Fig 1.
Geomorphological map showing the floodplain between the Lessini foothill and the present-day Po River.
The map is based on Sorbini et al. [10], Castiglioni [119], and Carta Geologica d’Italia 1:100.000 sheets n˚ 48, 49, 62, 63 (modified from Nicosia et al. [3], fig. 1). The image of Italy in the lower left corner was obtained from Natural Earth (public domain from http://www.naturalearthdata.com).
Fig 2.
Excavation plan of the second phase of the settlement with detail on structures.
Wooden elements are indicated in grey. The structures discussed in this work are indicated with a black rectangle (drawing by: M. Baldo, F. Polisca).
Table 1.
List of the samples analysed in this paper for palynology, GC-MS and botanical macro-remain analyses and the corresponding micromorphological samples (Fig 3a-3b for structure C, Fig 4a-4b for structure G, SM1 for structure E, and Fig 5 and SM2 for structure F).
Fig 3.
Sampling location of samples 92-94 (a) and 52-53 (b). (a) Top left: position of samples 92, 93, and 94. Lower left and right: interpretation of the thin sections, with a SMT assigned to each sub-unit and the location of subsamples for pollen and faecal biomarker analysis. (b) Top left: position of samples 52 and 53. Lower left and right: interpretation of the thin sections, with a SMT assigned to each sub-unit and the location of subsamples for pollen and faecal biomarker analysis.
Fig 4.
Sampling location of samples 103-105 (a) and 99-101 (b). (a) Top left: position of samples 103, 104, 105. Below: interpretation of the thin sections, with a SMT assigned to each sub-unit and the location of subsamples for pollen and faecal biomarker analysis. (b) Top left: position of samples 99, 100 and 101. Right hand side: interpretation of the thin sections, with a SMT assigned to each sub-unit and the location of subsamples for pollen and faecal biomarker analysis.
Fig 5.
Sampling location of samples 89-91 in the lower portion of the internal stratification of structure F. Upper left: field picture showing the position of samples 89, 90, and 91. Below: interpretation of the thin sections, with a SMT assigned to each sub-unit and the location of subsamples for pollen and faecal biomarker analysis.
Table 2.
Main characteristics and interpretation of each SMT and subtype.
Fig 6.
(a) structure C, thin section 52, SU 415 C, sub-unit 8: trampled, fresh (i.e., unburnt) herbivore dung. Notice the presence of numerous faecal spherulites, XPL; (b) structure C, thin section 52, SU 415 C, sub-unit 12: snapped burnt bone fragment embedded in a groundmass consisting of herbivore dung intercalated with wood ash, PPL (upper left) and XPL (lower right); (c) structure C, thin section 52, SU 415 C, sub-unit 7: Herbivore dung interfingered with and wood ash. Note the pronounced horizontal orientation of coarse components, PPL; (d) same as ‘c’ but XPL. The distinction between dung and ash is evident due to the undifferentiated b-fabric of organic matter and the crystallitic one of wood ash; (e) structure G, thin section 101, SU 654, sub-unit 2: in the upper part, vegetal material and a seed (arrow) preserving a horizontal orientation; in the lower part, bioturbated area with excrements of mesofauna without any evidence of aging, PPL; (f) structure G, thin section 100, SU 654, sub-unit 3: stable crust with a phosphate micromass that includes articulated and sub-horizontally oriented phytoliths. The rectangle indicates the location of ‘g’, PPL; (g) detail of ‘f’, showing the presence of articulated phytoliths in a phosphate micromass, PPL; (h) structure C, thin section 93, SU 478, sub-unit 10: aggregate of burnt herbivore dung embedded in an ash groundmass. The red arrows indicate examples of blackened faecal spherulites, PPL (lower right) and XPL (upper left).
Fig 7.
Scanned thin section, micromorphological interpretation and micro-XRF maps. (a) PPL scan; (b) XPL scan; (c) interpretation of the thin section; (d-i) micro-XRF maps showing the abundance of specific elements.
Fig 8.
(a) Cultivated vs wild plants in the total carpological record; (b) Different preservation conditions of the carpological record by plant groups (charred versus uncharred botanical macro-remains).
Fig 9.
Comparison between the palynological record, the charred, and the uncharred carpological records from structures C, G, F, and E.
Numbers between brackets indicate the sum of remains on which percentages were calculated. For the components of the ecological or functional botanical groups, see respectively SM4 for the carpological record and SM5 for pollen. For pollen, in the category of Grassland plants all taxa of the subgroups indicated with * in Fig 10a are included.
Fig 10.
Pollen diagrams from structures C, G, F, and E of Oppeano 4D:
(a) non-arboreal pollen including terrestrial herbs (secondary anthropogenic indicators and wild plant taxa); (b) arboreal pollen (including trees, shrubs, and vines) and pollen of wetland plants; (c) non-pollen palynomorphs and pollen clumps. Empty histograms display exaggeration factor 10x. Plant groups with * compose the group of “Grassland plants” in Fig 9.
Fig 11.
Microphotographs of microfossils from the botanical macro- and micro-remain records at Oppeano 4D:
(a) pollen clump of Cerealia-type; (b) pollen clump of wild grasses (Poaceae); (c) Helianthemum pollen; (d) Convolvulus arvensis pollen; (e) Polygonum aviculare pollen; (f) Centaurea nigra type pollen; (g) Dicrocoelium sp. intestinal parasite egg; (h) Trichuris sp. intestinal parasite egg; (i) cf. Ustilaginales spores; (j) Triticum monococcum fork; (k) Triticum aestivum/durum rachis fragment; (l) bud of deciduous Quercus cf. robur; (m) Melophagus ovinus L. puparia.
Fig 12.
Steroid distribution from structure C
(a), structure G (b), structure F (c), plant materials (d) (this study), herbivores (e) [38], and omnivores (f) [74,76,120]. Concentration is reported as % on the sum of steroids.
Fig 13.
Diagnostic ratio profiles and distributions in the structures C, G and F.
Dashed lines represent the limits proposed by Bortolini et al. [38], Bull et al. [40], Grimalt et al. [39], Leeming et al. [41], Prost et al. [74]. The R5 ratio and threshold are proposed in this study.