Abstract
During the archaeological excavations in the Phoenician and Punic settlement of Santa Giusta (Oristano, Sardinia, Italy), dating back to the 6th–2nd centuries bc, several Prunus fruitstones (endocarps) inside amphorae were recovered. The exceptional state of preservation of the waterlogged remains allowed morphometric measurements to be done by image analysis and statistical comparisons made with modern cultivated and wild Prunus samples collected in Sardinia. Digital images of modern and archaeological Prunus fruitstones were acquired with a flatbed scanner and analysed by applying image analysis techniques to measure 26 morphometric features. By applying stepwise linear discriminant analysis, a morphometric comparison was made between the archaeological fruitstones of Prunus and the modern ones collected in Sardinia. These analyses allowed identification of 53 archaeological fruitstones as P. spinosa and 11 as P. domestica. Moreover, the archaeological samples of P. spinosa showed morphometric similarities in 92.5% of the cases with the modern P. spinosa samples currently growing near the Phoenician and Punic site. Likewise, the archaeological fruitstones identified as P. domestica showed similarities with the modern variety of P. domestica called Sanguigna di Bosa which is currently cultivated near the village of Bosa. Currently, these findings represent the first evidence of P. domestica in Italy during the Phoenician and Punic periods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The genus Prunus L. (Rosaceae) includes about 400 species classified into five subgenera including Prunus, Amygdalus, Cerasus, Padus and Laurocerasus, which are mainly distributed in temperate regions of the boreal hemisphere (Krussman 1986; Maynard et al. 1991; Aradhya et al. 2004; Yilmaz et al. 2009). Domesticated Prunus includes European plum (Prunus domestica L.), Japanese plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.), peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch], apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.), sweet cherry [Prunus avium (L.) L.], sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and almond [Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb]. With the exception of almonds, where the edible part consists of the seeds, the others are consumed for their fleshy fruits (Janick 2005).
Prunus domestica (plum) is one of the most economically important fruits in temperate regions and represents a major crop in Europe and southwest Asia (Ramming and Cociu 1991; Watkins 1995; Körber-Grohne 1996; Zohary et al. 2012). In 2013, FAOSTAT estimated that the total commercial harvest of plums was 12 million tons, cultivated from 2.5 million ha (FAOSTAT 2013).
The primary centre of plum domestication has been identified in Central Asia, with other secondary centres in East Asia, Europe and North America (Watkins 1995). However, the effective place(s) of origin and domestication of plum are still under investigation.
Crane and Lawrence (1952) and Watkins (1995) suggested that plum might be a polyploid derivative of a cross between the tetraploid Prunus spinosa L. and diploid P. cerasifera Ehrh. P. spinosa (sloe) is a shrub with a distribution range that extends from the western and central parts of Europe to Asia Minor; it is also present in the Caucasus region and North Africa (Hegi 1995). However, as suggested by Zohary et al. (2012), the wild relative of P. domestica is an autopolyploid derived from P. cerasifera that probably also partially contributed to two other wild species, including P. cocomilia Ten. and P. brigantino Vill. Moreover, P. domestica ssp. insititia (L.) Bonnier & Layens (damson) is considered the ancestor of modern plums (Woldring 2000; Zohary et al. 2012).
Recently, genetic studies have shown that P. spinosa, P. domestica ssp. insititia and P. domestica have close genetic relationships (Aradhya et al. 2004; Pollmann et al. 2005; Depypere et al. 2009; Horvath et al. 2011; Xuan et al. 2011; Milošević and Milošević 2012; Athanasiadis et al. 2013). In addition, different authors investigating genetic relatedness between modern Prunus species concluded that the phylogenetic reconstruction is the result of several processes of speciation derived from hybridisation that occurred during a long time span (Bouhadida et al. 2004, 2007; Katayama and Uematsu 2005; Wünsch 2009; Yilmaz et al. 2009; Horvath et al. 2011).
Archaeological evidence of P. spinosa fruitstones has been found in many archaeological sites in the western Mediterranean basin, dating between the Neolithic Age and Bronze Age (Woldring 2000; Zohary et al. 2012). However, in archaeological sites dating between the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, a large number of intermediate forms due to interspecific hybridisation among sloe, damson and plum have also been found (Pollmann et al. 2005). During the Roman period, the domestic plum seems to have appeared and then spread into western Europe (Janick 2005).
The earliest evidence of plum cultivation in Italy was found in a cesspit under the Temple of Fortuna in Pompeii, where a fruitstone of plum, dated to 150 bc, was found (Zech-Matterne et al. 2015). Also from Pompeii in the House of the Orchard, some painted representations of cultivated plums with yellow, blue and purple fruit dating back to 79 bc were found (Table 1; Jashemski and Meyer 2002).
Lastly, written sources provide some descriptions of cultivated plums. For example, Theophrastus mentioned the names ‘Prumnon’ in his Enquiry into Plants (Περὶ Φυτῶν Ιστορίας) and Pliny described several varieties of plums with yellow, red, violet, black, white or bright coloured fruits in his Natural History (cited in Jashemski and Meyer 2002).
Prunus identification at the species level with traditional archaeobotanical methods is difficult due to the morphological range variation within the different taxa (Woldring 2000; Pollmann et al. 2005; Depypere et al. 2007). According to Horvath et al. (2011), the taxonomic classification of Prunus is generally done on the phenotypic characteristics of their flowers and fruits, and it would be better to associate both morphological characteristics and molecular markers, as the phenotypic characteristics are not always reliable due to variation that can occur due to environmental conditions. As argued by Depypere et al. (2007) and Woldring (2000), the fruitstone of Prunus would be the most stable of all diagnostic characters used for their identification at the species level. For this reason, in archaeobotanical studies the characteristics of the fruitstone were successfully used for their classification (Pollmann et al. 2005; Zheng et al. 2014).
During the last two decades, a significant increase in the use of image analysis applications has been highlighted in the plant biology research field, and automatized systems have the potential to replace human visual assessments. Due to the application of new image analysis technologies to plant biology, it is possible to use them on archaeobotanical material to distinguish, in an accurate, reproducible and repeatable way, wild taxa from cultivated ones (Terral et al. 2010; Bouby et al. 2013; Orrù et al. 2013; Pagnoux et al. 2015; Sabato et al. 2015; Ucchesu et al. 2015, 2016).
The recent discovery of several intact Prunus fruitstones recovered from inside various amphorae in the Phoenician and Punic contexts of the lagoon of Santa Giusta (Oristano, Sardinia), dated in a range between the 6th and the 2nd century bc, brings into question the spread of domesticated plums in Italy.
The present work aims to identify and characterise the Prunus remains from the archaeological contexts of Santa Giusta in order to investigate the domestication level of these remains by applying image analysis techniques and to explore the possible relationships among archaeological remains, traditional varieties of plum and wild populations present in Sardinia today.
Archaeological context
The Phoenician and Punic settlement of Santa Giusta is located in the north-central part of the Gulf of Oristano (39°51ʹ57″N, 8°35ʹ21″E) in Sardinia, near the former city of Othoca (Fig. 1). It has an almost circular shape, with a maximum area of 900 ha and a depth ranging from 40 to 150 cm. The site is waterlogged and has been excavated since 2005 under the supervision of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici per le province di Cagliari e Oristano and the University of Cagliari and is still in progress (Del Vais and Sanna 2009, 2012). The underwater excavation allowed for the recovery of several amphorae dating back to the Phoenician and Punic period in the 6th–2nd centuries bc (ESM 1; Del Vais and Sanna 2009). Various materials were found inside several amphorae and sediments, including animal remains such as Ovis aries, Capra hircus, Bos taurus (Portas et al. 2015) and macro plant remains, which were preserved in excellent condition due to the anaerobic conditions (Del Vais and Sanna 2009).
Materials and methods
Archaeological samples
A total of 64 waterlogged Prunus fruitstones (code PRU_SG) were analysed in this study. Nine Prunus fruitstones came from four amphorae and 55 fruitstones from the layers R8, R9, R10. The remains were recovered by using the wash-over technique with a fine mesh (0.25 mm) (Kenward et al. 1980). Prunus remains were subsequently kept in distilled water and stored at +5 °C.
Modern samples
Modern samples of P. spinosa were collected from 11 different populations in Sardinia (ESM 2, Fig. 1), and fruitstones of P. domestica, representing 22 traditional varieties, came from different locations in Sardinia, duplicated in the field catalogue of CNR-ISPA (Nuraxinieddu, Oristano, Sardinia) (ESM 2, Fig. 1). Some of these samples were collected and selected from areas closest to the archaeological site to evaluate the potential relationships between the varieties and archaeological remains. In order to ensure the highest number of accessions, the fruit was sampled in three consecutive years, from 2012 to 2014. In addition, two accessions of P. domestica ssp. insititia (AN1 and AN2) preserved in the Sardinian Germplasm Bank (BG-SAR) were added to the study and considered as an outgroup.
Digital image analysis
Digital images of the modern and archaeological fruitstones were acquired using an Epson Perfection V550 flatbed scanner with a digital resolution of 400 dpi for a scanning area not exceeding 1024 × 1024 pixels (Bacchetta et al. 2008). Image acquisition of modern fruitstones was done after cleaning away of the pulp. To minimise shape variations, according to Depypere et al. (2007), image acquisition of the archaeological fruitstones was done on slightly dehydrated samples.
The images were processed and analysed using the software package ImageJ v. 1.49 (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij). A plugin, Particles 8 (Landini 2006), freely available on the official website http://www.mecourse.com/landinig/software/software.html, was used to measure 26 endocarp morphometric features (Table 2; Fig. 2). In all, 2,845 Prunus fruitstones were analysed.
Statistical analysis
The raw data recorded from the studied fruitstones were statistically analysed by applying the stepwise linear discriminant analysis (LDA) method, using IBM SPSS software package v. 16.0 (SPSS Inc. 2006). This method is commonly used to classify or identify unknown groups characterised by quantitative and qualitative variables (Fisher 1936, 1940; Sugiyama 2007). It allows for finding the combination of predictor variables with the aim of minimising the within-class distance and maximising the between-class distance simultaneously, thus achieving maximum class discrimination (Hastie et al. 2001; Holden et al. 2011; Alvin and William 2012; Kuhn and Johnson 2013).
On the basis of three statistical variables, Tolerance, F-to-enter and F-to-remove, the stepwise procedure selects the best features to use for the discrimination process. The Tolerance value indicates the proportion of a variable’s variance that is not accounted for by other independent variables in the equation. A variable with extremely low Tolerance values provides little information to the model. The F-to-enter and F-to-remove values define the power of each variable in the model and describe what happens if a variable is either inserted or removed from the current model (Grillo et al. 2012). This method starts with a model that does not include any variables. At each step, the variable with the largest F-to-enter value that exceeds the selected entry criteria (F ≥ 3.84) is added to the model. The variables omitted from the analysis at the last step have F-to-enter values smaller than 3.84 and are not added. The process is automatically stopped when no remaining variables are able to increase the discrimination of the method (Lo Bianco et al. 2017). Finally, a cross-validation procedure is applied to verify the performance of the identification system by testing individual unknown cases and classifying them on the basis of all the others. This procedure, also called rotation estimation (Picard and Cook 1984; Kohavi 1995), was applied, both to evaluate the performance and to validate any classifier. The validation procedure used here is the leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) (Grillo et al. 2016). It involves using a single case from the original sample set as the validation dataset and the remaining cases as the training set. Each case is classified into a group according to the classification functions computed from all the data, except the case being classified. The proportion of misclassified cases after removing the effect of each case one at a time is the leave-one-out estimate of misclassification (SPSS 2006).
All the raw data were standardized before starting any statistical calculation. Moreover, in order to evaluate the quality of the discriminant functions achieved for each statistical comparison, the Wilks’ Lambda, the Eigenvalues, the percentage of explained variance, the Chi square and the Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients (SCDFCs) were computed.
Results
To test the variability existing in P. domestica, a comparison among the fruitstones of the 22 modern varieties collected in Sardinia was carried out and an overall percentage of correct identification of 86.1% was reached (ESM 3).
A preliminary morphometric comparison was made among the fruitstones belonging to the three taxonomic entities (P. spinosa, P. domestica and P. domestica ssp. insititia) and the 64 waterlogged archaeological fruitstones from Santa Giusta (PRU_SG) were added to the classifier as an unknown group (Table 3).
An overall correct identification percentage of 94% was achieved. The fruitstones of P. spinosa were perfectly identified, while there were a few misidentifications among P. domestica and P. domestica ssp. insititia. Of the archaeological unknown fruitstones from Santa Giusta, 83% (53 fruitstones) were identified as P. spinosa and 17% (11 fruitstones) as P. domestica (Table 3). Table 4 shows the number of Prunus fruitstones identified from the amphorae and the layers R8, R9, R10.
No morphometric difference was observed between Prunus remains of differing ages (data not shown).
Considering these achievements, the 11 archaeological fruitstones identified as being from P. domestica, one more time considered as unknown specimens, were compared with the modern varieties of plum. In this case, the archaeological samples from Santa Giusta showed most similarities with the varieties Sanguigna di Bosa (SBO) in 81.8% of cases and Di Bonarcado (FAR) in 9.1% of cases (Fig. 3). Likewise, the 53 archaeological fruitstones from Santa Giusta, identified as P. spinosa, were considered unknown and compared with the modern wild populations of P. spinosa from Sardinia. These archaeological fruitstones were very similar to those collected at Monte Arci (MRC) in 90.6% of cases (Table 5; Fig. 3).
In the evaluation of the features, the most discriminant five variables, of the 25 selected and used by the stepwise LDA, are reported. The first variable is the area of the endocarp, with a high value of F-to-remove (ESM 4).
Discussion
The domestication process of fruit trees remains unclear, perhaps because fruits have received much less attention than annual crop plants (Goldschmidt 2013). The identification of the place of origin of cultivated species of Prunus is difficult due to their long history of cultivation, to which human dispersion to different places is added (Pollmann et al. 2005). Therefore, Prunus species may have become naturalised, creating difficulties for the distinction between ancestrally wild populations and those which escaped from cultivation (Kole and Abbott 2012). As suggested by Pollmann et al. (2005), attribution of Prunus remains to a specific species is limited due to the imprecise classification of these groups.
From the results obtained through LDA, it was possible to identify correctly the unknown Prunus remains of the Santa Giusta context as cultivated varieties and wild species. From the 64 archaeological remains, 53 of these were classified as P. spinosa, while the other 11 were classified as P. domestica. In particular, none of these fruitstones were attributed to P. domestica ssp. insititia, the wild form at the origin of the domestic plum. Based on these achievements, it can be assumed that the earliest plum cultivation may have occurred in Sardinia at least since the 6th century bc, during the Archaic Period. However, the place of origin of these cultivated fruit trees is still unknown. There are more finds of domesticated fruitstones of plum in waterlogged contexts of the Roman period, suggesting that the Romans contributed to the spread of several varieties of plums into western Europe (Pollmann et al. 2005; Zohary et al. 2012). A further result of this study is that the archaeological remains from Santa Giusta which were identified as P. domestica, are similar to a traditional variety that is cultivated in the territory of Bosa, in northwestern Sardinia.
The close relationship shown by the comparative analysis between the archaeological and modern samples of P. spinosa allow us to hypothesise that the wild fruit found in the Santa Giusta amphorae might have been gathered on the slopes of Monte Arci which is located just 10 km from the Santa Giusta archaeological site. This massif is a volcanic complex rich in obsidian materials which were exploited for millennia by the Neolithic community. In addition, it is probable that during the Phoenician and Punic period this was an important area for the exploitation of natural resources, as shown by the gathered wild fruit found in the amphorae of Santa Giusta.
Possible hypotheses about the use of this wild fruit can be made using ethnobotanical research. The uses of sloes are varied; ethnobotanical literature indicates their use principally for food and medicine (Parada et al. 2009; Tiţă et al. 2009; Łuczaj 2012; Pardo-de-Santayana et al. 2013; Pieroni and Quave 2014). In Sardinia, the consumption of sloes as food and as medicine is well documented, as a liquid extract of flowers or fruit for the treatment of coughs, in addition to their traditional use for dyeing wool (Atzei 2003; Campanini 2009).
Other uses may be related to religious rituals: in some Punic tombs, charcoal remains of sloe could represent firewood for human body cremation or ritual offerings (Gómez Bellard et al. 1990). In addition, in Roman cemeteries, the use of fresh fruit of sloe, damson and plum as ritual offerings is well known (Preiss et al. 2005; Cooremans 2008; Bouby et al. 2011; Rottoli and Castiglioni 2011).
In the case of Santa Giusta, the presence of P. spinosa and P. domestica together with animal remains could represent their use as food or could be linked to food preservation methods. This practice is well known for Phoenician and Punic Sardinia (Del Vais and Sanna 2012).
Conclusions
The discovery of well-preserved waterlogged fruitstones of P. domestica in the Phoenician and Punic contexts of Santa Giusta could be evidence that the introduction of primitive cultivated forms of plums in Sardinia was started by the Phoenician people in the Archaic period. Therefore, these fruitstones represent the first cultivated plum finds in Sardinia and the oldest evidence of cultivated plums in Italy. We hope for future investigations to better understand the history of the beginning of domestication of fruit trees in the Mediterranean basin.
References
Alvin CR, William FC (2012) Methods of multivariate analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken
Antolín F, Jacomet S (2015) Wild fruit use among early farmers in the Neolithic (5400–2300 cal bc) in the north-east of the Iberian Peninsula: an intensive practice? Veget Hist Archaeobot 24:19–33
Antolín F, Buxó R, Jacomet S, Navarrete V, Saña M (2014) An integrated perspective on farming in the Early Neolithic lakeshore site of La Draga (Banyoles, Spain). Environ Archaeol 19:241–255
Aradhya MK, Weeks C, Simon CJ (2004) Molecular characterization of variability and relationships among seven cultivated and selected wild species of Prunus L. using amplified fragment length polymorphism. Sci Hortic 103:131–144
Arobba D, Caramiello R, Del Lucchese A (2003) Archaeobotanical investigations in Liguria: preliminary data on the early Iron Age at Monte Trabocchetto (Pietra Ligure, Italy). Veget Hist Archaeobot 12:253–262
Athanasiadis I, Nikoloudakis N, Hagidimitriou M (2013) Genetic relatedness among cultivars of the Greek plum germplasm. Not Bot Horti Agrobot 41:491–498
Atzei AD (2003) Le piante nella tradizione popolare della Sardegna: documentazione sugli usi alimentari, aromatizzanti, profumieri, artigianali, cosmetici, medicinali, veterinari, magici, ornamentali, rituali, religiosi, tintori, antiparassitari e vari, delle piante. Delfino, Sassari
Bacchetta G, Grillo O, Mattana E, Venora G (2008) Morpho-colorimetric characterization by image analysis to identify diaspores of wild plant species. Flora 203:669–682
Bakels C (2002) Plant remains from Sardinia, Italy with notes on barley and grape. Veget Hist Archaeobot 11:3–8
Bellini C, Mariotti-Lippi M, Mori Secci M, Aranguren B, Perazzi P (2008) Plant gathering and cultivation in prehistoric Tuscany (Italy). Veget Hist Archaeobot 1:103–112
Bouby L, Bouchette A, Figueiral I (2011) Sebesten fruits (Cordia myxa L.) in Gallia Narbonensis (Southern France): a trade item from the Eastern Mediterranean? Veget Hist Archaeobot 20:397–404
Bouby L, Figueiral I, Bouchette A, Rovira N, Ivorra S, Lacombe T, Pastor T, Picq S, Marinval P, Terral J (2013) Bioarchaeological insights into the process of domestication of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) during Roman times in Southern France. PLoS One 8:e63195
Bouhadida M, Casas AM, Moreno MA, Gogorcena Y (2004) Genetic diversity of Prunus rootstocks using microsatellite markers. Acta Hort 663:625–628
Bouhadida M, Martín JP, Eremin G, Pinochet J, Moreno MÁ, Gogorcena Y (2007) Chloroplast DNA diversity in Prunus and its implication on genetic relationships. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 132:670–679
Campanini E (2009) Piante medicinali in Sardegna. Ilisso, Nuoro
Castiglioni E, Cottini M, Rottoli M (2008) Archeobotanica del Campaniforme in area lombarda. Atti del Convegno, Bell Beaker days in Italy-Bell Beaker in everyday life. Firenze, Siena, Villanuova sul Clisi, pp 12–15
Cooremans B (2008) The Roman cemeteries of Tienen and Tongeren: results from the archaeobotanical analysis of the cremation graves. Veget Hist Archaeobot 17:3–13
Costantini L, Costantini Biasini L, Delle Donne M (2007) L’agricoltura del villaggio protostorico di Nola, loc. Croce del Papa (Napoli). In: Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (ed) Atti della XL Riunione Scientifica “Strategie di insediamento fra Lazio e Campania in età preistorica e protostorica”, vol 2. Ist. Italiano di Preistoria, Firenze, pp 705–717
Crane MB, Lawrence WJC (1952) The genetics of garden plants. Macmillan, London
Del Vais C, Sanna I (2009) Ricerche su contesti sommersi di età fenicia e punica nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR). Campagne 2005–2007. Studi Sardi 34:123–149
Del Vais C, Sanna I (2012) Nuove ricerche subacquee nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR) (campagna del 2009–2010). In: Arru MG, Campus S, Cicilloni R, La dogana R (eds) Ricerca e confronti 2010. Atti delle Giornate di studio di archeologia e storia dell’arte a 20 anni dall’istituzione del Dipartimento di Scienze Archeologiche e Storico-artistiche dell’Università degli Studi di Cagliari. (Suplemento ArcheoArte 1) Bulletino de Paletnologia Italiana, Cagliari, pp 201–233
Depypere L, Chaerle P, Vander Mijnsbrugge K, Goetghebeur P (2007) Stony endocarp dimension and shape variation in Prunus section Prunus. Ann Bot 100:1,585–1,597
Depypere L, Chaerle P, Breyne P, Vander Mijnsbrugge K, Goetghebeur P (2009) A combined morphometric and AFLP based diversity study challenges the taxonomy of the European members of the complex Prunus L. section Prunus. Plant Syst Evol 279:219–231
FAOSTAT (2013) http://www.faostat.fao. Accessed 10 Oct 2016
Figueiral I, Bouby L, Buffat L, Petitot H, Terral JF (2010) Archaeobotany, vine growing and wine producing in Roman Southern France: the site of Gasquinoy (Béziers, Hérault). J Archaeol Sci 37:139–149
Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Ann Eugen 7:179–188
Fisher RA (1940) The precision of discriminant functions. Ann Eugen 10:422–429
Giachi G, Mori Secci M, Pignatelli O, Gambogi P, Mariotti Lippi M (2010) The prehistoric pile-dwelling settlement of Stagno (Leghorn, Italy): wood and food resource exploitation. J Archaeol Sci 37:1,260–1,268
Goldschmidt EE (2013) The evolution of fruit tree productivity: a review. Econ Bot 67:51–62
Gómez Bellard F, Gurrea R, Grau E, Martínez R (1990) La colonización fenicia de la isla de Ibiza (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 157). Ministerio de cultura, Madrid
Grillo O, Draper D, Venora G, Martínez-Laborde JB (2012) Seed image analysis and taxonomy of Diplotaxis DC. (Brassicaceae, Brassiceae). Syst Biodiv 10:57–70
Grillo O, Andrés M, Moreno-Vazquez S (2016) Quantitative evaluation of Heterodera avenae females from soil and root extracts by digital image analysis. Crop Prot 81:85–91
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer, New York
Hegi G (1995) Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Lehmann, München
Holden JE, Finch WH, Kelley K (2011) A comparison of two-group classification methods. Educ Psychol Meas 71:870–901
Horvath A, Balsemin E, Barbot JC, Christmann H, Manzano G, Reynet P, Laigret F, Mariette S (2011) Phenotypic variability and genetic structure in plum (Prunus domestica L.), cherry plum (P. cerasifera Ehrh.) and sloe (P. spinosa L.). Sci Hortic 129:283–293
Jacomet S (2003) Und zum Dessert Granatapfel—Ergebnisse der archäobotanischen Untersuchungen. In: Hagendorn A, Doppler HW, Huber A, Hüster-Plogmann H, Jacomet S, Meyer-Freuler C, Pfäffli B, Schibler J (eds) Zur Frühzeit von Vindonissa. Auswertung der Holzbauten der Grabung Windisch-Breite 1996–1998. Veröff Ges Pro Vindonissa 18:48–79, 173–229, 482–492
Janick J (2005) The origin of fruits, fruit growing and fruit breeding. Plant Breed Rev 25:255–320
Jashemski WF, Meyer FG (2002) The natural history of Pompeii. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Katayama H, Uematsu C (2005) Structural analysis of chloroplast DNA in Prunus (Rosaceae): evolution, genetic diversity and unequal mutations. Theor Appl Genet 111:1,430–1,439
Kenward HK, Hall AR, Jones AKG (1980) A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits. Sci Archaeol 22:3–15
Knörzer KH (1967) Römerzeitliche Pflanzenfunde aus Aachen. In: Knörzer KH, Untersuchungen subfossiler pflanzlicher Grossreste im Rheinland. Archaeo-Physika 2:39–64
Knörzer KH (1970) Römerzeitliche Pflanzenfunde aus Neuss. (Novaesium IV, Limesforschungen 10) Mann, Berlin
Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp 1,137–1,143
Kohler-Schneider M, Caneppele A (2009) Late Neolithic agriculture in eastern Austria: archaeobotanical results from sites of the Baden and Jevišovice cultures (3600–2800 bc). Veget Hist Archaeobot 18:61–74
Kole C, Abbott AG (2012) Genetics, genomics and breeding of stone fruits. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Krussman G (1986) Manual of cultivated broad-leaved trees and shrubs, vol 3. Timber Press, Portland/OR, pp 18–85
Kuhn M, Johnson K (2013) Discriminant analysis and other linear classification models. In: Kuhn M, Johnson K (eds) Applied predictive modeling. Springer, New York, pp 275–328
Körber-Grohne U (1996) Pflaumen, Kirschpflaumen, Schlehen: Heutige Pflanzen und ihre Geschichte seit der Frühzeit. Theiss, Stuttgart
Landini G (2006) Quantitative analysis of the epithelial lining architecture in radicular cysts and odontogenic keratocysts. Head Face Med 2:1–9
Lo Bianco M, Grillo O, Escobar Garcia P, Mascia F, Venora G, Bacchetta G (2017) Morpho-colorimetric characterization of Malva alliance taxa by seed image analysis. Plant Biol 19:90–98
Łuczaj Ł (2012) Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants of Slovakia. Acta Soc Bot Pol 81:245–255
Marchesini M, Marvelli S (2007) L’alimentazione nell’oltretomba: le offerte votive vegetali nelle necropoli romane dell’Emilia Romagna. Atti Soc Nat Mat di Modena 137:331–342
Martin L, Jacomet S, Thiéebault S (2008) Plant economy during the Neolithic in a mountain context: the case of “Le Chenet des Pierres” in the French Alps (Bozel-Savoie, France). Veget Hist Archaeobot 17:113–122
Maynard CK, Havanagh K, Fuernkranz H, Draw A (1991) Black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.). Biotechnol Agric For 16:3–22
Mercuri A, Accorsi C, Mazzanti M, Bosi G, Cardarelli A, Labate D, Marchesini M, Grandi G (2006) Economy and environment of Bronze Age settlements—Terramaras—on the Po Plain (Northern Italy): first results from the archaeobotanical research at the Terramara di Montale. Veget Hist Archaeobot 16:43–60
Milošević T, Milošević N (2012) Phenotypic diversity of autochthonous European (Prunus domestica L.) and damson (Prunus insititia L.) plum accessions based on multivariate analysis. Hort Sci 39:8–20
Orrù M, Grillo O, Lovicu G, Venora G, Bacchetta G (2013) Morphological characterization of Vitis vinifera L. seeds by image analysis and comparison with archaeological remains. Veget Hist Archaeobot 22:231–242
Pagnoux C, Bouby L, Ivorra S, Petit C, Valamoti SM, Pastor T, Picq S, Terral JF (2015) Inferring the agrobiodiversity of Vitis vinifera L. (grapevine) in ancient Greece by comparative shape analysis of archaeological and modern seeds. Veget Hist Archaeobot 24:75–84
Parada M, Carrió E, Bonet MÀ, Vallès J (2009) Ethnobotany of the Alt Empordà region (Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula): Plants used in human traditional medicine. J Ethnopharmacol 124:609–618
Pardo-de-Santayana M, Pieroni A, Puri RK (2013) Ethnobotany in the new Europe: people, health and wild plant resources. Berghahn Books, Oxford
Picard R, Cook D (1984) Cross-validation of regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 79:575–583
Pieroni A, Quave CL (2014) Ethnobotany and biocultural diversities in the Balkans: perspectives on sustainable rural development and reconciliation. Springer, New York
Pollmann B, Jacomet S, Schlumbaum A (2005) Morphological and genetic studies of waterlogged Prunus species from the Roman vicus Tasgetium (Eschenz, Switzerland). J Archaeol Sci 32:1,471–1,480
Portas L, Farina V, Del Vais C, Carcupino M, Gazza F, Sanna I, Zedda M (2015) Anatomical study of animal remains from Phoenician-Punic amphorae found in the Santa Giusta Pond, Sardinia (Italy). J Bio Res 88:5073
Preiss S, Matterne V, Latron F (2005) An approach to funerary rituals in the Roman provinces: plant remains from a Gallo-Roman cemetery at Faulquemont (Moselle, France). Veget Hist Archaeobot 14:362–372
Ramming DW, Cociu V (1991) Plums. In: Moore JN, Ballington JR Jr (eds) Genetic resources of temperate fruit and nut crops. Acta Horticulturae 290, Wageningen, pp 235–287
Rodriguez-Ariza MO, Moya EM (2010) Paisaje y gestión de los recursos vegetales en el yacimiento romano de Gabia (Granada) a través de la arqueobotánica. Archivo español de arqueología 83:85–107
Rottoli M (1999) I resti vegetali di Sammardenchia-Cȗeis (Udine), insediamento del Neolitico antico. In: Ferrari A, Pessina A (eds) Sammardenchia-Cûeis. Contributi per la conoscenza di una comunità del primo Neolitico. (Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale 41) Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine, pp 307–326
Rottoli M (2005) Un nuovo frumento vestito nei siti neolitici del Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italia nord orientale). Gortania 26:67–78
Rottoli M, Castiglioni E (2011) Plant offerings from Roman cremations in northern Italy: a review. Veget Hist Archaeobot 20:495–506
Rottoli M (1993) “La Marmotta”, Anguillara Sabazia (RM). Scavi 1989. Analisi paletnobotaniche: prime risultanze, Appendice 1. In: Fugazzola Delpino MA et al (eds) “La Marmotta” (Anguillara Sabazia, RM). Scavi 1989. Un abitato perilacustre di età neolitica. (Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 84, II) Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, Roma, pp 305–315
Sabato D, Masi A, Pepe C, Ucchesu M, Peña-Chocarro L, Usai A, Giachi G, Capretti C, Bacchetta G (2015) Archaeobotanical analysis of a Bronze Age well from Sardinia: a wealth of knowledge. Plant Biosyst 1:205–215
SPSS (2006) Application guide Base 16.0. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Stika HP, Heiss AG, Zach B (2008) Plant remains from the early Iron Age in western Sicily: differences in subsistence strategies of Greek and Elymian sites. Veget Hist Archaeobot 17:139–148
Sugiyama M (2007) Dimensionality reduction of multimodal labeled data by local fisher discriminant analysis. J Mach Learn Res 8:1,027–1,061
Terral JF, Tabard E, Bouby L, Ivorra S, Pastor T, Figueiral I, Picq S, Chevance JB, Jung C, Fabre L, Tardy C, Compan M, Bacilieri R, Lacombe T, This P (2010) Evolution and history of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) under domestication: new morphometric perspectives to understand seed domestication syndrome and reveal origins of ancient European cultivars. Ann Bot 105:443–455
Tiţă I, Mogoşanu GD, Tiţă MG (2009) Ethnobotanical inventory of medicinal plants from the South–West of Romania. Farmácia 57:141–156
Ucchesu M, Orrù M, Grillo O, Venora G, Usai A, Serreli P, Bacchetta G (2015) Earliest evidence of a primitive cultivar of Vitis vinifera L. during the Bronze Age in Sardinia (Italy). Veget Hist Archaeobot 24:587–600
Ucchesu M, Orrù M, Grillo O, Venora G, Paglietti G, Ardu A, Bacchetta G (2016) Predictive method for correct identification of archaeological charred grape seeds: support for advances in knowledge of grape domestication process. PloS One 11:e0149814
Van Zeist W, Bottema S, Van der Veen M (2001) Diet and vegetation at ancient Carthage, the archaeobotanical evidence. Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Groningen
Watkins R (1995) Cherry, plum, peach, apricot and almond: Prunus spp. (Rosaceae). In: Smart J, Simmonds NW (eds) Evolution of crop plants, 2nd edn. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, pp 423–429
Woldring H (2000) On the origin of plums: a study of sloe, damson, cherry plum, domestic plums and their intermediates. Palaeohistoria 39/40:535–562
Wünsch A (2009) Cross-transferable polymorphic SSR loci in Prunus species. Sci Hort 120:348–352
Xuan HX, Spann D, Schlottmann P, Neumüller M (2011) Approaches to determine the origin of European plum (Prunus domestica) based on DNA nucleotide sequences. Acta Hort 918:261–267
Yilmaz KU, Ercisli S, Asma BM, Dogan Y, Kafkas S (2009) Genetic relatedness in Prunus genus revealed by inter-simple sequence repeat markers. Hort Sci 44:293–297
Zech-Matterne V, Tengberg M, Van Andringa W (2015) Sesamum indicum L. (sesame) in 2nd century bc Pompeii, southwest Italy, and a review of early sesame finds in Asia and Europe. Veget Hist Archaeobot 24:673–681
Zheng Y, Crawford GW, Chen X (2014) Archaeological evidence for peach (Prunus persica) cultivation and domestication in China. PLoS One 9:e106595
Zohary D, Hopf M, Weiss E (2012) Domestication of plants in the Old World. The origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile valley, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all the staff of ‘Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per la città metropolitana di Cagliari e le province di Oristano, Medio Campidano, Carbonia-Iglesias e Ogliastra’ for assistance and for allowing us the use of archaeological material. We wish to acknowledge Giuseppe Rosas, Liberato Fara and all the staff of the CNR-ISPA (Nuraxinieddu, Oristano, Sardinia) for technical assistance during the sample collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by F. Bittmann.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ucchesu, M., Sarigu, M., Vais, C.D. et al. First finds of Prunus domestica L. in Italy from the Phoenician and Punic periods (6th–2nd centuries bc). Veget Hist Archaeobot 26, 539–549 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-017-0622-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-017-0622-2