## 4 Methods  
The different parts of plants were used in diverse ways in Prehistory. The repeated use and even the discarding of particular parts have greatly conditioned their integration in the archaeological record. In addition, it is known that not all the parts of a plant are preserved in the same way in the record. Factors such as their fragility, as in the case of fibers or the pollen of certain species that are under-represented in the archaeological record, or whether or not they have been exposed to fire in the case of wood, fruit, and seeds, condition our awareness of their presence at a site. The holistic approach applied in this paper, combining different archaeobotanical disciplines, each one specializing in different remains of the same element, can achieve a much wider and precise picture of the palaeovegetation and how prehistoric human societies interacted with it. Thus, wood, charcoal, phytoliths, and pollen have been analyzed in order to reconstruct the vegetation history, resources exploited, and the human signal in the environment. Here, we briefly explain the methods used for sampling and identifying the plant remains. The sediment sampling and processing strategies applied at each site are slightly different, but always of a systematic nature, combining hand-picking of large objects (mainly wood and charcoal fragments) with sediment processing with water for the recovery of smaller organic remains. At Cova del Sardo, the type of sampling was probabilistic (20% of all stratigraphic units were sieved) and the sediment was processed in a flotation tank [21]. At La Draga, several sampling and sieving strategies have been applied over the years [47], but, since 2010, a combination of samples taken per grid quadrant (50 \(\times\) 50 cm) and from profiles and sieved with the wash-over technique and samples water-screened for the recovery of larger items (>2 mm) was applied [21; 48]. At Coves del Fem, sediment was processed in a flotation tank to recover charcoal and seed remains, while charcoal was also recovered by hand and dry screening. The mesh sizes that were used to collect the heavy fraction (non-organic material) and the light fraction (of organic remains) were 4, 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.3 mm. Seed identification was based on morphometrical criteria and the observation of the seed surface in comparison with reference collection material at the Museu d'Arqueologia de Catalunya-Girona and the IPAS at the University of Basel, as well as identification atlases for wild plants [49] and cultivated plants [50]. A stereomicroscope with a 6.5\(-\)50\(\times\) magnification range was used for this purpose. Figure 4: General view of Coves del Fem. Photograph by Coves del Fem team. The determination of wood and charcoal followed standard procedures. The anatomical patterns of each wood species were observed along three anatomical sections (transversal, longitudinal tangential, and longitudinal radial) using a reflected light microscope equipped with bright/dark field (BF-DF), in the case of charcoal, and transmitted light, in the case of wood samples [51; 52], at magnification factors between 40\(\times\) and 400\(\times\). Archaeological samples were compared with modern wood, as well as with wood anatomy atlases [53]. The study of wooden artifacts consists of the identification of the raw material from its anatomical features and the characterization of the technological processes based on the marks observed on the artifact surface [34; 41; 42]. In addition, the age and diameters of piles and planks were recorded in order to characterize the forest exploited [41; 54]. The study of dendro-anthracological factors is vital to understand forest management by past societies. Among these, the minimum diameter of the wood has been one of the most frequently used factors. Qualitative analysis, based on the curvature of the growth rings [55], has been replaced by more precise quantitative approaches that use new image analysis tools [56].