The cultivation of Castanea sativa (Mill.) in Europe, from its origin to its diffusion on a continental scale

Abstract

The history of Castanea sativa (sweet chestnut) cultivation since medieval times has been well described on the basis of the very rich documentation available. Far fewer attempts have been made to give a historical synthesis of the events that led to the cultivation of sweet chestnut in much earlier times. In this article we attempt to reconstruct this part of the European history of chestnut cultivation and its early diffusion by use of different sources of information, such as pollen studies, archaeology, history and literature. Using this multidisciplinary approach, we have tried to identify the roles of the Greek and Roman civilizations in the dissemination of chestnut cultivation on a European scale. In particular, we show that use of the chestnut for food was not the primary driving force behind the introduction of the tree into Europe by the Romans. Apart from the Insubrian Region in the north of the Italian peninsula, no other centre of chestnut cultivation existed in Europe during the Roman period. The Romans may have introduced the idea of systematically cultivating and using chestnut. In certain cases they introduced the species itself; however no evidence of systematic planting of chestnut exists. The greatest interest in the management of chestnut for fruit production most probably developed after the Roman period and can be associated with the socio-economic structures of medieval times. It was then that self-sufficient cultures based on the cultivation of chestnut as a source of subsistence were formed.

Full text

Veget Hist Archaeobot (2004) 13:161–179
DOI 10.1007/s00334-004-0038-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
M. Conedera · P. Krebs · W. Tinner · M. Pradella ·
D. Torriani
The cultivation of
Castanea sativa
(Mill.) in Europe,
from its origin to its diffusion on a continental scale
Received: 20 September 2003 / Accepted: 26 April 2004 / Published online: 28 July 2004
 Springer-Verlag 2004
Abstract The history of Castanea sativa (sweet chestnut)
cultivation since medieval times has been well described
on the basis of the very rich documentation available. Far
fewer attempts have been made to give a historical syn-
thesis of the events that led to the cultivation of sweet
chestnut in much earlier times. In this article we attempt
to reconstruct this part of the European history of chestnut
cultivation and its early diffusion by use of different
sources of information, such as pollen studies, archaeol-
ogy, history and literature. Using this multidisciplinary
approach, we have tried to identify the roles of the Greek
and Roman civilizations in the dissemination of chestnut
cultivation on a European scale. In particular, we show
that use of the chestnut for food was not the primary
driving force behind the introduction of the tree into
Europe by the Romans. Apart from the Insubrian Region
in the north of the Italian peninsula, no other centre of
chestnut cultivation existed in Europe during the Roman
period. The Romans may have introduced the idea of
systematically cultivating and using chestnut. In certain
cases they introduced the species itself; however no evi-
dence of systematic planting of chestnut exists. The
greatest interest in the management of chestnut for fruit
production most probably developed after the Roman
period and can be associated with the socio-economic
structures of medieval times. It was then that self-suffi-
cient cultures based on the cultivation of chestnut as a
source of subsistence were formed.
Keywords Chestnut cultivation · Roman period ·
Castanea sativa · Palynology · Archaeology · Classical
literature
Electronic Supplementary Material Supplementary
material is available in the online version of this article at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00334-004-0038-7. A link in
the frame on the left on that page takes you directly to the
supplementary material.
Introduction
The sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) is a tree spe-
cies that, perhaps more than any other in Europe, has
attracted particular human attention. Its diffusion and
active management, which make it difficult to trace its
original range, have resulted in the establishment of
chestnut at the limits of its potential ecological range
(Pitte 1986; Bernetti 1995). During some historical peri-
ods, in various regions of Europe the cultivation of
chestnut became so dominant and indispensable for the
survival of mountain populations that some authors do not
hesitate to identify these cultures as “chestnut civiliza-
tions” (Gabrielli 1994).
Many studies and monographs have been dedicated to
the chestnut. Some of these concern purely botanical and
economical aspects (for example, Lavialle 1906; Merz
1919; Piccioli 1922; Camus 1929; Fenaroli 1945; Bounous
1999; Berrocal del Brio et al. 1998; Bounous 2002). Others
examine the ethnohistory of the species (Bruneton-Gov-
ernatori 1984; Pitte 1986). Numerous publications are also
concerned with chestnut cultivation at the regional level
(for example Merz 1919; Rachewiltz 1992; Bounous 1999;
Sauvezon et al. 2000). In most cases, however, the studies
are based on the rich, even if only qualitative (that is,
without any quantitative information on chestnut cultiva-
tion), written documentation available since medieval
times (Quirs Castillo 1998); far fewer attempts have been
made to describe the events which led to a chestnut culture
in much earlier times (but compare the works of Hehn
1911 and Pitte 1986).
From the palynological point of view, the wealth of
specific studies is in great contrast with a nearly total
absence of thorough works of synthesis for the specific
M. Conedera (
)
) · P. Krebs · M. Pradella · D. Torriani
Sottostazione Sud delle Alpi,
WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Forest,
Snow and Landscape Research,
CH-6504 Bellinzona, Switzerland
e-mail: marco.conedera@wsl.ch
W. Tinner
Institute of Plant Sciences,
Altenbergrain 21, CH-3013 Bern, Switzerland

theme of the chestnut culture. For instance, the recent
work of Krebs et al. (2004) is limited to the Quaternary
refugia of the species and does not deal with chestnut
cultivation.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no at-
tempt at a multi-disciplinary approach to reconstructing
the origin of chestnut cultivation and its spread through-
out Europe in prehistoric times. In this article we make a
first attempt to reconstruct the history of chestnut culti-
vation and its diffusion into most areas of central and
southern Europe based on different sources of informa-
tion, such as pollen studies, archaeology, history and
classical literature.
Material and methods
Study area
For the definition of the study area, existing knowledge about the
Quaternary refugia of the European chestnut was combined with
information on the distribution of chestnut cultivation during the
Middle Ages and today. Thus defined, the study area covers the
greater part of Europe, extending as far east as the Caucasus
Mountains and ranging in latitude from approx. 60N to 30N.
Palaeobotanical and palynological data
In searching for useful pollen records, we used the same approach
and the same data sources as Krebs et al. (2004), which rely partly
on existing databases on the internet (WDC 2003, EPD 2003,
CiMPI 2003 and the Palaeoecological Atlas of Northern and
Western Africa 2003). These sources of data have been combined
with pollen diagrams published in scientific journals. In total 1471
sites in the study area were considered (Fig. 1). For the full list of
the sites analysed see http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s0034-004-0038-7.
Chronology
All the pollen profiles used were classified according to the quality
of dating. For profiles providing a time axis or strong and coherent
dating we proceeded to a linear interpolation between the dates. For
profiles with mismatched radiocarbon datings or dated according to
a comparison with sites with similar pollen stratigraphies, we
adopted the dating proposed by the authors. For profiles without
any dating, we proposed an approximate dating based on the ex-
pansions of representative taxa dated by radiometric methods at
other neighbouring sites (for example, Fagus, Corylus, Abies,
Carpinus, Lang 1994). If this was not possible, the profile was
rejected. The use and presentation of data with doubtful dating will
be taken up again in the discussion section.
Interpretation of pollen data
According to Behre (1990) Castanea sativa has to be considered a
primary anthropogenic indicator in pollen diagrams. This is most
certainly the case where the species did not survive the ice ages. In
the presumed zones of natural shelter (refugia) of chestnut during
the ice ages, its presence does not necessarily mean there was
anthropogenic influence. The presence of the chestnut may indicate
human activity, but this is likely only if there are other anthro-
pogenic indicators as well. Only then can the presence of chestnut
pollen be considered the direct result of human cultivation in the
natural shelter zones of the species. In addition, the slope of the
pollen curves may also reveal anthropogenic influence, since hu-
man influence usually manifests itself in a sudden rise in the slope
of the curves and in the percentage values reached, which must
sufficiently move away from the base values associated with the
trees’ natural presence. Moreover, the type of cultivation probably
plays an important role, as the wild specimens produce pollen in
abundance, while the cultivars selected for fruit tend to be male
sterile (Rudow and Conedera 2001).
The analysis of the pollen data varied according to the quality of
the data. Generally speaking, the studies conducted from the 1960’s
on were assigned greater importance, as they are based on core
samples executed with modern drilling techniques. In the case of
chestnut, an additional difficulty is the definition of the origin of the
pollen used and therefore of the effective representation of the
pollen curves. According to Huntley and Birks (1983), the presence
of Castanea pollen can be regarded as a fairly reliable indication of
Fig. 1 Distribution of the pol-
len sites considered
162

the local presence of the species, and a pollen value greater than
about 5% almost certainly reflects the widespread occurrence of
chestnut woodland near the site. Other authors claim that the local
topography combined with special meteorological conditions might
cause transport of important amounts of chestnut pollen over long
distances (up to more than 100 km) (Jochimsen 1986; Peeters and
Zoller 1988) even along altitudinal transects (Brugiapaglia et al.
1998). Where chestnut pollen is less than 1–2%, it is difficult, as
discussed in Krebs et al. (2004), to exclude confusion with pollen of
Lotus, Hypericum or Sedum, which are morphologically very
similar to C. sativa (Sanchez Goi 1993). Palynologists today are
usually aware of this problem, but it is not easy to solve (Mateus
1992). Finally, the interpretation of the presence or absence of
Castanea pollen and its frequency in the diagrams must take into
account the fact that the species does not grow readily on limestone
soils (Gobet et al. 2000).
Given the large area covered in our study, we decided to con-
sider as many profiles as possible, including sites at high altitude,
even though these pollen records are likely to be affected by long-
distance transport. Potential cases of misinterpretation of the data
are then treated in the discussion.
Most of the pollen data is given in the form of maps. Where
more detailed information is necessary, the specific source is in-
dicated. In particularly significant cases, we also show selections
from the original pollen diagrams.
Classical Greek and Roman literature
The study of the Roman and Greek classics was not conducted in a
systematic way. The search for literary texts dealing with chestnut
or its cultivation started with the authors who have already treated
this problem (for example, Hehn 1911; Pitte 1986), and continued
by cross-checking the references contained in several of the reports.
We make no claim to have covered the literature exhaustively in
our selection of authors and quotations. However, the historical-
cultural contextual summaries of the references studied represent a
very important aspect of our analysis (see Tables 1 and 2). The texts
have been classified according to the background of the authors
(historian, geographer, poet, agronomist, naturalist, etc.), the socio-
historical context in which they worked and their motivations for
writing (transmission of personal knowledge, compilation of pre-
vious authors, literary or poetic exercises, commissioned texts, etc).
For the references cited, we have used the abbreviations listed in
Tables 1 and 2.
An additional problem we faced is the lack of uniformity in the
naming of the species in the classical literature in general, and in
the Greek literature in particular. The lack of a commonly recog-
nized scientific nomenclature forced the authors to either use ge-
neric expressions, or to employ denominations of local usage
transmitted to them by people from different regions. The attribu-
tion of various names to the same species is therefore a recurrent
and understandable practice in the ancient literature (Hehn 1911;
Amigues 1988). In the case of the chestnut, the first reliable ref-
erences are found in Theophrastus. Earlier possible references in
the Greek literature are unreliable as the nomenclature used is too
generic and of dubious value. Athenaeus indirectly confirmed this
interpretation, asserting that “the Attics and the other writers call
nuts all the fruits with a hard shell” (Deip. ii 52 a). A little later,
Athenaeus, citing Heracleon of Ephesus, gives a more precise
statement relating directly to chestnuts when he states that “al-
monds and today’s chestnuts were even called nuts” (Deip. ii 52 b).
In Table 3, we describe the key used in this study for the inter-
pretation of the Greek words potentially linked to chestnut (see also
Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1 Greek authors considered in the analysis of the ancient literary sources
Author Bibliographic notes Texts with references of agricultural/chestnut interest and their reading keys Relevance
for chestnut
cultivation
a
Herodotus (Her.) Historian. *490 B.C. in Halicarnassus (Caria), + probably before 420 B.C. The Histories (His.) are a report on the Persian wars. 3
Hippocrates (Hip.) The most famous Greek physician. *in Cos about 460 B.C., + probably in Larisa
(Thessaly) 370 B.C.
The Hippocratic Corpus (H.C.) represents a collection of medical writings. 3
Xenophon (Xen.) Historian and disciple of Socrates. *in Athens about 428 B.C., + 354 B.C. He wrote on numerous subjects drawing on his varied experiences. 3
Theophrastus (Th.) Philosopher and naturalist. *in Eresus (Island of Lesbos) about 370 B.C., +
around 287 B.C. Pupil and friend of Aristotle and his successor as head
of the Peripatetic School of Philosophy in Athens,
Inquiry into plants (Historia plantarum, H.P.), is divided into 6 books and deals
with the classification and the description of the botanical world then known.
1
Nicander (Nic.) Hellenistic didactic poet, *in Colophon, probably in the 2
nd
century B.C. Of his numerous works only two have survived entirely: Theriaca (On poisonous
animals) and Alexipharmaca (Antidotes to poisons, Alex.).
3
Strabo (Str.) Geographer, *in Amasia (Pontus) 64 B.C., moved to Rome 44 B.C., + A.D. 24 The Geography (Geo.) describes the geography of the main countries
in the Roman world
3
Dioskurides (Dios.) Physician of the 1
st
century A.D. who served with the Roman army.
His work was a standard textbook of pharmacy for many centuries.
In his five books of the Pharmacopoeia (Materia medica, Med.) the medicinal
properties of some six hundred plants and nearly a thousand drugs are described.
3
Galenos (Gal.) Greek physician, *in Pergamum A.D. 129, + in A.D. 199. Galen’s writing formed the basis of all later medical works 3
Athenaeus (Ath.) Writer from Naucratis (Egypt), around A.D. 200. His work is a fruitful source
on the literature and practices of Ancient Greece.
The Deipnosophistai is about the conversations of 23 learned men on all aspects
of food and other subjects.
2
a
Levels of relevance
1: High. Proven and objective references to the agricultural techniques and to the products of the agriculture.
2: Medium. Indirect references or poetic descriptions of the agricultural reality and of the products of the earth.
3: Low. Occasional references to agricultural practices and to chestnut cultivation in particular.
Source: Howatson (1989).
163

Table 2 Latin authors considered in the analysis of the ancient literary sources
Author Bibliographic note Texts with references of agricultural/chestnut interest and their reading keys Relevance
for chestnut
cultivation
a
Cato (Cat.) Military tribune, politician and orator, *in Tusculum (24 km SE of Rome)
234 B.C., + 149 B.C.
The Liber de agricultura (On farming, Agri.) was written between 164–154 B.C. and
deals with the cultivation of wine, olives and cattle grazing for profit (latifundium).
1
Varro (Var.) Poet, satirist, antiquarian, scientist, geographer, officer, and grammarian.
*116 B.C. in Reate, in Sabine territory, + 27 B.C.
His work on farming (De re rustica, Rust.), dating from 36 B.C., is the only
manuscript that entirely survived.
1
Vitruvius (Vitr.) Roman engineer and architect of the 1
st
century B.C. Military service
between 50 and 26 B.C. under Julius Caesar and the emperor Augustus.
He wrote a treatise in 10 books on architecture (De architectura, Arch.). 1
Virgil (Vir.) Poet, *70 B.C. in Andes, near Mantua in Cisalpine Gaul. He was educated
in Italy, +19 B.C.
Eclogues (Bucolica, Buc.) The Eclogues were written between 42 and 37 B.C.
They became a model of pastoral poetry with allegoric components. Georgics
(Related to agriculture, Geor.) are a didascalic poem presenting the life of the
Italian small farmer as the ideal.
2
Ovid (Ov.) Poet, * 43 B.C. in Sulmo (Abruzzi). He was educated in Rome and banished
by Augustus to Tomis A.D. 8 where he died in A.D. 17.
Ars amatoria (Treatise on love, Ars) is a didactic poem about a classical
Near Eastern legend with important historical and environmental references.
2
Martial (Mar.) Roman poet, * A.D. 40 in Bilbilis (Spain), he moved to Rome in A.D. 64.
In A.D. 98 he returned to Bilbilis, +around A.D. 103/04.
Epigrams (Epi.) are more then 1500 short satiric poems. 2
Columella (Col.) Spaniard from Gades (Cadiz, Spain) who lived in the 1
st
century,
tribune of the Roman army in Syria.
De re rustica (On farming, Rust.) was written between AD 60–65.
It deals with the various aspects of farmer’s life and work.
1
Pliny the Elder (Pl.) Writer on natural history, *in Como (northern Italy) around A.D. 23/24.
Probably educated in Rome, +A.D. 79, killed by the eruption of Vesuvius.
Naturalis Historia (Natural History, N.H.) is a compilation of the extant knowledge
in 37 books about art, science and civilization.
1
Gargilius Martialis
(Gar.Mar.)
Little is known about his life, *probably in Auzia around A.D. 200. Soldier
and politician, +A.D. 260 during a battle.
From his De Hortis (On the garden, but also known as De arboribus pomiferis, Hort.)
only 4 fragments survived. The fourth of them is on the chestnut (de castaneis).
Unfortunately this chapter is not complete and only the first part concerning chestnut
nurseries is present. But the citations of many lost authors make it very valuable.
1
Macrobio (Macr.) Writer and philosopher, probably of African birth, lived around A.D. 400. The Saturnalia (Saturnaliorum convivia, Sat.) are dialogues in 7 books supposed
to represent a conversation at a banquet during the Saturnalian festival between a
number of eminent Romans.
3
Palladius (Pal.) Little is known about his life. He probably lived in the 4
th
century A.D.
He is considered the last Latin writer on agriculture.
The treatise Opus de agricoltura (Agr.) represents a good compilation of the state
of the art in agriculture.
1
Apicius (Ap.) Marcus Gavius Apicius (A.D. 14–37), gourmet of the reign of Tiberius
or Caelius Apicius (4
th
cent. A.D.)
The work De re coquinaria (On cookery (Cul.) is a collection of recipes that is
thought to be a compilation of the fourth century.
3
Cassiodorus (Cas.) Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (A.D. 490–583), son of a praetorian
prefect of Theodoric, king of the Goths. Followed a political career until A.D.
514 and retired as a monk in Calabria.
The Variae Epistolae (Variae) is a collection of 12 letters he wrote for the Gothic
kings to the most notable personages of the time. This work represents a valuable
description of life and politics in the 6
th
century.
2
a
Levels of relevance
1: High. Proven and objective references to the agricultural techniques and to the products of the agriculture.
2: Medium. Indirect references or poetic descriptions of the agricultural reality and of the products of the earth.
3: Low. Occasional references to agricultural practices and to chestnut cultivation in particular.
Sources: Howatson 1989; Sirago 1995; Carena 1982
164

Results and discussion
Natural presence of the species
The reconstructed natural range of the sweet chestnut
corresponds to the former refugia and to the subsequently
colonized areas before the start of active human cultiva-
tion of the species. According to Krebs et al. (2004) the
most likely natural range of the chestnut is delimited by
six macroregions with scattered micro-environmentally
favourable habitats probably allowing limited chestnut
populations to survive during the main glacial events:
– an extended area around the southern coast of the
Black Sea with a main centre on the southern slope of
the Caucasus and a secondary centre in the Bosphorus,
probably including south-east Bulgaria
– an area with a bipartite centre in southern and central
Italy extending along a constricted hilly belt between
the Tyrrhenian coast and the Apennine ridge, with a
possible extension towards the north (Ligurian Apen-
nine, Cuneo-region, the hilly region of Emilia-Ro-
magna, and maybe even the French Dpartement of
Isre)
– the hills of the pre-Alps east from Lago di Garda
(especially the Colli Euganei) in north-eastern Italy
Table 3 Interpretations of the various names probably linked to chestnut and used by the Greek authors considered
Expression Literal
translation
Source Remarks
karua plata Broad nut Hip., H.C. LV, 5
Xen. Ana. V.
5.4.32
Ath., Deip. ii 53 e
Ath., Deip. ii 53 f
Expressions difficult to interpret and not kept in our analysis.
We cannot completely exclude a reference to morphotypes of chestnut
or to local varieties.
ubokon (karuon) Euboean nut Th., H.P. I.11.3,
IV.5.4, V.4.2,
V.4.3, V.6.1,
V.7.7, VI.9.2
Ath., Deip. ii 54 b
From the island of Euboia, perhaps refers to a morphotype or local variety.
dosbalanoz Zeus acorn Th., H.P. III.3.1,
III.3.8, III.4.2,
III.4.4, III.5.5,
III.10.1, IV.5.1,
IV.5.4
Dyos., Med. I.145
Ath., Deip ii 53 d
Ath., Deip ii 54 d
In Athenaeus the references to chestnut are dubious with the exception
of the citation from Nicander (Ath., Deip ii 54 d).
kastanakon
(kastanwn)
karuon
Chestnut Th., H.P. IV.8.11
Dyos. Med. I.145
Ath., Deip. ii 54 b
Gal., 6.621 (Khn)
Gal., 6.791 (Khn)
In Theophrastus, used only in this passage, which makes us think
it is a marginal annotation.
kastana Chestnut Ath., Deip. ii 52 b
Ath., Deip. ii 54 d
Gal., 6.777 (Khn)
kasthnon Chestnut Nic., Alex., 269 A variant of kastanon used only by Nicander (Ragozza, pers. com.).
Sardanon karu on Sardis nut Dyos. Med. I.145
Ath., Deip. ii 53 f
Gal., 6.778 (Khn)
From Sardi, a city in Anatolia. Perhaps refers to a morphotype
or local variety.
lopma or lopmon
karuon
Lopima Dyos. Med. I.145
Ath., Deip. ii 54 d
Gal., 6.621 (Khn)
Literally: easy to peel. Used also in a scholium of Nicander (Hehn 1911).
Probably refers to varieties. In Athenaeus, used also for other fruits.
mota or amota Mota Dyos. Med. I.145
Ath., Deip. ii 52 b
Ath., Deip. ii 54 d
Literally: wooly. In Athenaeus considered synonymous with nut of Sinope.
karua karusta Nuts of Carystus Ath., Deip. ii 52 b From Carystus, city south of the Euboia; possibly referring to a morphotype
or local variety.
karua S nwtka Nuts of Sinope Ath., Deip. ii 54 d From Sinope, city of Pontus; possibly referring to a morphotype or local
variety.
Pontkwn karwn Pontic nut Ath., Deip. ii 53 b
Ath., Deip. ii 53 c
From the region of Pontus. In some cases used as a synonym for the Zeus
acorn. Can mean a variety of chestnut. In other cases used for hazelnut.
lukhnaz Leukene Gal., 6.778 (Khn) From a location in the Troad situated on the sides of Mount Ida;
possibly referring to a morphotype or local variety.
malakon Malaka Literally: tender. Quoted in a scholium of Nicander (Hehn 1911).
Probably referring to varieties.
gumnopon Gymnolope Literally: hairless. Quoted in a scholium of Nicander (Hehn 1911).
Probably referring to varieties.
165

– the area of northern Iberia centred on the hilly region
of the Cantabrian coast, from the Picos de Europa in
Asturias to the French side of the Basque region, with
a secondary centre shared between southern Galicia
and northern Portugal;
– the Balkan peninsula with a centre in southern Greece
and a second one spread over Macedonia and south-
western Bulgaria
– an area in the Near East centred over the hills of the
Mediterranean coast in north-western Syria, and pos-
sibly extending to Lebanon.
First evidence of chestnut-human interaction
Around 8600 B.P., the presence of chestnut pollen (al-
though <1%) in the Ghab Valley (northwest Syria) be-
came constant (Yasuda et al. 2000). As interpreted by the
authors, this is more likely to represent the indirect effect
of a large-scale clearance of woodland for the cultivation
of olive, wheat and barley than active cultivation of
chestnut. Chestnut may have expanded into the new forest
clearings, originating from the existing shelter zones. In
Ga
˘
la
˘
bnik (Radomir Valley, south-east Bulgaria), chestnut
wood was found among other timbers (mainly oak) in an
archaeological site dating back to 7200–6900 B.P. (6000–
5700 B.C.) (Marinova et al. 2002). Chestnut was probably
used as many other tree species without any particular
attention to it.
The first unambiguous pollen data showing evident
indications of the chestnut tree spreading due to human
activity are found in several regions in the Anatolian
peninsula, northeastern Greece and southeastern Bulgaria
dating back to around 3700 B.P. (2100–2050 B.C., van
Zeist and Bottema 1991, Fig. 2). The shape of these
pollen curves is characteristic of the so-called Beysehir
Occupation Phase (van Zeist et al. 1975; Bottema and
Woldring 1990; Eastwood et al. 1999). The pollen as-
semblages representing this phase point to an advanced
form of agriculture, including fruit tree cultivation (Bot-
tema and Woldring 1990). As seen in Fig. 2, we find
along with chestnut other cultivated trees, such as Olea
(olive), Juglans regia (walnut) and Fraxinus ornus
(manna-ash), accompanied by an increase in non-arboreal
pollen and Cerealia-type pollen. The pollen percentages
of chestnut remain generally low during this phase, only
exceptionally greater than 1–2% (van Zeist and Bottema
1991; Bottema and Woldring 1990; Eastwood et al.
1999). In some cases, chestnut pollen is even absent. Its
heterogeneous distribution is related in all probability to
the different climatic conditions and soils prevailing in
different regions of this large geographic area (Bottema
and Woldring 1990) (Fig. 3a).
Chestnut pollen percentages in central Italy also rise
temporarily around 3600 B.P. (1900 B.C., Alessio et al.
1986; Allen et al. 2002), reaching 2% at Lago di Mar-
tignano (Kelly and Huntley 1991). This increase is
probably related to local human activities, because there
was also a corresponding rise in other human-related ar-
Fig. 2 Pollen percentage diagram of selected species for Beys¸ehir Gl, southwestern Turkey (source: van Zeist et al. 1975)
166

boreal pollen, such as Juglans and Olea and primary
anthropogenic indicators (Cerealia-type pollen). It is more
likely to be classified as indirect human influence on the
spread of chestnut rather than active cultivation. Unfor-
tunately, the inconsistency of the radiocarbon dates and
the uniqueness of the pollen pattern of this profile make
the timing of the spread of chestnut rather unreliable.
Taken together, the first consistent indications of
chestnut-human interaction are found at the beginning of
the 2
nd
millennium B.C. in the eastern Mediterranean
area. The lack of further information makes it impossible
to distinguish between direct human impact in the form of
cultivation and indirect influence such as the freeing up of
growing space for resprouting or regenerating chestnut
trees. Archaeological finds are also scarce for this period.
For the Italian peninsula, the only evidence is of chestnut
charcoal macroremains dating from 2850€50 B.P.
(900€50 B.C.) near Reggio Emilia (Bellodi et al. 1972),
two macroremains from the Bronze Age in Monte Leoni
near Parma (Ammerman et al. 1976; Pals and Voorrips
1979), and several charcoal macroremains from the late
Bronze Age in Belmonte Canavese (Nisbet and Biagi
1987) and from the Iron Age in Montaldo di Mondov
(Nisbet 1991) (Fig. 4b). A noteworthy discovery was the
finding of a chestnut shell fragment dating back to the late
Bronze Age north of the Alps (from Greifensee near
Zurich) (Kster 1991). According to the author, cultural
exchanges across the Alps may have taken place during
this period, judging from the number of cultivated species
such as Setaria italica and Vicia ervilia present on the
southern slopes of the Alps and found in northern ar-
chaeological sites (Kster pers. comm.). It is likely that
this particular chestnut macroremain was transported as
food or a gift, as there is no palynological evidence for
such an early presence of chestnut in the Bronze Age
north of the Alps.
Chestnut cultivation according
to the Ancient Greek literature
Only the literary works of Ancient Greece can provide
more precise and direct indications about the importance
and origin of past chestnut cultivation in the eastern
Mediterranean region. The most reliable and rich source is
certainly Theophrastus’ Inquiry into plants (H.P.), III
century B.C. (see Table 2). In general terms, Theophrastus
confirms the existence of developed techniques of silvi-
culture and arboriculture. For example, the author dedi-
cates many passages to the difference between cultivated
trees and wild trees ( H.P. I.14, II.2, III.2, IV.13, IV.14),
propagation techniques (H.P. II.1–2), and the best time for
tree cutting (H.P. V.I). Resprouting from stumps is often
mentioned, which shows the importance of coppicing
(H.P. I.5.1, II.2.2, III.7.1, IV.13.3, V.1.3).
References to chestnut are relatively numerous even
though the author does not devote a specific chapter to it.
From the analysis of the descriptions, we have the im-
pression that chestnut was present above all in the
mountainous (H.P. II.3.1) and northern regions (H.P.
IV.5.1) of Greece and Anatolia. The principal zones that
we presume to have had a chestnut tradition and cited
expressly by Theophrastus (H.P. IV.5.4) are the Olympus
of Misia (now Ulu Dag near Bursa), Mount Tmolos (to-
day’s Boz Dag near Sardi), the Region of Magnesia in
general, the island of Evvoia and Mount Pelius (Fig. 4a).
Unfortunately, we do not have any pollen data for most of
these areas. Theophrastus’ comments refer to the culti-
vation of chestnut as a wild tree (probably also coppiced)
to produce timber (both for inside construction and for
external use) and charcoal (H.P. V.4.2, V.4.3, V.6.1,
V.7.7, V.9.2).
In all of his work, there is only a single indirect ref-
erence to the use of the fruit, when the author compares
the taste and the sweetness of chestnuts to beechnuts (H.P.
III.10.1). His comparison is not very positive about the
sensory quality of chestnuts at that time. In fact, the au-
thors of the classics were always rather cautious in
commenting on the alimentary potential of hard-shell
fruit. Chestnut was no exception. For example Athenaeus,
reporting on earlier authors: “Mnesitheus of Athens, in his
work on Edibles, says: in the case of the Euboean nuts or
chestnuts (for they are known by both names) disinte-
gration in the stomach is difficult, and the digestive pro-
cess is accompanied by wind; but they fatten the system if
one can tolerate them” (Ath. Deipn. ii 54 b) and “Diphilus
calls the chestnuts Sardis-acorn, and says that they are
nourishing and well-flavoured, but hard to assimilate
because they remain for a long time in the stomach; and
though when roasted they are less filling, they are more
easily digested. But when boiled they not only inflate less,
but also nourish more than roasted” (Ath. Deipn., ii 54 c-
d). Only Galeno, in the passages about the nutritious
quality of the acorns, makes an exception to this grim
portrayal (Gal., 6.621; 6.777; 6.792 Khn).
Explicit references to the existence of different vari-
eties of chestnuts are completely absent from the literary
texts and thus make assessment difficult. But we cannot
exclude that many of the names used in order to define
chestnut (mota, lopima, sardis nut, nut of Carystus; see
Table 3) refer in reality to the different locally cultivated
varieties. Pliny the Elder provides indirect confirmation
when he writes that the name acorn of Zeus (see also
Table 4) was given to the chestnuts after improvement
through cultivation (N.H. XV.94).
A medicinal reference to use of the chestnut was found
in the Alexipharmaka of Nicander, the imaginative poem
that talks of poisons and their antidotes. In the passage
dedicated to lacerations of the lips and of the oesophagus
provoked by the poison contained in Colchicum autum-
nale L., the poet suggests as one of several antidotes the
use of the pulp of chestnuts (Nic, Alex. 268–271). This
indication is also used by Dioscorides, who reports ad-
ditionally on the astringent power of the episperma, the
inner coating of the fruit that separates the pulp from the
external peel (Dios., Med. I.145).
In conclusion, both the pollen data and the literary
citations agree that the cultivation of chestnut played a
167

subsidiary role in ancient Greek civilization (Figs. 4a, 5a).
However, it is certain that the Ancient Greeks were fun-
damental in developing the cultivation of chestnut, both
for its wood and its fruits, even though they never re-
quired a large scale cultivation of the chestnut.
Transmission to the Latin world
Contacts and trade between East and West as long ago as
the second half of the 16th century B.C. are documented
through abundant archaeological finds dating back to the
Mycenaean civilization in many parts of the Italian
peninsula (Hase 1990). The colonisation of the Italian
peninsula by the Greeks (Magna Graecia) may have
contributed to the transfer of the techniques for chestnut
cultivation to the Latin world as it did for the cultivation
Fig. 3 Distribution map of
chestnut pollen percentages
3500 B.P. (1820 B.C.). a) east-
ern Mediterranean area, b)
western Mediterranean area
Fig. 4a,b Distribution map of
chestnut pollen percentages
2300 B.P. (approx. 400 B.C.),
including place names (to-
ponyms) and areas of chestnut
cultivation cited in the litera-
ture. a Eastern Mediterranean
area, b western Mediterranean
area
168

of grape vine, olive and other species (Hehn 1911; Dion
1977; Forni 1990). The work of Pliny the Elder contains
many such indications: the author claims that chestnuts
“... were for the first time brought over from Sardi, which
is why the Greeks called them Sardis nuts” (N.H. XV.93).
The Italian regions which Pliny mentions in relation to the
production of chestnuts are without exception areas which
were under the influence of the Greek colonies (Fig. 4b):
the preferred varieties of chestnut came, in fact, from
Taranto and Naples. The tarantina, one of the varieties of
chestnut known in the first century A.D., takes its name
from Taranto, while the only other two varieties for which
a geographical reference is given, the corelliana and the
tereiana, were produced in the outskirts of Naples (Pl.,
N.H. XV.94). A precise reference to a method of cooking
chestnuts typical of Naples is found in the Epigrams of
Martial (Mar., Epi. V.78). We should not forget that the
inhabitants of Euboea, a territory cited by Greek authors
for its abundance of chestnuts (Th., H.P. IV.5.4) were
among the pioneers of the Greek colonization in the west
and the colony of Cuma near Naples in particular. Other
sites cited in the Latin literature for the presence of
169

chestnut and belonging to a Greek colony are the slopes
of Mount Etna in Sicily. For instance,Ovid says chestnut
was one of its many excellent agricultural products (Met.
XIII 808–869).
There are indications that the flow of chestnut-related
elements between Ancient Greece and the Latin world
was not only cultural. It is probable that Greek colonists
introduced chestnut cultivation to the Italian peninsula,
making use of tree varieties from the main chestnut zones
Fig. 5a,b Distribution map of
chestnut pollen percentages
1900 B.P. (approx. A.D. 100).
a) Eastern Mediterranean area.
b) western Mediterranean area
Table 4 Roman conquest and introduction of the chestnut into various European regions
Region Start of the
Roman influence
or conquest
Increase in chestnut pollen
percentages around 1900 B.P.
(A.D. 100)
Maximum of
chestnut during
Roman time
Maximum chestnut pollen percentages
in selected post-Roman periods
(%)
% Sites of occurrence /
total sites
% 1500 B.P.
(A.D. 600)
1000 B.P.
(A.D. 1020)
400 B.P.
(A.D. 1500)
Central Italy 570–300 B.C. 1.5–8.0 6 / 17 8.0 8.0 7.5 3.0
Southern Italy 260 B.C. 0.2–2.5 4 / 15 3.0 1.7 1.8 1.5
Po Plain 190 B.C. 0.2–0.5 5 / 62 12.0 17.0 18.0 18.0
Liguria and Tuscany 177 B.C. (?) 0.2–0.5
(?)
2 / 13 (?) 30.0 (?) 40.0 (?) 30.0 (?) 25.0 (?)
Mediterranean Spain 150 B.C. 0.2 3 / 51 0.2 0.6 0.3 2.0
Narbonne Roman foundation
118 B.C.
0.2–0.5 14 / 95 0.5 1.5 1.0 7.0
Spanish Pyrenees 100 B.C. 0.5 1 / 19 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.8
French Pyrenees 100 B.C. 0.1–0.5 3 / 25 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.0
Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia 100–30 B.C. 0.5–2.0 12 / 35 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0
Great Britain and Ireland 55–50 B.C. - 0 / 101 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7
Mediterranean France 50 B.C. 0.2–1.8 15 / 127 4.0 1.7 3.2 3.3
Rest of France 50 B.C. 0.2–2.0 11 / 84 2.0 1.7 2.8 4.0
Rhaetia, Germany, Austria 50 B.C. 0.1–1.2 12 / 86 1.2 0.5 0.3 1.2
Insubria 40 B.C. 0.3–20.0 9 / 13 20.0 42.0 34.0 36.0
Hill tribes up to Veneto
including Austrian Tyrol
40 B.C. 0.1–4.0 13 / 42 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.3
Belgium, Luxembourg
and Netherlands
40–0 B.C. 0.1–0.2 1 / 47 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Galicia and Portugal A.D. 0 1.0–2.0 17 / 60 4.0 4.5 25.0 30.0
(?) Doubtful original data
170

of Ancient Greece, just as they did for grapevine (Dion
1977). This hypothesis is partly supported by the obser-
vation that the current chestnut populations of the western
Anatolian peninsula are genetically more similar to Italian
and French populations than to the chestnut groves of
eastern Anatolia facing the Black Sea (Villani et al.
1999), even though the phylogenetic map of the chestnut
in Europe is not fully understood yet (Fineschi et al.
2000).
There is indirect etymological evidence for the hy-
pothesis that the first chestnut growing in the Italian
peninsula had an early Greek origin and that the Latin
world had early contact with chestnut cultivation. The
Latin world adopted the expression castanea for the de-
finitive denomination of the chestnut tree and its fruit,
which is the Latinized form of kastanakon karuon
(chestnut) used by many Greek authors (see Table 3). The
fact that in many Italian-speaking regions from the Alps
to the Po (including northern Italy and the Italian-speak-
ing part of Switzerland) the dialect names of chestnut are
akin to an anomalous Latin word castenea could be in-
dicative of an early contact of the Latin world with
products of chestnut cultivation. According to Sganzini
(1937) this linguistic anomaly implies that the assimila-
tion of this word must have taken place before the evo-
lution of e in a open syllable in Latin into an i, generating
the change from castenea to castinea, an evolution taking
place before the end of the third century B.C. Sganzini’s
interpretation is still considered valid (Petrini pers.
comm.), making it likely that chestnut growing and the
successive contact of the Latins with chestnut began
earlier.
The archaeobotanical information available for the
Italian peninsula is unfortunately not sufficiently detailed
to give a precise picture of the geographical and temporal
distribution and development of a possible increment of
activities linked to chestnut in the Latin world. Whether
the chestnut has really been present in the Apennine chain
between Tuscany and Emilia Romagna since 3500 B.P. is
an open question. Some of the palynological sites shown
in Fig. 4b have limited dating and an imprecise chronol-
ogy.
Generally speaking, we can say that the percentages of
chestnut pollen before the beginning of the Christian era
were low and remained at a low level throughout the
territory of the peninsula. Exceptions to this are indicated
by a slight change in the slope of the curve of chestnut
pollen around 300 B.C. in the profile of the Lago di
Monticchio in the Province of Basilicata (Watts et al.
1996) and by a more pronounced increase (up to 10%),
although not radiocarbon-dated with precision (5
th
cen-
tury B.C. or 1
st
century A.D.?), in the profiles of Lago di
Albano and Lago di Nemi, in the outskirts of Rome
(Lowe et al. 1996; Oldfield 1996). In conclusion, the in-
formation available for the pre-Christian centuries from
the pollen profiles seems to indicate a much-limited in-
fluence of the Greek cultivation techniques on the Latin
and subsequent Roman civilization (Fig. 4b and 5b).
Nevertheless, where present, chestnut was utilized as was
any other suitable tree, for building, as firewood and for
its fruit, as indicated by archaeological macroremains
dating back to the Bronze Age (Fig. 5b).
171

Chestnut cultivation in the Italian peninsula during
the Republican Roman Period
Evidence of an increasing importance of chestnut before
the Christian era (A.D. 1) is scarce not only in the pollen
profiles (Figs. 4b, 5b), but also in pre-Christian Latin texts
referring to chestnut cultivation. The latifundium, the
entrepreneurial management of agricultural estates with
groups of slaves, started after the 2
nd
century B.C. in the
fertile plains of Lazio and Campania and then became
largely diffused under the Roman dominion (Carandini
1988; Sirago 1995). In Cato’s (234–149 B.C.) De agri-
cultura there is no explicit mention of chestnut cultivation
in the latifundium. In his list of the more profitable items
grown on the agricultural farm, Cato places silva caedua
(coppice) in seventh place and glandaria silva (forest
producing acorns for pigs) in the ninth and last place
(Cat., Agri. I.7). In neither case is reference made to
chestnut. We also do not find any description of chestnut
cultivation in Varro (116–27 B.C.). Chestnuts are referred
to once, as an alternative to oak acorns for dormice (Var.,
Rust. III.15). In his manual on architecture, Vitruvio says
nothing about chestnut timber in farm buildings.
The fact that chestnut was neither used nor produced
before the Christian era according to the sources men-
tioned above does not mean that all forms of chestnut
cultivation were completely absent from the Italian ter-
ritory during the last centuries B.C. Unfortunately, there
are no detailed descriptions in the classical Latin literature
prior to the first century B.C. of the practices of this
marginal agriculture aimed more at self-sufficiency than
at large-scale agricultural production. In the poetic texts
of Virgil, Ovid and Martial, the chestnut is mentioned in a
mountainous context, often in association with pastoral
activities and in frugal meals based on rustic ingredients,
such as cheese and fruit (Vir., Buc. I.81, Buc. II.45–54,
Buc. VII.53–57; Ov. Ars II.261–280; Ov., Met. XIII.808–
869; Mar., Epi V.78). Virgil says that chestnut was re-
fined through human selection and the practice of grafting
(Vir., Geor II.9–73), although, as is often the case in
ancient literature, the proposals (grafting chestnut on
beech, walnut on arbutus, etc.) are not realistic (Vir.,
Geor. II.69–73).
Chestnut cultivation techniques for fruit production
conquered the Roman world slowly. At the latest by the
end of the pre-Christian era there were varieties of
chestnut of good quality being commercialized and cul-
tivated for ease of peeling and a variety of uses (Pl., N.H.
XV 93–94; Ov., Ars II.261–280). As well as fresh con-
sumption (boiled or roasted), drying and transforming the
chestnuts into flour was also known, but the only refer-
ence to chestnut flour seems to be in the production of a
bread substitute consumed by women when fasting (Pl.,
N.H. XV.92). That chestnuts were part of the diet of the
Romans, at least in the areas of the Greek colonies, is
confirmed by the remains of carbonized chestnuts at the
Roman Villa Torre Annunziata, destroyed by Mount
Vesuvius’ eruption in A.D. 79 (Meyer 1980).
In spite of the increase of references to chestnut in the
Latin literature between the last century B.C. and the first
century A.D., we have the impression that this fruit was
never favoured by the Roman aristocracy. An epigram of
Martial in which chestnut is used as a symbol of inferi-
ority in aristocratic Roman circles illustrates this: the one
hundred chestnut trees of Otacilio are compared to the
laurel grove of Torquato, like a farm house to a splendid
villa, a small bath to marble thermal baths, a head of a
district to that of a consul, or the stature of a small frog to
that of the ox (Mar., Epi X 79, Fig. 6). The allegorical
interpretation of the text by Virgil where Amaryllis is said
not to like chestnuts anymore (Vir., Buc. II.51–52, a
concept also found in Ov., Ars II.267–268 and Gar. Mar.
Hort. IV.1) can be considered symbolic of the rural as-
sociation the Romans had with chestnuts: Amaryllis was
in fact the figure of a shepherd frequently evoked by the
classical poets and considered by some the allegorical
personification of the Roman aristocracy (Carena 1982).
The presence of a recipe for chestnuts (lenticulam de
castaneis) in the 5
th
book of the De re coquinaria (the art
of cooking) of Apicius only partially softens this not so
positive image. However, there are well-founded suspi-
cions that this book is just a compilation of several suc-
cessive authors expert in the culinary arts (Vesco 1990).
We might find among them Marcus Gavius Apicius (A.D.
14–37), but more probably Caelius Apicius (4
th
century
A.D.?).
References in the Latin literature to alimentary or
medicinal uses of the chestnut are also relatively rare. The
most exhaustive information is supplied by Pliny, who,
beside the text already referred to about chestnut varieties
and baking (N.H. XV.92–94), describes the laxative and
regulating effect of chestnuts on the stomach and their use
in treating haemoptysis (N.H. XXIII.150). Latin authors,
like Greek ones, tend not to praise the properties of
chestnuts as food. Indeed, at a certain point, Pliny even
admires how nature has so zealously hidden a fruit of such
little value (N.H. XV.92).
Fig. 6 Martial, Epigrams, X. Torquatus has a palace at the fourth
milestone: Otacilius bought a small farm at the fourth. Torquatus
constructed splendid warm baths of varied marble: Otacilius made a
cooking pot. Torquatus laid out a laurel grove on his land; Otacilius
planted a hundred chestnuts. When Torquatus was consul, Otacilius
was wardmaster, in which high office he felt himself not inferior.
As once the bulky ox ruptured the tiny frog, so methinks, Torquatus
will rupture Otacilius
172

Increasing acceptance of chestnut as timber
The role of chestnut in the Italian territory may have
changed at the beginning of the Christian era when people
realized that the wood produced from chestnut coppices
was so useful and versatile. Signs of this change are found
first in literary texts. Post-Christian Latin literature pro-
vides a striking amount of detail about the ecological
needs of chestnut (Col., Rust. IV.33.1; Pl., N.H. XVI.74,
XVI.76, XVI.98, XVI.138, XVII.147; Gar.Mar., Hort.
IV.5–6; Pal., Rust. XII.7), nursery techniques (Col., Rust.
IV.33.1–6, V.10.17; Pl., N.H. XVII.59, XVII.148–149;
Gar.Mar., Hort. IV.1–4; Pal., Rust. XII.7) and coppice
management (in particular Col., Rust. IV.30.1–2,
IV.33.3–5; Pl., N.H. XVII.148–150, XVII.174). The text
by Columella (Rust. IV.30–33; updated later by Pliny,
N.H. XVII.147–150) deals above all with the agricultural
aspects of chestnut coppicing, emphasizing the supremacy
of the chestnut in the production of poles to support vines.
It is quite difficult to give a quantitative judgment of the
effects of this innovation on the dissemination of chestnut
in the great latifundia. The systems of vine support were
in fact multiple (live support with running branches, low
stock without support, low stock with dry support, trellis,
etc., see also Var., Rust. I.VIII.1–6 and Pl., N.H. XIV.10–
14) and varied according to local traditions, the degree of
influence of external elements (that is, of the Greek co-
lonies) and the type of land and vine (Hehn 1911; Sereni
1981).
The pollen profiles from the Italian peninsula fall short
of contradicting an increase in chestnut presence, with the
exception of the previously cited case of the Lago di
Albano and Lago di Nemi (Lowe et al. 1996; Oldfield
1996). There is some archaeological evidence of chestnut
wood used as piers in rural constructions in the 1
st
century
A.D. in the Apennine part of Tuscany (settlement of Fi-
lattiera-Sorano, Rottoli and Negri 1998). On the other
hand, the presence of chestnut pollen in northern Italy
generally increased from around A.D. 100 to A.D. 600,
especially along the southern slope of the Alps from
Piedmont to Croatia (Figs. 5b and 7b). In some areas of
the Italian peninsula, chestnut appears for the first time in
the profiles from the first centuries of the Christian pe-
riod, probably in connection with the Roman conquest
(Table 4), for instance in the Insubrian Region (Fig. 8,
Tinner et al. 1999, Gobet et al. 2000) and in Calabria
(Schneider 1984).
Insubrian Region: the first centre of chestnut cultivation
Table 4 highlights the low pollen percentages for chestnut
in most European countries during the Roman period. The
Insubrian Region, the region of the southern Alpine lakes
across the Swiss-Italian border, is an exception. Chestnut
pollen became significant here within a few centuries of
its first appearance (Fig. 8). The slope of the Castanea
pollen curve varies a great deal as a function of local
conditions, even though chestnut was cultivated in a
systematic way in the hills and mountains of the region
from the 1
st
century A.D. with percentages up to 40%
(Fig. 9). In areas with limestone in the bedrock, the pollen
curves of chestnut increase with a slight delay and with
smaller maximum percentages (Gobet et al. 2000).
The introduction of chestnut coincided with a radical
change in local use of land. Fire was no longer used
systematically to clear open spaces in forests. Instead,
many wooded areas were actively managed as chestnut
groves (Tinner and Conedera 1995; Tinner et al. 1999;
Fig. 9). The rapid increase in chestnut pollen percentages
leads us to hypothesize that chestnut was introduced as a
monoculture, and probably managed in coppices for pole
production and not just for fruit cultivation.
The Insubrian region represents, in all probability, a
privileged centre of chestnut cultivation not only because
of favourable climatic and site conditions, but also be-
cause the network of lakes and rivers allowed easy
transport between the pre-Alpine area and the Po Plain
(Tozzi 1982; Vedaldi Iasbez 2000; Fig. 9). The well-
documented archaeological cases of Angera (southern
part of Lago Maggiore, Italy) and of Muralto (northern
part of Lago Maggiore, Switzerland) confirm the intensity
of commercial exchange between the pre-Alpine zone and
the Po plain in the first centuries of the Christian era. The
water routes allowed the transport of heavy goods (tim-
ber, building stone etc.) from the pre-Alpine valleys,
while consumer goods (wine, oil) and other lightweight
goods were carried from the plain towards the Alps, and
also beyond (Senna Chiesa 1995; Biaggio Simona 2000).
Unfortunately, no written documents have been found
which describe how this new form of cultivation was
introduced into the region. There are, however, archaeo-
logical findings showing that chestnut wood was used for
building and domestic purposes during the Roman period.
Carbonized chestnut carpentry dating back to the 3
rd
-4
th
century A.D. was found during the excavations in Angera
(Lago Maggiore, Italy) (Rottoli 1995). Pieces of car-
bonized chestnut wood were found in a 2
nd
-4
th
century
Roman villa in Monte Lambro, near Como (Madella
1991). Similarly, while digging in Monte Barro (Como,
Italy), wood works, supporting structures and even floor
boards made exclusively of chestnut were uncovered in
buildings dating back to the 5
th
-6
th
century A.D. The
timber came from small-size trees (20 cm in diameter),
most probably from a coppice (Castelletti et al. 1988;
Castelletti and Castiglioni 1991; Castiglioni et al. 2001).
In the archaeological site of via Alberto di Mario in
Brescia dating from the same period, chestnut was the
dominant wood in the supporting structures. At both sites
abundant chestnut fruit remains were also found, probably
from wild trees (Castiglioni et al. 2001; Castelletti and
Maspero 1988). Other archaeological evidence like the
two chestnuts found in the Roman cemetery of Tenero
(Lago Maggiore near Locarno, Switzerland) from the 2
nd
century A.D. (Sordelli 1883), suggest that both forms of
utilisation, both for timber and fruits, may have coexisted.
The existence of chestnut woods in the region is fur-
thermore documented for the beginning of the 6
th
century
173

A.D. by Cassiodorus, who described in Variae epistulae
(various letters), the mountains around Lago di Como as
“being covered by vineyards along the slopes and by
dense chestnut forests looking like a natural curly head of
hair on the top” (Cas., Variae, XI, 14; see also in
Castelletti and Castiglioni 1991).
Chestnut cultivation outside the Italian peninsula during
the Roman period
The generally increasing percentages of chestnut pollen
found from the 1
st
century A.D. onwards have also been
observed in the southern parts of France and Germany, in
northern Switzerland and, partially, in the Iberian penin-
sula (Figs. 5b,7b). This suggests that the use of chestnut
was spread throughout the empire by the Romans (van
Mourik 1985; Aira Rodriguez et al. 1992; Santos et al.
2000). In most of these regions, chestnut appears in the
Fig. 8 Distribution map of
chestnut pollen percentage
1500 B.P. (approx. A.D. 570)
for the Insubrian Region, in-
cluding archaeological sites
with chestnut macroremains
Fig. 7a,b Distribution map of
chestnut pollen percentages
1500 B.P. (approx. A.D. 570).
a) Eastern Mediterranean area.
b) western Mediterranean area
174

profiles for the first time in the first centuries of the
Christian period (Edelman 1985; Jolly 1988; Clerc 1988;
Visset 1994; Ammann 1989; Eusterhues et al. 2002),
probably in connection with the Roman conquest (Fig. 10
and Table 4). According to Frascaria et al. (1993) the
generally slight genetic differentiation among chestnut
populations in southern France could also be interpreted
as the effect of the Roman campaign to introduce chest-
nut.
In general, the presence of chestnut increases by only a
few percent, but it is evident throughout all profiles, even
at high altitudes where we assume that chestnut pollen is
of extra-local to regional origin. Despite the slight yet
distinct increase of chestnut, archaeological finds are very
scarce north of the Alps and little is known about its use
during the Roman period. In the mine of Saint-Pierre-
Montlimart (Loire valley, France) chestnut wood vessels
were found dating back to the 2
nd
-3
rd
century A.D.
(Provost 1993). These conical containers were also used
in the Iberian mines (where they were called cuncos).
Those tools served mainly to separate the sands of the
riverbed using a rotating movement, leaving heavy metals
Fig. 9 Pollen percentage diagram of selected trees and shrubs and charcoal influx, Lago di Origlio, southern Switzerland (source: Tinner
et al. 1999)
175

including gold at the bottom (Perez-Garcia and Sanchez-
Palencia Ramos 1985). Chestnut was probably favoured
because it can endure prolonged contact with water. It
may be, then, that chestnut wood was widely used in the
mining industry. According to Pliny the Elder, the use of
the correct timber quality was very important in the dif-
ferent uses to which it was put in gold mining (that is,
beams to hold up the galleries, water distribution chan-
nels, etc., Pl., N.H. XXXIII.66–79). In the Iberian region
(Asturias, Galicia and northern Portugal) during the Ro-
man period, there were more than 600 mining sites that
handled an estimated total of 600 million m
3
of soil
(Perez-Garcia and Sanchez-Palencia Ramos 1985). Nev-
ertheless no large increase in chestnut pollen concentra-
tion occurred, which seems to exclude its systematic use
in the Iberian mining industry. It is important to note that
in these regions chestnut was already present at a great
number of sites at 3500 B.P., although the quality of some
pollen profiles is poor. Furthermore we are not aware of
any archaeological records of chestnut fruit.
There was very little rise in the chestnut pollen per-
centages in some regions, such as England, northern
Germany and Corsica (Figs. 5b, 7b and Table 4) and for
most of the eastern Mediterranean area (Fig. 5a, 7a). The
case of Corsica is historically well documented: Pitte
(1986) describes how chestnut cultivation was introduced
in Corsica by the Genoese in the 18th century. Other
situations are much more difficult to interpret, such as
the pollen profiles around the ancient town of Ragusa
(Dubrovnik). Figures 5a (1900 B.P.) and 8a (1500 B.P.)
suggest a simultaneous chestnut introduction at six sites
near Mostar somewhere between 1900 B.P. and 1500 B.P.,
probably reflecting the increased power of the Byzantine
Empire. These sites were studied in the early 1970’s
(Brande 1973) and only in one case was radiocarbon-
dating performed. All other profiles were dated biostrati-
graphically, which considerably limits the usefulness of
the information. The nearby profiles of Malo Jezero and
Veliko Jezero located in the Island of Mljet first studied by
Beug (1961) and then by Jahns and van den Bogaard
(1998) and Jahns (2002) help only partially to solve the
dating problem of chestnut introduction.
In conclusion, no centre of chestnut cultivation has
been detected outside the Italian peninsula during the
Roman period. The Romans may have introduced the idea
of systematically cultivating and using chestnut and in
certain cases the tree itself, but no evidence of systematic
chestnut planting exists. Widespread use of chestnut in
coppices and in orchards for staple food production (the
proper chestnut civilization) took place in western Europe
starting in the early Middle Ages (for example in Tuscany,
Quirs Castillo 1998) and flourished further in the later
Middle Ages (11
th
-16
th
centuries, Pitte 1986, Fig. 11). It
was probably not introduced by the Romans, if our anal-
ysis of chestnut terminology in the modern European
languages is correct. The name for the tree and the fruit is
uniform, with all names derived from one common Latin
root. But the terminology for the other parts of the tree, for
example the spiny cupule surrounding the fruit or for some
methods of baking, varies with some words having pre-
Roman origins (Kser 1932). Their etymology is probably
linked to the cultivation of the fruit of other species before
the introduction of chestnut. Pliny even asserted that some
populations nourished themselves regularly with acorns
(Pl. N.H. XIV.16 and ff.). Where the interest in the cul-
tivation of chestnut fruit introduced by the Romans con-
tinued in successive phases, the locals probably adopted
the terminology already in use from pre-Roman time for
other species for describing the cultivation of chestnut.
Fig. 10 Pollen percentage diagram of selected trees and shrubs for Lobsigensee (source: Ammann 1989)
176

Conclusion
Castanea sativa is a tree the occurrence of which is
closely tied to human activity. As for most plants affected
by human activities, pollen data alone are often not en-
ough to assess the time of, and the means and motivation
for its dissemination. In this article we have tried to re-
construct the history of chestnut cultivation by comparing
pollen data with information from literature, classical
historiography, linguistics, and archaeology. As a result of
this multidisciplinary approach, we have given a more
complete picture of the role of the Greek and Roman
civilizations in spreading the cultivation of chestnut on a
European scale. In particular we show that its use as food
was not the primary driving force behind the introduction
of chestnut into Europe by the Romans.
A major interest in managing chestnut for fruit pro-
duction as well as in cultivation for self-sufficiency more
probably developed after the Roman period and can be
associated with the socio-economic structures of medieval
times. During the Roman period, the Insubrian Region
constituted the first major centre of chestnut cultivation in
western Europe, while in eastern Europe the decrease in
chestnut pollen percentages suggests that there was also a
decline in chestnut cultivation.
There are clearly limits to our approach that are mostly
due to lack of information. Some European regions, such
as southern Italy, western Turkey, central and southern
Spain, etc., have still not been sufficiently studied paly-
nologically. Radiocarbon dating is limited or completely
absent, and old literary texts are either absent or are not
easily interpretable from a botanical point of view.
However, our approach presents another perspective for
reconstructing the history of the impact of humans on the
vegetation of the European continent, which could be
extended to other trees and combined with other disci-
plines. In particular, the latest developments in genetics
and the possibility of using different molecular markers
for ecological studies including past distribution, genetic
variation and re-colonisation patterns of the species
(Comes and Kadereit 1998; Hewitt 1999; Newton et al.
1999) open new perspectives for understanding the gene
flow associated with the origin of chestnut cultivation in
Europe.
Acknowledgements Our heartfelt thanks go to our colleagues W.E.
Stckli, F. Villani, R. Drescher-Schneider, W.O. van der Knaap, an
anonymous reviewer and F. Bittmann for the critical reading of the
manuscript, S. Ragozza for the valuable advice and the original
translations of ancient Greek texts, H. Woldring and B. Ammann
for allowing us to reproduce selections of their original diagrams,
our colleagues C. Grtter, G. Nebel and Ch. Matter of the WSL
library and all the staff of the service library NEBIS for their
readiness to help and their tenacity with which they have supported
us in researching the bibliography, S. Depedrini and D. Furrer for
their assistance during cataloguing and recording of the consulted
bibliography. Finally, we are indebted to Ch. and J. Favre and to S.
Dingwall for the English revision of the manuscript.
References
Aira Rodriguez, M.J., Saa, P., Lopez, P. (1992). Cambios del pai-
saje durante el Holoceno: Analisis de polen en Turberas
(Galicia, Espaa). Revue de Palobiologie, 11, 243–254
Alessio, M., Allegri, L., Bella, F., Calderoni, G., Cortesi, C., Dai
Pra, G., De Rita, D., Esu, D., Follieri, M., Improta, S., Magri,
D., Narcisi, B., Petrone, V., Sadori, L. (1986).
14
C dating,
geochemical features, faunistic and pollen analysis of the up-
permost 10 m core from Valle di Castiglione (Rome, Italy).
Geologica Romana, 25, 287–308
Allen, J.R.M., Watts, W.A., McGee, E., Huntley, B. (2002). Ho-
locene environmental variability—the record from Lago
Grande di Monticchio, Italy. Quaternary International, 88, 69–
80
Amigues, S. (1988). Theophraste: recherches sur les plantes. Les
Belles Lettres, Paris
Fig. 11 Distribution map of
chestnut pollen percentages
400 B.P. (approx. A.D. 1460) in
Europe
177

Ammann, B. (1989). Late-Quaternary palynology at Lobsigensee.
Regional vegetation history and local lake development. Dis-
sertationes Botanicae, 137, 1–157
Ammerman, A.J., Butler, J.J., Diamond, G., Menozzi, P., Pals, P.J.,
Sevink, J., Smit, A., Voorrips, A. (1976). Rapporto sugli scavi a
Monte Leoni: un insediamento dell’et del bronzo in Val Par-
ma. Preistoria Alpina, 12, 127–154
Behre, K.-E. (1990). Some reflections on anthropogenic indicators
and the record of prehistoric occupation phases in pollen dia-
grams from the Near East. In: Bottema, S., Entjes-Nieborg, G.,
Zeist, W. van (eds) Man’s role in the shaping of the eastern
Mediterranean landscape. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 219–231
Bellodi, L., Bertolani Marchetti, D., Frascaroli, G., Manicardi, A.,
Mondini, M. (1972). Ricerche preliminari sull’abitato preis-
torico di S.Michele di Valestra (Reggio Emilia). Bollettino
della Societ dei naturalisti e dei matematici, 102, 109–124
Bernetti, G. (1995). Selvicoltura speciale. UTET, Torino
Berrocal del Brio, M., Gallardo, J.F., Cardeoso Herrero, J.M.
(1998). El castao. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid
Beug, H.J. (1961). Beitrge zur postglazialen Floren- und Vegeta-
tionsgeschichte in Sddalmatien: Der See “Malo Jezero” auf
Mljet. Flora, 150, 600–656
Biaggio Simona, S. (2000). Leponti e Romani: l’incontro di due
culture. In: Marinis, R.C. de, Biaggio Simona, S. (eds) I Lep-
onti tra mito e realt. A Dad, Locarno, pp 261–283
Bottema, S., Woldring, H. (1990). Anthropogenic indicators in the
pollen record of the Eastern Mediterranean. In: Bottema, S.,
Entjes-Nieborg, G., Zeist, W. van (eds) Man’s role in the
shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 231–265
Bounous, G. (1999). Among the chestnut trees in Cuneo Province.
Metafore, Cuneo
Bounous, G. (2002). Il castagno. Coltura, ambiente ed utilizzazioni
in Italia e nel mondo. Edagricole, Bologna
Brande, A. (1973). Untersuchungen zur postglazialen Vegetation-
sgeschichte im Gebiet der Neretva-Niederungen (Dalmatien,
Herzegowina). Flora, 162, 1–44
Brugiapaglia, E., Beaulieu, J.L. de, Guiot, J., Reille, M. (1998).
Transect de pluie pollinique et tagement de la vgtation dans
le massif du Taillefer (Isre, France). Gographie Physique et
Quaternaire, 52, 209–218
Bruneton-Governatori, A. (1984). Le pain de bois. Ethnohistoire de
la chtaigne et du chtaignier. Ech, Toulouse
Camus, A. (1929). Les chtaigners. Monographie des genres Cas-
tanea e Castanopsis. Lechevallier, Paris
Carandini, A. (1988). Gli schiavi in Italia. Gli strumenti pensanti
dei Romani fra tarda repubblica e medio Impero. La Nuova
Italia Scientifica, Roma
Carena, C. (1982). Opere di Publio Virgilio Marone. UTET, Torino
Castelletti, L., Brogiolo, G.P., Nobile, I., Roffia, E., Bolla, M., De
Marchi, P.M., Arslan, E.A., Sfrecola. S., Somaini, A. (1988).
Scavi di Monte Barro. Comune di Galbiate—Como (1986–87).
Archeologia Medievale, 15, 177–250
Castelletti, L., Castiglioni, E. (1991). Resti vegetali. In: Brogiolo,
G.P., Castelletti, L. (eds) Archeologia a Monte Barro I, Il
grande edificio e le torri. Lecco, pp 169–203
Castelletti, L., Maspero, A. (1988). Analisi di resti vegetali
macroscopici. In: Panazza, G., Broggiolo, G.P. (eds) ricerche su
Brescia altomedievale. Brescia, pp 125–132
Castiglioni, E., Cottini, M., Rottoli, M. (2001). I resti archeob-
otanici. In: Brogiolo, G.P., Castelletti, L. (eds) Archeologia a
Monte Barro I, Il grande edificio e le torri. Lecco, pp 223–249
CiMPI (2003). Circum-Mediterranean Pollen Inventory (http://
www.bgc.mpg.de/bgc_prentice/projects/cimbio/maps.html)
Clerc, J. (1988). Recherches pollenanalytiques sur la paloecologie
tardiglaciaire et holocne du Bas-Dauphin. Ph.D.Thesis,
Universit d’Aix-Marseille III
Comes, H.P., Kadereit, J.W. (1998). The effect of Quaternary cli-
matic changes on plant distribution and evolution. Trends in
Plant Science, 3, 432–438
Dion, R. (1977). Histoire de la vigne et du vin en France des
origines au XIX sicle. Flammarion, Paris
Eastwood, W.J., Roberts, N., Lamb, H.F., Tibby, J.C. (1999). Ho-
locene environmental change in southwest Turkey: a palaeoe-
cological record of lake and catchment-related changes. Qua-
ternary Science Reviews, 18, 671–695
Edelman, H. (1985). Late glacial and Holocene vegetation devel-
opment of la Goutte Loiselot (Vosges, France). University of
Utrecht, Utrecht
EPD (2003). European Pollen Database (http://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/
paleo/epd/epd_main.html)
Eusterhues, K., Lechterbeck, J., Schneider, J., Wolf-Brozio, U.
(2002). Late- and Post-Glacial evolution of Lake Steisslingen
(I). Sedimentary history, palynological record and inorganic
geochemical indicators. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, 187, 341–371
Fenaroli, L. (1945). Il castagno. Ramo editoriale degli agricoltori,
Roma
Fineschi, S., Taurchini, D., Villani, F., Vendramin, G.G. (2000).
Chloroplast DNA polymorphism reveals little geographical
structure in Castanea sativa Mill. (Fagaceae) throughout
southern European countries. Molecular Ecology, 9, 1495–1503
Forni, G. (1990). Gli albori dell’agricoltura. REDA, Roma
Frascaria, N., Santi, F., Gouyon, P.H. (1993). Genetic differentia-
tion within and among populations of chestnut (Castanea sativa
Mill.) and wild cherry (Prunus avium L.). Heredity, 70, 634–
641
Gabrielli, A. (1994). La civilt del castagno. Monti e boschi, 65, 3
Gobet, E., Tinner, W., Hubschmid, P., Jansen, I., Wehrli, M.,
Ammann, B., Wick, L. (2000). Influence of human impact and
bedrock differences on the vegetational history of the Insubrian
southern Alps. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 9, 175–
187
Hase, F.W. von (1990). gische Importe im zentralen Mit-
telmeergebiet in spthelladischer Zeit (SH I—SH III C).
Monographie des rmisch-germanisches Zentralmuseums, 15,
80–108
Hehn, V. (1911). Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem bergang
aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie das brige
Europa. Gebrder Borntraeger, Berlin
Hewitt, G.M. (1999). Post-glacial re-colonization of European
biota. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 68, 87–112
Howatson, M.C. (1989). The Oxford companion to classical liter-
ature. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Huntley, B., Birks, H.J.B. (1983). An atlas of past and present
pollen maps for Europe: 0–13000 years ago. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge
Jahns, S., Bogaard, C. van den (1998). New palynological and
tephrostratigraphical investigations of two salt lagoons on the
island of Mljet, south Dalmatia, Croatia. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany, 7, 219–234.
Jahns, S. (2002). An improved time scale for the Holocene history
of vegetation and environment on the South Dalmatian Island
of Mljet. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 11, 315–316
Jochimsen, M. (1986). Zum Problem des Pollenfluges in den Ho-
chalpen. Dissertationes Botanicae, 90, 1–237
Jolly, M.C. (1988).  propos de l’asylvatisme des hauts versants du
Cantal. Institut Francais de Pondichery, Bordeaux
Kser, H. (1932). Die Kastanienkultur und ihre Terminologie in
Oberitalien und in der Sdschweiz. Sauerlnder & Co., Aarau
Kelly, M.G., Huntley, B. (1991). An 11000-year record of vege-
tation and environment from Lago di Martignano, Latium,
Italy. Journal of Quaternary Science, 6, 209–224
Krebs, P., Conedera, M., Pradella, M., Torriani, D., Felber, M.,
Tinner, W. (2004). Quaternary refugia of the sweet chestnut
(Castanea sativa Mill.): an extended palynological approach.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 13
Kster, H. (1991). Mitteleuropa sdlich der Donau, einschliesslich
Alpenraum. In: Zeist, W. van, Wasylikowa, K., Behre, K.-E.
(eds) Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 179–188
Lang, G. (1994). Quartre Vegetationsgeschichte Europas. Fischer,
Jena
Lavialle, J.B. (1906). Le chtaignier. Vigots, Paris
178

Lowe, J.J., Accorsi, C.A., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Bishop, A., Kaars,
S. van der, Forlani, L., Mercuri, A.M., Rivalenti, C., Torri, P.,
Watson, C. (1996). Pollen stratigraphy of sediment sequences
from lakes Albano and Nemi (near Rome) and from the central
Adriatic, spanning the interval from oxygen isotope Stage 2 to
the present day. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia,
55, 71–98
Madella, M. (1991). I macroresti vegetali. Sopraintendenza
Archeologica della Lombardia, Notiziario, 1, 44–45
Marinova, E., Tchakalova, E., Stoyanova, D., Grozeva, S.,
Dotscheva, E. (2002). Ergebnisse archobotanischer Unter-
suchungen aus dem Neolithikum und Chalcolithikum in Sd-
westbulgarien. Archaeologia Bulgarica, 6, 1–11
Mateus, J.E. (1992). Holocene and present-day ecosystems of the
carvalhal region, southwest Portugal. Doctoral Thesis, Uni-
versity of Utrecht
Merz, F. (1919). Il castagno: sua importanza economica, colti-
vazione e trattamento. Dipartimento Federale dell’Interno,
Berna
Meyer, F.G. (1980). Carbonized food plants of Pompeii, Hercula-
neum, and the Villa at Torre Annunziata. Economic Botany, 34,
401–437
Mourik, J. van (1985). Pollen profiles of slope deposits in the
Galician Area (N.W. Spain). Doctoral Thesis, University of
Amsterdam
Newton, A.C., Allnutt, T.R., Gillies, A.C.M., Lowe, A.J., Ennos,
R.A. (1999). Molecular phylogeography, intraspecific variation
and the conservation of tree species. Trees, 14, 140–145
Nisbet, R. (1991). Storia forestale e agricoltura a Montaldo tra et
del Ferro e XVI secolo. In: Michelletto, E., Gambari, V. (eds)
Montaldo di Mondov. Un insediamento protostorico. Un
castello. Roma, pp 247–251
Nisbet, R., Biagi, P. (1987). Balm’ Chanto: un riparo sottoroccia
dell’et del rame nelle Alpi. Museo Civico Archeologico
“Giovio” - New Press, Como
Oldfield, F. (1996). The PALICLAS Project: synthesis and over-
view. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia, 55, 329–
357
Palaeoecological Atlas of Northern and Western Africa (2003).
(http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/geographie/fachi/pal_atlas_afri-
ka/index_atlas.htm)
Pals, J.-P., Voorrips (1979) Seeds, fruits and charcoals from two
prehistoric sites in northern Italy. Archaeo-Physica, 8, 217–235.
Peeters, A.G., Zoller, H. (1988). Long range transport of Castanea
sativa pollen. Grana, 27, 203–207
Perez-Garcia, L.C., Sanchez-Palencia Ramos, F.J. (1985).
Yacimientos aurferos ibricos en la antigedad. Investigation y
ciencia, 104, 64–75
Piccioli, L. (1922). Monografia del castagno. Suoi caratteri mor-
fologici, variet, coltivazione, prodotti e nemici. Spinelli,
Firenze
Pitte, J.R. (1986). Terres de castanide. Homme et paysage du
chtaignier de l’Antiquit  nos jours. Librairie A Fayard, Paris
Provost, M. (1993). Le Val de la Loire dans l’antiquit. Gallia, 52,
1–411
Quirs Castillo, J.A. (1998). Cambios y transformaciones en el
paisaje del Apenino toscano entre la Antigedad Tarda y la
Edad Media. El castao. Archeologia Medievale, 25, 177–197
Rachewiltz, S.W. de (1992). Kastanien im sdlichen Tirol. Arunda,
Schlanders
Rottoli, M. (1995). Analisi dei resti vegetali. In: Senna Chiesa, G.,
Lavizzarini Pedrazzini, M.P. (eds). Angera Romana: scavi
nell’abitato 1980–1986. Bretschneider, Roma, pp 499–506
Rottoli, M., Negri, S. (1998). Resti vegetali carbonizzati. In: Gi-
annichedda, E. (ed) Filattiera-Sorano: l’insediamento di et
romana e tardo antica scavi 1986–1995. Istituto di Storia della
Cultura Materiale, pp 198–212
Rudow, A., Conedera, M. (2001). Blte und Sortenerkennung bei
der Edelkastanie (Castanea sativa Mill.) auf der Alpensdseite
der Schweiz. Botanica Helvetica, 111, 1–23
Sanchez Goi MF (1993). De la taphonomie pollinique  la re-
constitution de l’environnement. L’exemple de la rgion can-
tabrique. British Archaeological Reports, International Series
586, 1–181
Santos L., Vidal Romani J.R., Jalut G. (2000). History of vegetation
during the Holocene in the Courel and Queixa Sierras, Galicia,
northwest Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Quaternary Science, 15,
621–632
Sauvezon, R., Sauvezon, A., Sunt, C. (2000). Chtaignes et ch-
taigniers en rgions mditerranennes franaises. disud, Aix-
en-Provence
Schneider, R. (1984). Analyse palynologique dans l’Aspromonte en
Calabre (Italie Mridionale). Cahier Ligures de prhistoire et de
protohistoire, 2, 279–288
Senna Chiesa, G. (1995). Angera Romana: il vicus e l’indagine di
scavo. In: Senna Chiesa, G., Lavizzarini Pedrazzini, M.P. (eds).
Angera Romana: scavi nell’abitato 1980–1986. Giorgio
Bretschneider Editore, Roma, pp XXXI-LXI
Sereni, E. (1981). Terra nuova e buoi rossi e altri saggi per una
storia dell’agricoltura europea. Einaudi, Torino
Sganzini, S. (1937). La castagna nell’alta Italia e nella Svizzera
Italiana. Vox Romanica, 2, 77–103
Sirago, V.A. (1995). Storia agraria romana. I: Fase ascensionale.
Liguori, Napoli
Sordelli, F. (1883). Sulle filliti quaternarie di Re, in Val Vegezzo.
Rendiconti del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere,
16, 843–851
Tinner, W., Conedera, M. (1995). Indagini paleobotaniche sulla
storia della vegetazione e degli incendi forestali durante
l’Olocene al lago di Origlio (Ticino meridionale). Bollettino
della Societ Ticinese di Scienze Naturali, 83, 91–106
Tinner, W., Hubschmid, P., Wehrli, M., Ammann, B., Conedera,
M. (1999). Long-term forest fire ecology and dynamics in
southern Switzerland. Journal of Ecology, 87, 273–289
Tozzi, P. (1982). I laghi dell’Italia settentrionale e la nozione di
continuit lacustre-fluviale presso i Romani. in: Tamborini, M.,
Armocida, L., Arslan, E.A. (eds). Angera e il Verbano Orien-
tale nell’antichit. Atti della giornata di Studio. Rocca di An-
gera, 11 Sept. 1982, Museo Civico Angera, Angera, pp 131–
137
Vedaldi Iasbez, V. (2000). I Leponti e le fonti letterarie antiche. In:
Marinis, R.C. de, Biaggio Simona, S. (eds). I Leponti tra mito e
realt. A Dad Editore, Locarno, pp 243–259
Vesco, C. (1990). L’Arte della cucina. Manuale dell’esperto cuoco
della Roma imperiale. Scipioni, Roma
Villani, F., Sansotta, A., Cherubini, M., Cesaroni, D., Sbordoni, V.
(1999). Genetic structure of Castanea sativa in Turkey: evi-
dence of a hybrid zone. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12,
233–244
Visset, L. (1994). Vegetation changes and development of agri-
culture at “Kerfontaine” (Srent, Massif Armoricain, France).
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 3, 1–6
Watts, W.A., Allen, J.R.M., Huntley, B., Fritz, S.C. (1996). Veg-
etation history and climate of the last 15,000 years at laghi di
Monticchio, Southern Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews, 15,
113–132
WDC (2003). World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder,
Colorado, USA (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pollen.html)
Yasuda, Y., Kitagawa, H., Nakagawa, T. (2000). The earliest record
of major anthropogenic deforestation in the Ghab Valley,
northwest Syria: a palynological study. Quaternary Interna-
tional, 73/74, 127–136
Zeist, W. van, Bottema, S. (1991). Late Quaternary Vegetation of
the Near East. L Reichert, Wiesbaden
Zeist, W. van, Woldring, H., Stapert, D. (1975). Late quaternary
vegetation and climate of Southwestern Turkey. Palaeohistoria,
17, 53–143
179