum monococcum (einkorn / enozrna pšenica) 68 26 8 T. mono/dicoccum (einkorn/emmer wheat / eno/dvozrna pšenica) 83 32 223 4 Brassica rapa (turnip / ogrščica) 11 51 137 21 Linum usitatissimum (flax / lan) 33 38 99 14 Papaver somniferum (poppy / mak) 3,393 580 258 264 GATHERED PLANTS / NABIRANE RASTLINE 2,747 682 744 106 Abies alba (fir / jelka) 46 64 329 7 Cornus mas (cornel / rumeni dren) 8 4 Cornus sanguinea (dogwood / rdeči dren) 8 6 1 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 52 7 2 Crataegus sp. (hawthorn / glog) 2 Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry / jagodnjak) 2,029 84 106 21 Malus/Pyrus sp. (wild apple/pear / divje jabolko/hruška) 35 45 232 7 Physalis alkekengi (bladder cherry / volčje jabolko) 92 32 5 14 Rubus fruticosus agg. (blackberry / robida) 417 416 49 43 Quercus sp. (acorn / želod, hrast) 42 6 18 7 Trapa natans (water chestnut / vodni orešek) 7 17 1 7 Vitis vinifera sylvestris (wild grape vine / divja vinska trta) 9 1 1 WEED OR RUDERAL PLANTS / PLEVELNE OZ. RUDERALNE RASTLINE 2,444 1,399 944 450 Arenaria serpyllifolia (thyme-leaf sandwort / nav. peščenka) 11 6 9 14 Chenopodium album (goosefoot / bela metlika) 2,433 1,290 859 436 Fallopia sp. (wild buckwheat / slakovec) 13 1 Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain / ozkolistni trpotec) 9 Stachys sp. (hedge nettle / čišljak) 6 Urtica dioica (nettle / kopriva) 84 66 LAKE-SHORE AND WATER PLANTS / VODNE IN OBREŽNE RASTLINE 319 872 630 228 Cladium mariscus (swamp sawgrass / navadna rezika) 11 26 2 14 Epilobium hirsutum (hairy willowherb / dlakavi vrbovec) 11 19 9 7 Hippuris vulgaris (mare‘s-tail / navadna smrečica) 1 Mentha aquatica (water mint / vodna meta) 55 206 115 29 Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil / klasasti rmanec) 6 Nuphar luteum (yellow water-lily / rumeni blatnik) 1 1 Oenanthe aquatica (water dropwort / vodni sovec) 97 204 221 14 Potamogeton sp. (pondweed / dristavec) 12 33 21 14 Ranunculus aquatilis (water-crowfoot / vodna zlatica) 44 175 29 29 Schoenoplectus lacustris (lakeshore bulrush / jezerski biček) 82 161 211 86 Sparganium sp. (bur-reed / ježek) 6 42 20 35 TREES, SHRUBS / DREVESA, GRMI 12 19 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 6 Betula pubescens (downy birch / puhasta breza) 6 19 GRASSLAND PLANTS / TRAVIŠČNE RASTLINE 1 18 Apiaceae (carrot fam. / kobulnice) 9 Poaceae (grasses / trave) 1 Rumex sp. (sorrels / kislice) 9 Tab. 8: Stare gmajne 2021, vessel samples from Trench 4: concentrations of seeds/fruits (per litre of sediment) for indi- vidual taxa, listed in plant groups and sum of concentrations for each plant group. Tab. 8: Stare gmajne 2021, vzorci iz posod iz sonde 4: koncentracije semen/plodov (v litru sedimenta) posameznih ras- tlinskih taksonov po skupinah rastlin in vsota koncentracij vseh taksonov v posamezni skupini rastlin. 438 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA Tab. 9: Stare gmajne 2021, vessel samples from Trench 5: concentrations of seeds/fruits (per litre of sediment) for indi- vidual taxa, grouped in plant groups and sum of concentrations for each plant group. Tab. 9: Stare gmajne 2021, vzorci iz posod iz sonde 5: koncentracije semen/plodov (v litru sedimenta) posameznih ras- tlinskih taksonov po skupinah rastlin in vsota koncentracij vseh taksonov v posamezni skupini rastlin. VZ 22 SE / SU 003 PN 6 SE / SU 003 VZ 61 SE / SU 005 VZ 62 SE / SU 005 CULTIVATED PLANTS / KULTURNE RASTLINE 276 852 275 189 Cerealia (cerelas / žita) 2 3 5 6 Hordeum vulgare; 6-rowed hulled (glumed barley / ječmen s plevami) 13 48 76 Hordeum vulgare; 6-rowed naked (naked barley / ječmen brez plev) 76 2 Triticum dicoccum (emmer / dvozrna pšenica) 8 47 4 Triticum monococcum (einkorn / enozrna pšenica) 4 15 22 12 T. mono/dicoccum (einkorn/emmer wheat / eno/dvozrna pšenica) 2 23 16 Brassica rapa (turnip / ogrščica) 4 30 32 16 Linum usitatissimum (flax / lan) 51 152 65 8 Papaver somniferum (poppy / mak) 200 545 54 51 GATHERED PLANTS / NABIRANE RASTLINE 162 274 155 190 Abies alba (fir / jelka) 41 15 70 90 Cornus mas (cornel / rumeni dren) 9 Cornus sanguinea (dogwood / rdeči dren) 1 3 2 3 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 2 3 2 5 Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry / jagodnjak) 54 45 16 23 Malus/Pyrus (wild apple/pear / jabolko/hruška) 1 30 19 8 Physalis alkekengi (bladder cherry / volčje jabolko) 4 23 4 Rubus fruticosus agg. (blackberry / robida) 114 12 Rubus idaeus/fruticosus (raspberry/blackberry / malina/robida) 51 23 32 8 Quercus sp. (acorn / želod, hrast) 5 6 12 31 Trapa natans (water chestnut / vodni orešek) 1 2 4 Vitis vinifera sylvestris (wild grape vine / divja vinska trta) 2 3 2 WEED OR RUDERAL PLANTS / PLEVELNE OZ. RUDERALNE RASTLINE 402 784 221 347 Chenopodium album (goosefoot / bela metlika) 359 705 194 320 Fallopia sp. (wild buckwheat / slakovec) 1 26 4 Silene sp. (campion / slizek) 13 7 5 Stachys sp. (hedge nettle / čišljak) 8 Stellaria sp. (starwort / zvezdica) 8 Urtica dioica (nettle / kopriva) 29 30 22 23 LAKE-SHORE AND WATER PLANTS / OBREŽNE IN VODNE RASTLINE 1,472 1,881 783 1,492 Alisma cf. lanceolatum (water plantain / suličastolistni porečnik) 38 23 43 12 Cladium mariscus (swamp sawgrass / navadna rezika) 58 106 22 225 Cyperaceae (sedges / ostričevke) 17 23 32 23 Epilobium hirsutum (hairy willowherb / dlakavi vrbovec) 13 106 16 12 Hippuris vulgaris (mare‘s-tail / navadna smrečica) 8 Lycopus europaeus (gypsywort / nav. regelj) 8 8 12 Mentha aquatica (water mint / vodna meta) 525 568 172 324 Najas marina (water nymph / vel. podvodnica) 4 8 Nuphar luteum (yellow water-lily / rumeni blatnik) 1 8 5 3 Oenanthe aquatica (water dropwort / vodni sovec) 193 598 202 127 Polygonaceae (knotweed family / dresnovke) 13 Potamogeton sp. (pondweed / dristavec) 6 17 11 34 Ranunculus aquatilis (water-crowfoot / vodna zlatica) 292 81 172 Schoenoplectus lacustris (lakeshore bulrush / jezerski biček) 263 348 194 522 Sparganium sp. (bur-reed / ježek) 41 68 5 18 TREES, SHRUBS / DREVESA, GRMI 25 40 12 Acer sp. (maple / javor) 2 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 8 Betula pubescens (downy birch / puhasta breza) 38 12 439Archaeobotanical analysis of the judgement samples from research of Stare gmajne ... Salix sp. (willow / vrba) 17 GRASSLAND PLANTS / TRAVIŠČNE RASTLINE 8 509 37 23 Apiaceae (carrot fam. / kobulnice) 5 Asteraceae (composite family / košarnice) 16 Hieracium sp. (hawkweed / škržolica) 8 Hypericum perforatum (St. John‘s wort / šentjanževka) 8 8 11 23 Poaceae (grasses / trave) 15 Ranunculus acris type (cf. meadow buttercup / ripeča zlatica) 470 5 Rumex sp. (sorrels / kislice) 8 Taxa / Takson Number / Število % Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 16 39 Rosaceae (Rose family / rožnice; Crataegus, Rhamnus, Malus, Pyrus) 7 17 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 5 12 Fraxinus sp. (ash / jesen) 5 12 Acer sp. (maple / javor) 1 2.5 cf. Carpinus betulus (hornbeam / nav. gaber) 1 2.5 Castanea sativa / Fraxinus sp. (chestnut/ash / kostanj/jesen) 1 2.5 Corylus avellana / Alnus sp. (hazel/alder / leska/jelša) 1 2.5 Fagus sylvatica (beech / bukev) 1 2.5 Quercus sp. (oak / hrast) 1 2.5 Sorbus sp. (service tree / jerebika) 1 2.5 cf. Sorbus sp. (cf. service tree / jerebika) 1 2.5 Tab. 10: Stare gmajne 2021, counts (absolute number) and percentages of identified charcoal fragments from Trenches 4 and 5. Tab. 10: Stare gmajne 2021, števila in odstotki identificiranih fragmentov oglja v obeh sondah. Sample / Vzorec Taxa / Takson Number / Število vessel / posoda VZ 12 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 3 Fraxinus sp. (ash / jesen) 2 Sorbus sp. (service tree / jerebika) 1 VZ 81 Fraxinus sp. (ash / jesen) 1 Rosaceae (Rose fam. / rožnice) 2 moss / mah VZ 84 Fagus sylvatica (beech / bukev) 1 Rosaceae (Rose fam. / rožnice) 1 VZ 121 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 2 Rosaceae (Rose fam. / rožnice) 1 VZ 133 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 3 Quercus sp. (oak / hrast) 1 vessel / posoda VZ 134 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 1 cf. Carpinus betulus (hornbeam / nav. gaber) 1 Rosaceae (Rose fam. / rožnice) 1 cf. Sorbus sp. (service tree / jerebika) 1 moss / mah VZ 184 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 1 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 1 Fraxinus sp. (ash / jesen) 1 VZ 185 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 1 vessel / posoda PN 51 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 1 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 1 Rosaceae (Rose fam. / rožnice) 1 Tab. 11: Stare gmajne 2021, counts (absolute number) of identified charcoal fragments in individual sample from Trench 4. Tab. 11: Stare gmajne 2021, števila identificiranih fragmentov oglja v posameznem vzorcu iz sonde 4. 440 Tjaša TOLAR, Dolores MATIKA Sample / Vzorec Taxa / Takson Number / Število vessel / posoda VZ 22 Alnus sp. (alder / jelša) 2 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 1 VZ 61 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 2 Rosaceae (Rose fam. / rožnice) 1 VZ 62 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 1 Corylus avellana / Alnus sp. (hazel/alder / leska/jelša) 1 Fraxinus sp. (ash / jesen) 1 PN 6 Acer sp. (maple / javor) 1 Castanea sativa/Fraxinus sp. (chestnut/ash / kostanj/jesen) 1 Corylus avellana (hazel / leska) 1 Tab. 12: Stare gmajne 2021, counts (absolute number) of identified charcoal fragments in individual sample from Trench 5. Tab. 12: Stare gmajne 2021, števila identificiranih fragmentov oglja v posameznem vzorcu iz sonde 5. Trench 4 / Sonda 4 Trench 5 / Sonda 5 Cultivated plants / Kulturne rastline 1,434 398 Gathered plants / Nabirane rastline 1,070 195 Weeds, ruderals / Plevelne, ruderalne rastline 1,309 439 Lakeshore, water plants / Obrežne, vodne rastline 512 1,407 Non-edible trees, shrubs / Neprehranske drevesne, grmovne rastline 8 19 Grassland plants / Traviščne rastline 5 144 Tab. 13: Stare gmajne 2021, comparison of vessel contents from Trenches 4 and 5: average concentrations of seeds/fruits remains per litre of sediment samples for individual plant group. Tab. 13: Stare gmajne 2021, primerjava vzorcev iz posod iz sond 4 in 5: povprečne koncentracije semen/plodov v litru sedimenta po posameznih skupinah rastlin. Tab. ESM 1–2: http://av.zrc-sazu.si/AV_75/Tolar_AV_75_2024_Tab_ESM1.xlsx http://av.zrc-sazu.si/AV_75/Tolar_AV_75_2024_Tab_ESM2.xlsx Slikovno gradivo: Sl. 1, 6, 8–20 (Dragutin Valoh, ZRC SAZU). – Sl. 2 (Elena Leghissa, ZRC SAZU; Dragutin Valoh, ZRC SAZU). – Sl. 3, 4 (Tamara Korošec, ZRC SAZU; Elena Leghissa, ZRC SAZU; Dragutin Valoh, ZRC SAZU). – Sl. 5 (Elena Leghissa, ZRC SAZU). llustrations: Fig. 1, 6, 8–20 (Dragutin Valoh, ZRC SAZU). – Fig. 2 (Elena Leghissa, ZRC SAZU ; Dragutin Valoh, ZRC SAZU). – Fig. 3, 4 (Tamara Korošec, ZRC SAZU ; Elena Leghissa ZRC SAZU, Dragutin Valoh, ZRC SAZU). – Fig. 5 (Elena Leghissa, ZRC SAZU). The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency as a part of the Re- search programme P6-0064 and Research project J7-2598. Članek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa P6-0064 in raziskovalnega projekta J7-2598, ki ju sofinancira Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije. Tjaša Tolar ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za arheologijo Novi trg 5 SI-1000 Ljubljana tjasa.tolar@zrc-sazu.si ID ORCID 0000-0003-2044-1025 Dolores Matika Sandari 39 HR-52341 Žminj dolores.matika@gmail.com