Next Article in Journal
The Interior Restoration of Notre-Dame de Paris (1845–1869): A Historical Study for an Architectural and Acoustic Reconstruction
Previous Article in Journal
Heritage Hospitality and Sustainable Tourism in Mountain Cultural Landscapes: The Case of Zagori Within the UNESCO Framework
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 8
Issue 12
10.3390/heritage8120524
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tracing the Onset of Agriculture Through Phytolith Analysis at the Abora I Neolithic Settlement, Eastern Latvia

by
Normunds Stivrins
1,2,*,
Gunita Zariņa
3,
Vanda Haferberga
3 and
Elina Reire
4
1
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Latvia, Jelgavas Street 1, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia
2
Department of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate Tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
3
Institute of Latvian History of Faculty of Humanities, University of Latvia, Kalpaka Blv. 4, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia
4
Department of Geography, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Latvia, Jelgavas Street 1, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(12), 524; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8120524
Submission received: 3 November 2025 / Revised: 7 December 2025 / Accepted: 10 December 2025 / Published: 11 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Archaeological Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Phytolith analysis was applied for the first time in Latvian archaeology to investigate plant use at the Abora I settlement, one of the key Late Neolithic sites in the Lubāns Wetland, eastern Latvia. Phytoliths were extracted from sediments, pottery sherds, grinding stones, and human teeth in order to assess evidence for cereal-type grasses and plant processing. A diverse range of phytolith morphotypes was identified, including rondel and bilobate forms commonly associated with grasses of the Triticeae. These morphotypes were most frequently recorded in association with grinding stones and food-related pottery. While previous isotopic and archaeological studies at Abora I indicate a subsistence strategy largely based on fishing, hunting, and gathering, the phytolith evidence points to localised small-scale processing of cereal-type grasses. Taken together, these results indicate that plant exploitation formed part of a mixed, multi-resource economy during the Late Neolithic at Abora I, although differentiation between wild and domesticated grasses remains limited due to taxonomic constraints of phytolith analysis.

1. Introduction

Understanding how and when agriculture emerged in the Eastern Baltic has long been a key topic in archaeological research. Across the region, evidence for the transition from hunting, fishing, and gathering to farming remains uneven and often fragmentary. In Latvia, most information on this transition has been derived primarily from archaeological finds such as tools, charred plant remains, zooarchaeological material, and indirect indicators of cultivation, for example possible plough marks and isolated cereal macroremains [1,2,3,4].
More recently, researchers have increasingly focused on palaeodietary reconstructions of prehistoric communities in the Eastern Baltic through stable isotope and organic residue analyses, providing important insights into broad subsistence patterns and resource use [5,6,7,8]. These studies consistently indicate that aquatic resources, wild terrestrial animals, and hunted or gathered foods played a major role in Late Neolithic diets, while the contribution of cultivated plants remains difficult to assess using isotopic evidence alone. The Lubāns Wetland stands out as a region of particular significance due to its exceptional density of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlements [1,9], including Abora I—a key site for investigating subsistence strategies and the possible emergence of farming in prehistoric Latvia.
To date, direct evidence of plant cultivation during the Neolithic in the territory of Latvia has remained limited and uneven. Pollen records have occasionally revealed traces of cereal-type pollen such as Hordeum-type (barley), while plant macroremains provide only sparse fragments of seeds or chaff. However, the preservation of both proxies is highly variable. Pollen grains are subject to long-distance transport and therefore cannot always be securely linked to local cultivation [10,11]. Similarly, plant macroremains tend to reflect only those contexts where preservation conditions were particularly favourable, such as charred layers or permanently waterlogged sediments [12,13]. As a result, the local presence and scale of cereal use during the Latvian Neolithic remain difficult to evaluate using traditional palaeobotanical proxies alone.
Phytoliths are microscopic silica bodies formed within plant tissues and offer a complementary and robust source of information about past vegetation and plant use [14,15]. Unlike pollen, phytoliths are not easily transported by wind and generally preserve well in a wide range of depositional environments, including those that are unfavourable for the preservation of plant macroremains [16,17]. Certain phytolith morphotypes are commonly associated with cereal-type grasses within the Poaceae family, including members of the Triticeae and Paniceae tribes, and many from distinctive shapes such as rondel, bilobate, cross, and dumbbell types [18,19]. These microremains can be preserved in sediments, food crusts on pottery, on the surfaces and pores of grinding tools, or become trapped in dental calculus during food consumption [20,21,22]. However, phytolith morphology often does not permit secure taxonomic identification to species level, and morphological overlap between wild and domesticated grasses remains a well-recognised limitation [15,23].
In this study, we apply phytolith analysis for the first time to Latvian archaeological material, focusing on samples obtained from the Abora I settlement. The site is one of the best-studied Neolithic locations in the Lubāns Wetland microregion, with stratified cultural layers dating from the end of the Middle Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age [1,24]. Previous palaeodietary research at Abora I, based on stable isotope analysis of human remains, indicates a subsistence strategy dominated by freshwater resources and wild animal protein, with no clear isotopic signature attributable to significant cereal consumption or intensive cultivation [25]. Against this background, phytolith analysis offers an independent microbotanical proxy to explore plant use at the site beyond the resolution of isotopic data.
The aim of this study is to explore the presence and contextual significance of phytoliths in sediment samples, pottery sherds, grinding stones, and human teeth from the Abora I site in order to assess previously undetected evidence of cereal-type grass use and plant processing. We hypothesise that while other lines of evidence have pointed to a predominantly foraging- and fishing-based subsistence strategy, phytolith analysis may provide the first microbotanical indicators of local cereal-type grass exploitation at the site. In this way, the study seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of plant use within the mixed subsistence economy of Late Neolithic communities in the territory of Latvia.

2. Study Area and Archaeological Background

The Abora I settlement is located in the north-western part of the Lake Lubāns Wetland in eastern Latvia (Figure 1), on the right bank of the Abora River, a tributary of the Aiviekste. The microregion represents one of the most archaeologically dense areas in Latvia for the Stone and Bronze Ages [1,9]. The Lubāns basin, formed by glacial and post-glacial processes ca. 17,000–15,000 years ago, was historically characterised by a dynamic hydrological regime, including lake-level fluctuations and episodic transgressive-regressive phases [26,27]. These conditions created a mosaic of ecotones favourable for Mesolithic and Neolithic communities who could exploit both aquatic and terrestrial resources.
First identified in 1963, Abora I was extensively excavated by archaeologist Ilze Loze during the 1960s and 1970s, with additional investigations in the 2008 and renewed multidisciplinary research campaigns in 2021, 2023–2024 [1,24,28,29]. The site covers an area of approximately 5000 m2, with more than 1300 m2 excavated to date. Cultural layers reach a thickness of up to 1 m and even thicker in some areas and consist of dark, humic sandy loams rich in organic remains, including fish and animal bones, charcoal, and artefacts.
During the excavations, Abora I have produced more than 3800 artefacts, including flint tools, stone, bone and antler implements, amber jewellery, and more than 18,000 pottery sherds representing multiple ceramic types such as porous (also known as Abora ware), Lubāns and Corded ware [1]. The site also contains 62 human burials interspersed throughout the settlement, many of which have been analysed using osteological and stable isotope methods [24,25]. These analyses have indicated a diet dominated by freshwater fish and wild game, with limited evidence for cereal consumption [25].
Recent excavations in 2023 and 2024 have focused on trenches “H” and “I”, where a 70 cm thick cultural layer was identified. Within these excavations, grinding stones, animal bones, charcoal, and stone tool fragments were found in association with a stone-built feature interpreted as a food processing zone. Pottery sherds and human teeth were also recovered from various stratigraphic levels. These materials provided an ideal opportunity for microbotanical analysis, including phytolith extraction from undisturbed cultural layers, pottery, and teeth.
Although previous palynological and macrofossil studies from the Lake Lubāns Wetland have occasionally yielded Hordeum-type pollen and suggest limited cereal presence during the Middle and Late Neolithic [30], direct evidence for local cultivation has remained elusive. The Abora I settlement, thus, offers a unique context to test whether phytolith analysis can reveal agricultural activity that is not otherwise detectable through conventional paleoecological or archaeological proxies.

3. Materials and Methods

A total of 18 samples were selected from the Abora I archaeological site for phytolith analysis (Table 1). These include sediment samples from stratified cultural layers in trench “I”, pottery sherds representing different wares, grinding stones, and human teeth recovered from burials excavated in 1964, 1971 and 2023 (Table 1). In the case of the teeth, loose sediment and adhering microremains were sampled from the tooth surfaces (dental calculus was not separately isolated). Sample selection followed a targeted strategy based on stratigraphic position, ceramic typology, and preservation quality, with a particular focus on contexts potentially associated with plant processing activities and undisturbed cultural layers (e.g., layers 3–6 and 28–54 cm depth). For each sample, depth and spatial coordinates were recorded to ensure secure contextual attribution. However, the limited number of samples does not permit a site-wide spatial distribution analysis in current study.
Human jawbones from three burials excavated in 1964 and 1971 were selected for phytolith analysis. In addition, one human jawbone fragment with preserved teeth recovered during the 2023 field season was included. This specimen originated from trench “H” (square X3Y3) and represented an isolated find without a clearly defined burial context, most likely deriving from a disturbed grave affected by ploughing activity.
During the 2024 excavations, 14 additional samples were collected for phytolith analysis. Most of these originated from the southern part of the trench “I” (square X1Y1–2) within stratigraphic layers 3–6 at depths of approximately 28–54 cm (planes 3 and 4). Within this area, at approximately 40 cm depth, a concentration of animal bones (e.g., wild boar, elk), fragments of charcoal and a stone structure including grinding stone bases was documented (Figure 2). The majority of grinding stones recovered during the 2024 campaign derived from this same area and stratigraphic interval. From this context, three grinding stones (AB-F16–18), two sediment samples (AB-F33; Sed2), and four pottery sherds (AB-F25;37–39) were selected for phytolith analysis. An additional sediment sample (Sed1) was obtained from the north-eastern part of trench (square X3Y1), where a separate stone structure (object 1) was recorded. Within this feature and its immediate surroundings, concentration of animal bones, pottery fragments, and several stone tools with use traces were observed.
Several pottery sherds from stratigraphic layers 1 and 2 at depths of approximately 10–20 cm (AB-F28;32;34) were also sampled for phytolith analysis. These sherds were recovered in the vicinity of animal bone concentrations within squares X1–2Y1–2. Owing to the shallow depth and evidence of agricultural disturbance, these contexts are interpreted as redeposited and not in situ. The samples were nevertheless included in order to assess whether phytoliths could be detected in pottery from disturbed upper layers. In addition, one pottery sherd of Ilmandu-type (?) [31], recovered from the northern profile of trench “I” (square X3Y1), was sampled (AB-F15).
Phytolith extraction was carried out at the Laboratory of Geological Processes, University of Latvia. A known volume of 1 cm3 was taken from each sample. One Lycopodium clavatum spore tablet was added to each sample to enable quantitative estimation of phytolith concentration. Samples were treated with 10% hydrochloric acid (HCl) to dissolve carbonates and disintegrate the spore tablet, followed by treatment with 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH) to remove humic substances and organic matter. The cleaned residues were then suspended in glycerine for preservation and microscopic analysis.
Phytolith slides were examined using a light microscope at 200× and 400× magnification. Identification was based on established morphological criteria and published reference materials [23]. Phytoliths were counted until at least 10 Lycopodium spores were recorded per slide, ensuring a consistent counting threshold for all samples. Due to technical limitations of the available microscope camera system, it was not possible to obtain photomicrographs with an appropriate scale bar for publication. Identified phytolith morphotypes were grouped into two broad categories: (1) morphotypes commonly associated with cereal-type grasses within the Poaceae (including rondel, bilobate, cross and dumbbell forms, typically linked to members of the Triticeae and Paniceae), and (2) morphotypes indicative of natural vegetation (e.g., globular granulate, blocky, papillate and elongate tracheid types associated with trees, sedges, and other wild plants). All microscopy and counting were conducted at the University of Latvia, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Geology.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied as an exploratory ordination method to visualise major patterns of variation and relationships in the phytolith dataset. Prior to PCA, the data were normalised using the Box–Cox transformation, which adjust variable distributions towards normality and reduces the influence of extreme values that could bias ordination results [32]. Hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out using Ward’s linkage method, which minimises within-cluster variance. Both PCA and cluster analyses were performed using the software PAST, version 5.2 [33]. The cluster results are treated as indicative and exploratory, as no formal statistical significance testing of cluster separation was applied.
To provide temporal framework for the analysed material, 11 samples from Abora I were dated using the AMS 14C technique. Radiocarbon ages were calibrated using the IntCal20 calibration curve [34,35] in RStudio v.2025.09.2+418 [36].

4. Results

A total of 24 phytolith morphotypes were identified across the 18 analysed samples, including sediments, pottery sherds, grinding stones, and human jawbone (teeth) samples (Figure 3A). The most abundant morphotypes overall were blocky, rondel, spheroidal psilate, and elongate entire forms. Less frequent types included bulliform flabellate, acute bulbosus, tracheary pitted, bilobate, cross, and trapezoid morphotypes. All analysed samples contained phytoliths, although counts varied considerably between samples and material types. Morphotypes commonly associated with grasses of the Poaceae, including rondel and bilobate forms, were recorded in a subset of samples, notably on several grinding stones, selected pottery sherds, and in sediment adhering to some human teeth. The occurrence of these morphotypes varied between contexts and was not uniform across the assemblage.
In addition to silica phytoliths, other microscopic remains were also recorded, including diatoms, sponge spicules, testate amoebae, and fungal spores (Figure 3B). These microremains occurred in varying amounts across the dataset. Several sediment and burial-related samples yielding relatively higher proportions of aquatic indicators such as algae (diatoms and Botryococcus). Pollen grains from arboreal and herbaceous taxa were detected sporadically in a small number of samples.
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) indicates that the first two axes together account for approximately 90% of the total variance in the dataset, with samples distributed along gradients reflecting differences in phytolith morphotype composition and abundance (Figure 4A). The two grinding stone samples AB-F16 and AB-F18 plot away from the central grouping of samples, reflecting comparatively distinct assemblage composition. Burial-related samples are distributed across the ordination space rather than forming a discrete group, indicating variability in their microremains composition. Hierarchical cluster analysis grouped the samples into two main clusters based on overall similarities in phytolith morphotype composition and the presence of other microscopic remains (Figure 4B). One cluster comprises a mixture of grinding stone, pottery, and burial-related samples characterised by generally higher phytolith counts. The second cluster includes samples with lower overall phytolith counts and a relatively higher proportional contribution of non-phytolith microremains. Given the exploratory nature of the clustering approach and the moderate cophenetic correlation, these groupings should be regarded as indicative rather than statistically robust.
The PCA ordination and cluster dendrogram (Figure 4) display heterogeneity in phytolith assemblage composition among the analysed samples. Samples AB-F16 and AB-F18, together with sediment sample sed2 and AB-F33, and AB-38, plot in close proximity within the ordination space and appear closely linked in the hierarchical clustering. Burial-related samples (3rd, 5th and 6th burials) are distributed across different parts of the dendrogram and do not form a single cohesive group. Sample AB-F34 is positioned more distantly and joins the remaining clusters at a higher dissimilarity level.
Hierarchical cluster analysis (Figure 4B), based on Ward’s linkage method and Euclidean distance, revealed two principal clusters in the dataset. One cluster includes samples AB-F16 to AB-F39 together with sediment sample sed2 and the 5th and 6th burial samples. The second cluster comprises samples AB-F17 to ABF34, including sed1, TS-1257, and the 3rd burial sample. The cophenetic correlation coefficient of 0.47 indicates a moderate level of agreement between the dendrogram structure and the original distance matrix, and thus the cluster configuration should be regarded as indicative rather than statistically robust.
Radiocarbon dates from trench “I” span from approximately 3335–2930 BC to 2560–2045 BC (Table 2). These dates place the dated contexts within the chronological range corresponding to the end of the Middle Neolithic (ca. 4100–2900 BC) and the Late Neolithic (ca. 2900–1800 BC). Phytolith-bearing burial-related samples fall within the same general timeframe, with previously published radiocarbon dates for human jawbones ranging between ca. 3100–3480 BC and 2700–2920 BC [25]. One radiocarbon age obtained from Layer 5 is younger (ca. 2045 BC) and represents the most recent dated activity recorded within the analysed sequence.

5. Discussion

The phytolith assemblages from Abora I are characterised by a diverse range of morphotypes, with blocky, elongate entire, and rondel forms being the most abundant. The co-occurrence of bulliform and elongate dendritic morphotypes on grinding stone samples (e.g., AB-F16 and AB-F18) is consistent with patterns observed at other Neolithic sites in northern Europe, where microbotanical analyses of grinding and polishing stones have demonstrated the processing of a broad spectrum of plants, including grasses and other wild taxa, as well as cereal-type crops [37]. Similarly, at the Early Neolithic site of Frydenlund in Denmark, phytoliths and starch grains from grinding stones indicate the processing of both grasses associated with cereals and gathered wild plants [38]. Previous studies have also emphasised that grinding stones frequently carry microremains of grass husks, leaf tissues, and chaff [39,40].
At Abora I, grinding stones samples cluster, at an exploratory level, together with selected sediment samples (e.g., sed2, AB-F33) and pottery sherds (e.g., AB-F25, AB-F38), suggesting that overlapping microremains signals may have derive from shared depositional histories and repeated plant handling in these contexts. The occurrence of rondel and bilobate phytoliths within these samples is noteworthy, as such forms are commonly associated with grasses of the Triticeae tribe [18,41]. However, as phytolith production overlaps between wild and domesticated grasses, species-level identification remains uncertain [15,23]. The co-occurrence of grass-associated rondel and bilobate morphotypes with elongate leaf forms may therefore indicate on-site handling of grass tissues and chaff, and possibly cereal-type plants, but it cannot be taken as definitive proof of cultivated crop processing.
In the wider Eastern Baltic context, direct macrofossil and isotopic evidence for Neolithic cereal cultivation remains limited and debated. For example, critical reassessment of Lithuanian evidence has demonstrated that many previously reported Neolithic cereal finds cannot be securely confirmed [42]. Against this background, the Abora I phytolith data may reflect low-intensity exploitation of cereal-type grasses alongside continued reliance on wild plant resources within a mixed subsistence strategy, rather than clear evidence for established agriculture.
The phytolith evidence here adds a complementary perspective to previous stable isotope studies from Abora I. While isotopic data indicate a subsistence strategy strongly focused on aquatic resources and wild terrestrial animals [25], the phytolith assemblages point to the local handling and processing of plant materials. Rather than contradicting one another, these datasets are best understood as reflecting a mixed, multi-resource economy in which fishing and hunting formed the dietary core, while plant foods—both wild and possibly cultivated—played a secondary and context-dependent role. The occurrence of bulliform, trapezoid, and Ω-type morphologies on grinding stones and pottery samples (e.g., AB-F16, AB-F18, AB-F39) indicates the mechanical processing of grass and leaf tissues. However, these morphotypes are not diagnostic of domesticated cereals and are also produced by a wide range of wild wetland and meadow grasses. In this respect, the Abora I evidence is fully compatible with a long European tradition of wild grass and aquatic plant exploitation in coastal and wetland environments. For example, the late Mesolithic site of Tybring Vig in Denmark, plant macrofossils document the consumption of hazelnuts, acorns, sea beet, and notably Glyceria fluitans (floating sweet grass), alongside intensive fishing [43].
Ethnobotanical and historical studies further demonstrate that Glyceria species were widely gathered as a carbohydrate-rich food resource in the wetlands of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and adjacent regions until recent historical times [44]. The presence of grass-associated phytolith morphotypes at Abora I may therefore reflect the exploitation of similar wild wetland grasses rather than unequivocal cereal cultivation. This interpretation is consistent with critical reassessments of early agriculture in the Eastern Baltic, which show that secure macrofossil evidence for Neolithic crop cultivation is lacking and that many earlier claims were based on misidentified or redeposited material [42]. Taken together, the Abora I phytolith record most plausibly indicates low-intensity plant exploitation focused primarily on wild grasses and wetland resources, with the possibility of cereal-type grasses entering the local plant-use repertoire at a very limited scale.
The AMS 14C dates from Abora I (ca. 3335–2045 BC; Table 2) place the phytolith-bearing contexts within the period corresponding to the end of Middle Neolithic and the Late Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic. This timeframe broadly overlaps with the wider regional transition during which evidence for crop use and cultivation begins to appear more frequently in parts of northern Europe [45]. However, this does not imply that crop cultivation was necessarily established at Abora I itself. The recovery of phytoliths from pottery sherds is consistent with growing microbotanical evidence that ceramic vessels can trap and preserve a wide range of plant residues, including wild herbs, grasses, and, in some cases, cereal-type plants [46]. In the case of Abora I, these finds support the interpretation of pottery as part of plant-processing and food-preparation activities involving both wild and possibly cultivated plant resources.
In the Eastern Baltic context, pollen records have so far provided only indirect and often equivocal signals of early agriculture [1,2], and secure macrofossil evidence for Neolithic crop cultivation remains sparse and debated. Consequently, the Abora I phytolith evidence is best interpreted as reflecting localised plant processing within a predominantly foraging- and fishing-based economy, rather than as definitive proof of early agriculture.
The burial-related samples reveal additional patterns of variability within the phytolith assemblages (Figure 3A). The 5th and 6th burials, together with sample TS-1257, contain rondel, bilobate, and other grass-associated morphotypes, whereas the 3rd burial shows lower overall phytolith diversity but a greater proportional representation of aquatic indicators, including Botryococcus and diatoms (Figure 3B). This contrast most likely reflects a combination of taphonomic factors, including differences in soil moisture, and local hydrological regimes that strongly influence microremain preservation in wetland environments [47]. The potential influence of bioturbation, vertical displacement, and partial dissolution of phytoliths is well documented in wet and acidic soils and must be considered when interpreting assemblage composition in such settings [16,48]. Experimental studies further demonstrate that heating and burning can alter the morphology of diagnostic husk phytoliths, particularly in grasses, potentially leading to under- or over-representation of specific morphotypes [19]. These post-depositional and thermal processes may partly explain why macrofossil and microfossil records do not always show direct correspondence [17,47].
Given these factors, we emphasise that while our study provides the first direct phytolith-based evidence for possible cereal-type use at Abora I, the taxonomic resolution of the phytoliths does not allow definitive species-level identification. Therefore, our results should be interpreted as indicating the local presence and processing of cereal-type grasses (e.g., Hordeum, Triticum) rather than unequivocal proof of systematic cultivation. This cautious interpretation is particularly important in the Eastern Baltic context, where macrofossil evidence for Neolithic agriculture remains sparse and several early cereal claims based on pollen or undated plant remains have been critically re-evaluated [42]. In Lithuania, for example, securely dated cereal macroremains are currently not confirmed before the Bronze Age, despite earlier indirect indicators. Our phytolith data from Abora I therefore complement, rather than replace, existing palaeobotanical and isotopic evidence and point towards small-scale, possibly opportunistic plant use within a predominantly aquatic- and hunting-based subsistence system. The presence of cereal-associated phytoliths in burial contexts further suggests that plant remains may not only reflect diet but could also relate to ritual practices, food offerings, or symbolic activities, as observed in other archaeological contexts where microbotanical residues have been recovered from dental calculus and burial sediments [21,49]. This interpretation fits well with broader models of mixed subsistence strategies during the Late Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic, where foraging lifeways persisted alongside limited or exploratory crop use.
Methodologically, this study demonstrates the importance of applying quantitative marker-based approaches to strengthen the reliability and comparability of phytolith results. The use of Lycopodium spore tablets enabled standardised estimation of phytolith concentrations and reduced counting bias, in line with established palaeoecological and archaeobotanical practice [50,51]. However, our study also highlights several methodological limitations that should be addressed in future works. The lack of a modern regional phytolith reference collection for Latvia currently restricts precise interpretation of cereal versus wild grass morphotypes, an issue widely recognised in microbotanical research [52]. Furthermore, post-depositional processes in wetland environments (including dissolution, redeposition and vertical movement) may alter assemblage composition and must be considered when interpreting archaeological phytolith records [16].
Recent multiproxy studies combining use-wear, phytoliths and starch grains from grinding tools in Neolithic Europe demonstrate how integrated approaches can significantly improve the reconstruction of plant processing activities [53]. Comparable frameworks would be highly valuable for future research at Abora I and other Latvian wetland sites. We therefore recommend that future investigations should prioritise (1) the establishment of a modern phytolith reference collection for local and cultivated grasses, (2) controlled experimental studies on phytolith preservation and heating effects under Latvian soil conditions, and (3) the systematic inclusion of dental calculus, pottery residues and tool-surface sampling as standard archaeobotanical practice, following emerging best practice in the Northeastern Europe [21,52]. Such developments would substantially enhance the detection of early plant use and help clarify the timing and scale of agriculture in Latvia, a region where plant-based subsistence remains methodologically under-documented despite its archaeological importance.

6. Conclusions

This study presents the first application of phytolith analysis in Latvian archaeology and provides new insights into plant use and environmental context at the Abora I settlement during the Middle and Late Neolithic. The diverse phytolith assemblages recovered from grinding stones, pottery sherds, sediments, and burial-related materials indicate the handling and processing of grasses, sedges, and other plant resources within the site. Although the overall abundance of grass-associated phytolith morphotypes such as rondel and bilobate forms was modest, their consistent presence in grinding stone and pottery contexts suggest the local processing of cereal-type grasses at a small scale. However, due to taxonomic overlap between wild and domesticated grasses, species-level identification is not possible, and the evidence cannot be regarded as definitive proof of crop cultivation. Instead, the results point to low-intensity plant exploitation within a predominantly foraging- and fishing-based subsistence economy. These findings contribute to broader discussions on the timing and character of early plant use in the Northeastern Europe and highlight the value of phytolith analysis as a complementary proxy in regions where macrofossil and pollen evidence for early agriculture remains limited and debated.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.S. and G.Z.; methodology, N.S.; validation, N.S. and E.R.; formal analysis, E.R., N.S. and V.H.; investigation, N.S., G.Z., V.H. and E.R.; resources, G.Z.; data curation, N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S.; writing—review and editing, G.Z., V.H.; visualisation, N.S. and V.H.; supervision, G.Z.; project administration, G.Z.; funding acquisition, G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded Latvian Council of Science project No. lzp-2022/1-0300 “The environment and early farming of the Abora Neolithic settlement in Lake Lubāns Wetlands”.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the archaeological team of the University of Latvia and the Institute of Latvian History for their assistance during the Abora I excavations.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design or results of the study.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AMSAccelerator Mass Spectrometry
BPBefore Present (1950)
Cal BCCalibrated years Before Christ
ICPNInternational Code for Phytolith Nomenclature

References

  1. Loze, I. The Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age of the Lubans Wetland. [Pozdnij Neolit i Ranjaja Bronza Lubanskoij Ravnini]; Zinatne: Riga, Latvia, 1979; p. 204. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  2. Rasiņš, A.; Tauriņa, M. Pārskats par Latvijas PSR arheoloģiskajos izrakumos konstatētajām kultūraugu un nezāļu sēklām. [Overview of cultivated and weed seeds identified in archaeological excavations in the Latvian USSR]. Arheol. Etnogrāfija 1983, 14, 152–176. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  3. Graudonis, J. Agro Metālu Periods (1500.–1. g. pr.Kr.) [The Early Metal Period (1500–1 BC)]. In Latvijas Senākā Vesture (9. g.t. pr.Kr.–1200. g.); Mugurēvičs, E., Vasks, A., Eds.; Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Apgāds: Riga, Latvia, 2001; pp. 116–185. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  4. Vasks, A. No Medniekiem un Zvejniekiem Līdz Lopkopjiem un Zemkopjiem: Latvijas Aizvēstures Senākais Posms (10500.–1. g. pr.Kr.). [From Hunters and Fishers to Herders and Farmers: The Earliest Period of Latvian Prehistory (10,500–1 BC)]; Zinatne: Riga, Latvia, 2015; p. 184. ISBN 978-9984-879-98-7. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  5. Robson, H.K.; Skipitytė, R.; Piličiauskienė, G.; Lucquin, A.; Heron, C.; Craig, O.E.; Piličiauskas, G. Diet, cuisine and consumption practices of the first farmers in the southeastern Baltic. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2019, 11, 4011–4024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Oras, E.; Tõrv, M.; Johanson, K.; Rannamäe, E.; Poska, A.; Lõugas, L.; Lucquin, A.; Lundy, J.; Brown, S.; Chen, S.; et al. Parallel worlds and mixed economies: Multi-proxy analysis reveals complex subsistence systems at the dawn of early farming in the northeast Baltic. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2023, 10, 230880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Podėnas, V.; Garbaras, A.; Micelicaite, V.; Minkevicius, K.; Sapolaite, J.; Ezerinskis, Z.; Civilyte, A. Diet of the fortified settlement. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2023, 51, 104184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zariņa, G.; Visocka, V.; Legzdiņa, D.; Ceriņa, A.; Plankājs, E.; Meža, J. Dietary practices during the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age in the territory of Latvia: A case study of Lake Lubāns Wetland and the Lower Daugava. Latv. Vēstures Institūta žurnāls 2023, 118, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Loze, I. Lubāna Mitrāja Apdzīvotība Akmens Laikmetā: Rēzeknes Novada Mezolīta un Neolīta Apmetnes. [Settlement of the Lubans Wetland in the Stone Age: Mesolithic and Neolithic Sites in Rezekne Municipality]; Rēzeknes Augstskola: Rezekne, Latvia, 2015; p. 312. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards, K.J.; Whittington, G. Multiple charcoal profiles in a Scottish lake: Taphonomy, fire ecology, human impact and inference. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2000, 164, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Twiddle, C.L.; Jones, R.T.; Caseldine, C.J.; Sugita, S. Pollen productivity estimates for a pine woodland in eastern Scotland: The influence of sampling design and vegetation patterning. Rev. Palaeobtoany Palynol. 2012, 174, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Regnell, M. Plant subsitence and environment at the Mesolithic site Tagerup, southern Sweden: New insights on the “Nut Age”. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 2012, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Out, W.A.; Enevold, R.; Mikkelsen, P.H.; Jensen, P.M.; Portillo, M.; Schwartz, M. Wood, seeds and fruits, phytoliths, pollen and non-pollen palynomorphs of the horse burial of Fregerslev II. In Horse and Rider in the Late Viking Age; Bagge, M.S., Pedersen, A., Eds.; Aarhus Universitetsforlag: Aarhus, Denmark, 2021; pp. 61–81. [Google Scholar]
  14. Falcon-Lang, H. Piperno, D. R. 2006. Phytoliths. A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists. ix + 238 pp. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Oxford: AltaMira Press (Rowman & Littlefield). Geol. Mag. 2007, 144, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rosen, A.M. Phytolith analysis. Encycl. Archaeol. 2008, 3, 1818–1822. [Google Scholar]
  16. Madella, M.; Lancelotti, C. Taphonomy and phytoliths: A user manual. Quat. Int. 2012, 275, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Neumann, K.; Chevalier, A.; Vrydaghs, L. Phytoliths in archaeology: Recent advances. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 2017, 26, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ball, T.B.; Ehlers, R.; Standing, M.D. Review of typologic and morphometric analysis of phytoliths produced by wheat and barley. Breed. Sci. 2009, 59, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, X.; Shang, X. The influence of heat on phytolith morphology and implications for quantifying archaeological foxtail and common millets. Herit. Sci. 2023, 11, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Juhola, T.; Henry, A.G.; Kirkinen, T.; Laakkonen, J.; Väliranta, M. Phytoliths, parasites, fibers, and feathers from dental calculus and sediment from Iron Age Luistari cemetery, Finland. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2019, 222, 105888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Capasso, G.; Neves, D.; Sperduti, A.; Cristiani, E.; Manzo, A. Direct evidence of plant consumption in Neolithic Eastern Sudan from dental calculus analysis. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 4278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Santiago-Marrero, C.G.; Lymperaki, M.; Urem-Kotsu, D.; Kotsos, S.; García-Granero, J.J. What do phytoliths from pottery cooking vessels represent? Insights from Neolithic Stavroupoli (northern Greece). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2024, 57, 104679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. ICPN (International Committee for Phytolith Taxonomy). International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0. Ann. Bot. 2019, 124, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haferberga, V.; Čakare, A.; Zariņa, G.; Batraga, A.; Kalniņš, M.; Plankājs, E. Arheoloģiskās Izpētes Darbi Aboras I Apmetnē 2023. Gadā. [Archaeological Investigations at the Abora I Settlement in 2023]. In Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2022. un 2023.Gadā; NT Klasika: Riga, Latvia, 2024; pp. 17–22. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  25. Legzdiņa, D.; Zariņa, G. Living on the climate edge suitable for early farming: The complex subsistence strategies of the Late Neolithic people at the Abora site in Latvia. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B 2023, 77, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zelčs, V.; Markots, A. Deglaciation history of Latvia. In Quaternary Glaciationse Extent and Chronology of Glaciations; Ehlers, J., Gibbard, P.L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 225–243. [Google Scholar]
  27. Veski, S.; Amon, L.; Heinsalu, A.; Reitalu, T.; Saarse, L.; Stivrins, N.; Vassiljev, J. Lateglacial vegetation dynamics in the eastern Baltic region between 14,500 and 11,400 cal yr BP: A complete record since the Bolling (GI-1e) to the Holocene. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2012, 40, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Loze, I. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi Aboras vēlā neolīta apmetnē. [Archaeological excavations at the Late Neolithic settlement of Abora]. In Arheologu Pētījumi Latvijā 2008. un 2009 Gadā. [Archaeological Research in Latvia in 2008 and 2009]; Nordik: Riga, Latvia, 2010; pp. 23–26. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  29. Legzdiņa, D.; Plankājs, E.; Visocka, V.; Zariņa, G. Arheoloģiskie izrakumi Aboras I apmetnē 2021. gadā. [Archaeological excavations at the Abora I settlement in 2021]. In Arheologu pētījumi Latvijā 2020. un 2021 Gadā; Nordik: Riga, Latvia, 2022; pp. 11–15. (In Latvian) [Google Scholar]
  30. Kalniņa, L.; Kalniņš, M.; Ceriņa, A.; Zariņa, G.; Goslar, T.; Kalvišķis, K. Multidisciplinary studies for the identification of the environment and early farming of Neolithic settlement in Lubans wetlands. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B Nat. Exact Appl. Sci. 2025, 79, 20–30. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lang, V.; Kriiska, A.; Haak, A. A new Early Bronze Age socketed axe. Est. J. Archaeol. 2006, 10, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Box, G.E.P.; Cox, D.R. An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Servies B Methodol. 1964, 26, 211–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hammer, O.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 9. [Google Scholar]
  34. Reimer, P.; Austin, W.; Bard, E.; Bayliss, A.; Blackwell, P.; Bronk Ramsey, C.; Talamo, S. The IntCal20 northern hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 2020, 62, 725–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Blaauw, M. Methods and code for ‘classical’ age-modelling of radiocarbon sequences. Quat. Geochronol. 2010, 5, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Posit Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Sofware, PBC: Boston, MA, USA, 2025. Available online: http://www.posit.co (accessed on 1 November 2025).
  37. An, J.; Chevalier, A.; Brozio, J.P.; Muller, J.; Kirleis, W. Functional exploration of grinding and polishing stones from the Neolithic settlement site of Oldenburg LA77, Northern Germany—Evidence from plant microfossil analysis. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2025, 61, 104913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Out, W.A.; Garcia-Granero, J.; Andreasen, M.H.; Patus, C.N.; Kirleis, W.; Barfod, G.H.; Andersen, N.H. Plant use at Funnel Beaker sites: Combined macro- and microremains analysis at the Early Neolithic site of Frydenlund, Denmark (ca. 3600 BCE). Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 2025, 34, 177–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dal Corso, M.; Out, W.A.; Ohlrau, R.; Hofmann, R.; Dreibrodt, S.; Videiko, M.; Muller, J.; Kirleis, W. Where are the cereals? Contribution of phytolith analysis to the study of subsistence economy at the Trypillia site Maidanetske (ca. 3900-3650 BCE), central Ukraine. J. Arid. Environ. 2018, 157, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tsartsidou, G.; Kotsakis, K. Grinding in a hollow? Phytolith evidence for pounding cereals in bedrock mortars at Paliambela Kolindros, and Early Neolithic site in Macedonia, North Greece. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2020, 12, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lentfer, C.J.; Boyd, W.E.; Gojak, D. Hope farm windmill: Phytolith analysis of cereals in Early Colonial Australia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1997, 24, 841–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grikpedis, M.; Motuzaite Matuzeviciute, G. A review of the earliest evidence of agriculture in Lithuania and the earliest direct AMS date on cereal. Eur. J. Archaeol. 2018, 21, 264–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kubiak-Martens, L. The plant food component of the diet at the late Mesolithic (Ertebolle) settlement at Tybrind Vig, Denmark. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 1999, 8, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Łuczaj, Ł.J.; Dumanowski, J.; Köhler, P.; Mueller-Bieniek, A. The Use and Economic Value of Manna grass (Glyceria) in Poland from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lucquin, A.; Robson, H.K.; Oras, E.; Lundy, J.; Moretti, G.; Gonzalez, L.; Dekker, C.J.; Demirci, O.; Dolbunova, E.; McLaughlin, T.R.; et al. The impact of farming on prehistoric culinary practices throughout Northern Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2310138120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Saul, H.; Madella, M.; Fischer, A.; Glykou, A.; Hartz, S.; Craig, O.E. Phytoliths in pottery reveal the use of spice in European prehistoric cuisine. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e70583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hart, T.C. Evaluating the usefulness of phytoliths and starch grains found on survey artifacts. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2011, 38, 3244–3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fishkis, O.; Ingwersen, J.; Lamers, M.; Denysenko, D.; Streck, T. Phytolith transport in soil: A laboratory study on intact soil cores. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Danu, M.; Messager, E.; Carozza, J.-M.; Carozza, L.; Bouby, L.; Philibert, S.; Anderson, P.; Burens, A.; Micu, C. Phytolith evidence of cereal processing in the Danube Delta during the Chalcolithic period. Quat. Int. 2019, 504, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kitaba, I.; Nakagawa, T. Black ceramic spheres as marker grains for microfossil analyses, with improved chemical, physical, and optical properties. Quat. Int. 2017, 455, 166–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stockmarr, J. Tablets with spores used in absolute pollen analysis. Pollen Spores 1971, 13, 615–621. [Google Scholar]
  52. Johanson, K.; Unt, A.; Hiie, S. Archaeobotany in Estonia—History, state of the art and future perspectives. Est. J. Archaeol. 2025, 29, 34–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hamon, C.; Cagnato, C.; Emery-Barbier, A.; Salavert, A. Food practices of the first farmers of Europe: Combined use-wear and microbotanical studies of Early Neolithic grinding tools from the Paris basin. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2021, 36, 102764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 08 00524 g001
Figure 1. Location of Abora I settlement in Eastern Baltic (A) and setting of microregion in Lubāns Wetland area (B). With red dots are indicated sites discussed in the text: (1) Lagaža, (2) Eiņi, (3) Zvidze and (4) Asne. (C) The surface of plane no. 4 of the trench “I”, including object no. 2 (author: V. Haferberga). In blue indicated: stones; in yellow indicated: bones. Height above the sea level showed (m.a.s.l.) and archaeological excavation zonation (e.g., X1Y2, etc.).
Figure 1. Location of Abora I settlement in Eastern Baltic (A) and setting of microregion in Lubāns Wetland area (B). With red dots are indicated sites discussed in the text: (1) Lagaža, (2) Eiņi, (3) Zvidze and (4) Asne. (C) The surface of plane no. 4 of the trench “I”, including object no. 2 (author: V. Haferberga). In blue indicated: stones; in yellow indicated: bones. Height above the sea level showed (m.a.s.l.) and archaeological excavation zonation (e.g., X1Y2, etc.).
Heritage 08 00524 g001
Heritage 08 00524 g002
Figure 2. Selection of phytoliths identified from Abora I (at various scales). Spheroid psilate: A—Human jaw TS-1257(6), B—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Spheroid ornate: C—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Blocky: D—Human jaw 3rd burial (AB), E—Pottery (Lubans type) AB-F25, F—Human jaw 58th burial (AB); Acute bulbosus: G—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Bulliform flabellate: H—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34, I—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34, J—Pottery (Lubans type) AB-F25, K—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Acute bulbosus: L—Grinding stone AB-F16, M—Human jaw 6th burial (AB), N—Human jaw TS-1257(6), O—Sed2, P—Pottery (Corded ware) AB-F38; Ellipsoidal/ovate: R—Human jaw 3rd burial (AB); Papilate: S—Grinding stone AB-F16, T—Pottery (Ilmandu (?) type) AB-F15, U–Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F28; V—blocky (on left) and sponge spicula (on right) from Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Elongate entire: Z—Grinding stone AB-F18, X—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F39, W—Pottery (Lubans type) AB-F32, AA—Grinding stone AB-F18; Elongate dendritic: AB—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Elongate sinuate: AC—Grinding stone AB-F16; Tracheary pitted: AD—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34, AE—Sed2, AF—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Sponge spicula: AG—Sed2, AH—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F39; Biolobate: AI—Human jaw 6th burial, AJ and AK—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Rondel: AL—Human jaw TS-1257(6), AM—Pottery (Abora type) AB-F34, AN—Grinding stone AB-F16; Trapezoid: AO—Grinding stone AB-F18, AP—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Ω pattern: AR—Grinding stone AB-F18.
Figure 2. Selection of phytoliths identified from Abora I (at various scales). Spheroid psilate: A—Human jaw TS-1257(6), B—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Spheroid ornate: C—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Blocky: D—Human jaw 3rd burial (AB), E—Pottery (Lubans type) AB-F25, F—Human jaw 58th burial (AB); Acute bulbosus: G—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Bulliform flabellate: H—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34, I—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34, J—Pottery (Lubans type) AB-F25, K—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Acute bulbosus: L—Grinding stone AB-F16, M—Human jaw 6th burial (AB), N—Human jaw TS-1257(6), O—Sed2, P—Pottery (Corded ware) AB-F38; Ellipsoidal/ovate: R—Human jaw 3rd burial (AB); Papilate: S—Grinding stone AB-F16, T—Pottery (Ilmandu (?) type) AB-F15, U–Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F28; V—blocky (on left) and sponge spicula (on right) from Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Elongate entire: Z—Grinding stone AB-F18, X—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F39, W—Pottery (Lubans type) AB-F32, AA—Grinding stone AB-F18; Elongate dendritic: AB—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34; Elongate sinuate: AC—Grinding stone AB-F16; Tracheary pitted: AD—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F34, AE—Sed2, AF—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Sponge spicula: AG—Sed2, AH—Pottery (Abora ware) AB-F39; Biolobate: AI—Human jaw 6th burial, AJ and AK—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Rondel: AL—Human jaw TS-1257(6), AM—Pottery (Abora type) AB-F34, AN—Grinding stone AB-F16; Trapezoid: AO—Grinding stone AB-F18, AP—Human jaw TS-1257(6); Ω pattern: AR—Grinding stone AB-F18.
Heritage 08 00524 g002
Heritage 08 00524 g003
Figure 3. (A)—Phytoliths, (B)—other microscopic remains from Abora I. Counts per sample indicated by bars. Single findings are indicated by dots.
Figure 3. (A)—Phytoliths, (B)—other microscopic remains from Abora I. Counts per sample indicated by bars. Single findings are indicated by dots.
Heritage 08 00524 g003
Heritage 08 00524 g004
Figure 4. Abora I samples and their similarity according to the: (A)—Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and (B)—Cluster Analysis dendrogram. Symbols in PCA: Black circle—pottery, black square—human jaw, white square—grinding stone, and asterisk—sediment samples.
Figure 4. Abora I samples and their similarity according to the: (A)—Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and (B)—Cluster Analysis dendrogram. Symbols in PCA: Black circle—pottery, black square—human jaw, white square—grinding stone, and asterisk—sediment samples.
Heritage 08 00524 g004
Table 1. Abora I samples for phytolith analysis.
Table 1. Abora I samples for phytolith analysis.
SampleMaterialStratigraphy (Layer/Stratum)Depth (cm)/Elevation (m.a.s.l.)Excavation Year
AB-F17Grinding stone3/542/92.0732024 (this study)
AB-F18Grinding stone3/3–539/92.1032024 (this study)
AB-F16Grinding stone3/537.3/92.1202024 (this study)
AB-F25Pottery (Lubāns type)5/753.9/91.9542024 (this study)
AB-F37Pottery (Lubāns type)3/4–528/92.2132024 (this study)
AB-F38Pottery (Corded ware)4/5–645/92.0432024 (this study)
AB-F39Pottery (Abora ware)3/6–746.3/92.0582024 (this study)
AB-F34Pottery (Abora ware)3/423.8/92.2832024 (this study)
AB-F15Pottery (Ilmandu (?) type)-/526/-2024 (this study)
AB-F28Pottery (Abora ware)2/1–210.2/92.3912024 (this study)
AB-F32Pottery (Lubāns type)2/112/92.4012024 (this study)
TS-1257(6), singular findHuman jaw3/3Ca. 40/92.0462023 [24]
6th burial (AB)Human jaw-53/-1964 [1]
3rd burial (AB)Human jaw-50/-1964 [1]
58th burial (AB)Human jaw-50/-1971 [1]
Sed1Sediment3/-Ca. 30–40/-2024 (this study)
Sed2Sediment3/-Ca. 30–40/-2024 (this study)
AB-F33Sediment4/540.4/92.0892024 (this study)
Table 2. 14C AMS dating material and results.
Table 2. 14C AMS dating material and results.
SampleContextm.a.s.l.Sample TypeLab. ID14C Age (BP)Calibrated BC
(95%)
Abora TS 1140Trench “I”, layer 3, sq. X1Y292.05CharcoalPoz-1924604445 ± 353335–2930
Abora TS 1160Trench “I”, layer 3, sq. X1Y292.09CharcoalPoz-1931764155 ± 302875–2630
Abora TS 1179Trench “I”, layer 3, sq. X1Y292.06CharcoalPoz-1931754230 ± 352910–2680
Abora TS 1213Trench “I”, layer 4, sq. X1Y192.04CharcoalPoz-1924584125 ± 352870–2580
Abora TS 1215Trench “I”, layer 4, sq. X1Y192,03CharcoalPoz-1924574140 ± 352875–2585
Abora TS 1217Trench “I”, layer 4, sq. X1Y292.01CharcoalPoz-1924564105 ± 352870–2500
Abora TS 1266Trench “I”, layer 5, sq. X1Y191.96CharcoalPoz-1931314055 ± 352845–2470
Abora TS 1270Trench “I”, layer 5, sq. X1Y191.94CharcoalPoz-1931303850 ± 802560–2045
Abora TS 1274Trench “I”, layer 5, sq. X1Y291.98CharcoalPoz-1924634100 ± 352865–2500
Abora TS 1285Trench “I”, layer 5, sq. X1Y291.89CharcoalPoz-1931294155 ± 352880–2625
Abora X1Y2Trench “I”, layer 5/bedrock, sq. X1Y2-CharcoalPoz-1924624150 ± 352880–2585
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stivrins, N.; Zariņa, G.; Haferberga, V.; Reire, E. Tracing the Onset of Agriculture Through Phytolith Analysis at the Abora I Neolithic Settlement, Eastern Latvia. Heritage 2025, 8, 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8120524

AMA Style

Stivrins N, Zariņa G, Haferberga V, Reire E. Tracing the Onset of Agriculture Through Phytolith Analysis at the Abora I Neolithic Settlement, Eastern Latvia. Heritage. 2025; 8(12):524. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8120524

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stivrins, Normunds, Gunita Zariņa, Vanda Haferberga, and Elina Reire. 2025. "Tracing the Onset of Agriculture Through Phytolith Analysis at the Abora I Neolithic Settlement, Eastern Latvia" Heritage 8, no. 12: 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8120524

APA Style

Stivrins, N., Zariņa, G., Haferberga, V., & Reire, E. (2025). Tracing the Onset of Agriculture Through Phytolith Analysis at the Abora I Neolithic Settlement, Eastern Latvia. Heritage, 8(12), 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8120524

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop