CROP STORAGE IN ANCIENT : A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

USING ETHNOGRAPHIC MODELLING.

AMR NAWAR AL-MOUAYAD AL-AZEM.

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY.

1 A b strac t.

The aim of this thesis is to examine critically crop storage residues from two third millennium sites in north Syria, and to attempt to identify the purposes for which they have been stored. Existing methods for identifying and distinguishing archaeological samples of different crop products and byproducts in storage are inadequate, and hence the purposes for which they were intended are often misunderstood or misinterpreted. Examples of products which have not previously been identified in the archaeological record include "Frikkeh", "Burgul", and roast barley.

In order to address this problem, an attempt is made to assemble a model based on modern ethnographic data. This model allows us to identify these different products and byproducts in storage, and to establish their relationship, within certain limits. This in turn allows us to establish the purpose for which these products were stored. The model is further strengthened by establishing the antiquity of these processes via existing textual and archaeological evidence. The model is then applied to the archaeological remains recovered from two sites in north Syria: 'Tell Brak", and "Tell Kerma", with the aim of identifying: 1. The various crop products and byproducts stored, and the purposes for which they were intended. 2. Crop storage contexts or areas in which crop processing activities leading to storage may have occurred.

2 List of Contents.

Abstract. 2 Table of Contents. 3 List of Tables. 8 List of Figures. 9 Dedication. 12

Acknowledgements. 13

General Introduction. 14 Section 1: Assembly of the Ethnographic Data.

Chapter 1: Background and General Information. 1.1 Introduction. 17

1.2 Interviewing Strategy. 18 1.3 The Village Sites Visited. 19 1.4 Problems Encountered. 20 1.5 Climate and Geography. 21 Chapter 2: Ethnographic Data. 2.1 Introduction. 29 2.2 The Crop Processing Cycle of and Barley ...... 29 Chapter 3: Crop Processing Activities Directly or Indirectly Related to Crop Storage. 3.1 Introduction. 59 3.2 Winnowing. 60 3.3 Sieving. 61 3.4 Grain Dunking. 63 3.5 "Frikkeh". 63 3.6 Grain Roasting. 65

3.7 "Burgul". 66

3.8 Storage of Grain and Other Products. 67

3 3.9 Summary, and Organisation of Processes into Correct Sequence...... 84 3.10 Simplified chart showing the different stages at which crop products and byproducts are stored...... 87 3.11 Glume Wheat Processing Steps...... 89 Chapter 4: The Antiquity of the Processes. 4.1 Introduction...... 91

4.2 The Archaeological Sources...... 91 4.3 Textual Sources...... 93 4.4 Source Abbreviation and Chronology...... 93

4.5 Georgica Sumerica...... 95 4.6 The Evidence...... 101 4.7 Conclusion...... 133

Section 2: Assembly of the Modern Plant Samples.

Chapter 5: Sampling and Analytical Procedures. 5.1 Introduction...... 137 5.2 The Relationship Between Composition Classes, Observed Activities and Settlement Contexts...... 137 5.3 Sampling Procedures...... 139 5.4 Analytical Methods...... 140 5.5 Choice of Processes to Sample...... 141 5.6 Discussion...... 143 Chapter 6: Identification and Interpretation of Crop Compositions. 6.1 Introduction...... 145 6.2 Characteristics used for Identification...... 145 6.3 Further Points...... 153

6.4 Simplified Processing Sequence; showing association of weed categories with major products and byproducts...... 154 6.5 Classification of weeds according to the Seed Categories

4 outlined above. 155 6.6 Other Non-Seed Contaminants. 156 6.7 Brief Description of the Major Classes of Composition Found in Crop Products and Byproducts. 157 Chapter 7: Statistical Analysis. 7.1 Introduction. 194

7.2 Discriminant Analysis. 194 7.3 Data Preparation. 195 7.4 Results. 197

7.4a Use of Logarithms...... 198 7.4b Use of Nodes and Rachis...... 198

7.4c Use of Five Clusters...... 199 7.5 Discussion...... 199 7.6 The Model. 200 7.7 The Archaeological Applicability of the Model. 202

Section 3: Assembly of the Archaeological Data.

Chapter 8: The Archaeological Information. 8.1 Introduction. 227 8.2 Tell Brak. 227 8.2a Area FS. 229 8.2b Phase 3: Late Agade Buildings. 229 8.2c Phase 2. 231 8.3 Tell Kerma North. 233 Chapter 9: Sampling Strategy. 9.1 Tell Brak. 249 9.2 Tell Kerma North. 249 9.3 Analytical Methods. 250 Chapter 10: Statistical Analysis of Archaeological Plant Samples. 10.1 Introduction. 265

5 10.2 Data Preparation. 265 10.2a Clusters. 266 10.2b Variables. 266 10.3 Results. 267 10.4 Discussion and Interpretation. 267 10.4a Brak Scattergram (fig. 45). 268 10.4b Kerma Scattergram (fig. 46). 269

Chapter 11: Frikkeh.

11.1 Introduction. 277

11.2 Identification of Frikkeh. 278 11.2a Infrared Spectroscopy. 279 11.2b Kerma Samples. 280 11.2c Discussion. 280 Chapter 12: Interpretation of Archaeological Contexts. 12.1 Introduction. 282 12.2 Tell Brak. 282 12.3 Summary and Conclusions on the Plant Remains Recovered from Tell Brak. 289 12.4 Tell Kerma. 291 12.5 Summary and Conclusions on the Plant Remains Recovered from Tell Kerma. 295 12.6 Further Comments and Recommendations for Further Research. 297

Chapter 13: General Summary and Conclusion. 300 Appendices.

Appendix 1:

Ethno-Agricultural Questionnaire for the 302

6 Appendix 2: Description of an Ard Type Plough Found in the Alawite Mountains. .324

Appendix 2: Transportation of Crops in the Alawite Mountains using a "Shaher". 326

Appendix 4:

Further Notes on "Frikkeh" and the Turkish "Firig". 327

Bibliography 328

7 List of Tables.

Table 1: Summary of Climatological Data...... 26 Table 2: Summary of Evidence. 135 Table 3: Sample Composition of Modern crop products and byproducts...... 159 Table 4: Standardised data. 204 Table 5: C.V.A. for 8 clusters scored on 6 variables. 207 Table 6: T.V.A. for 8 clusters scored on 6 variables. 208 Table 7: C.V.A. for 8 clusters scored on 8 variables. 212 Table 8: T.V.A. for 8 clusters scored on 8 variables. 214

Table 9: C.V.A. for 5 clusters scored on 8 variables. 218 Table 10: T.V.A. for 5 clusters scored on 8 variables. 219 Table 11: C.V.A. for 5 clusters scored on 8 variables. 222

Table 12: T.V.A. for 5 clusters scored on 8 variables. 223 Table 13: Phase 3 Tell Brak sample sources. 238 Table 14: Phase 2 Tell Brak sample sources. 239 Table 15: Tell Kerma sample sources. 240 Table 16: Tell Brak Sample Composition. 257 Table 17: Tell Kerma Sample Composition. 262 Table 18: Standardised data from Tell Brak. 271 Table 19: Standardised data from Tell Kerma. 272 Table 20: T.V.A. for Tell Brak. 273 Table 21: T.V.A. for Tell Kerma. 275

8 List of Figures.

Figure 1: General map of Syria 23

Figure 2a: Detailed map of western Syria. 24 Figure 2b: Detailed map of southern Syria. 25 Figure 3: Hoe. 44 Figure 4: Ard type plough (from the Alawite mountains). 45 Figure 5: Ard type plough (southern Syria) 45 Figure 6: Yoke (Alawite mountains)...... 45 Figure 7: Ploughmans'goad (Alawite mountains). 45 Figure 8: Weeding . 46 Figure 9: Crop harvesting sickles. 46 Figure 10: Harvesting of wheat in the Hassakeh region. 47 Figure 11: Small crop harvesting sickles for teaching children (Alawite Mountains). 46 Figure 12: "Mighmara", used for collecting sheaves in the Alawite mountains). 48 Figure 13a: A disused cart from the Raqaa region. 49 Figure 13b: Harvest cart from . 49 Figure 14: "Mi' calleh" (wooden hooks). 48 Figure 15: "Shaher" for transporting crops. 50 Figure 16: A "jarjar" frame. 51 Figure 17: Yoke from the Alawite mountains (used in conjunction with the "jarjar"). 54

Figure 18: The yoke in placeon a mule during . 52 Figure 19: Threshing sledge (tribulum) from the Hauran region (southern Syria). 53 Figure 20: Winnowing fork. 54

Figure 21: "Jarjar" in use threshing a wheat crop. 55 Figure 22: Tribulum in use threshinga wheat crop. 56

Figure 23: Wooden spade ("jaroof"). 54

9 Figure 24a: Heaping the threshed crop into a mound...... 57 Figure 24b: Beating threshed crop to compress it...... 57 Figure 25: Threshed crop protected from the wind by a "jerz" (Alawite mountains)...... 58 Figure 26a: Winnowing in the Alawite mountains...... 70 Figure 26b: Winnowing in the Hassake region...... 71 Figure 27a: Coarse sieving in the Alawite mountains...... 72

Figure 27b: Coarse sieve byproduct...... 72 Figure 27c: Fine sieving in the Alawite mountains...... 73 Figure 28a: Emptying the fine sieve (grain dunking)...... 74 Figure 28b: Grain dunking...... 75 Figure 29: Drying wet grain on the roof...... 75 Figure 30a: Roasting unripe wheat or "frikkeh"...... 76 Figure 30b: Frikkeh: beating the roast ears...... 77 Figure 30c: Frikkeh: tossing the grain to eliminate straw, and other contaminants...... 77 Figure 30d: Frikkeh: rubbing the grain between the hands...... 78 Figure 30e: Straw and rawhide tray...... 79 Figure 30f: Special wooden beating stick...... 80 Figure 31a: Grain storage (Alawite mountains) ...... 81 Figure 31b: Grain storage bin (Hauran region)...... 82 Figure 32: Typical house plan (Alawite mountains)...... 83 Figure 33: Split blades from Tell Sifir...... 136 Figure 34: Relationships between crop product composition, contexts and activities...... 144 Figure 35: Scattergram of 8 clusters on 6 variables...... 211 Figure 36: Scattergram of 8 clusters on 8 variables...... 217 Figure 37: Scattergram of 5 clusters on 8 variables...... 221 Figure 38: Scattergram of 5 clusters on 8 variables...... 226 Figure 39: Map of area around Tell Brak...... 241 Figure 40: Map of rainfall zones...... 242

10 Figure 41: Map of excavated areas at Tell Brak. 243 Figure 42a: Plan of area FS phase 3. 244 Figure 42b: Isometric diagram of the niched public building. 245 Figure 43: Plan of area FS phases 2b and 2c (unpublished site plans). 246 Figure 44: Tell Kerma central and western granaries. 247

Figure 44b: Tell Kerma Area C300. 248 Figure 45: Scattergram (Brak) 274 Figure 46: Scattergram (Kerma) 276

11 This thesis is dedicated to my future wife Lucie Jane Rees, who

against all odds dragged me into the civilised world.

12 Acknowledgements.

In the course of successfully completing this project I have become indebted to a great number of people. First and foremost are; the people of the village of El-Findara, who patiently put up with my incessant questioning and curiosity, especially the families of Abu-Muhamed and Abu-Abbas. My warmest thanks to Clive Orton, Paul Tyers, and R.N.L.B. Hubbard for the unenviable task of explaining basic statistics to me; Dr M. Saghiyeh and Prof. D. Oates and J. Oates for making their archaeobotanical material available to me. I am grateful to my parents and family who helped out in any way they could; Gordon Hillman and Harriet Crawford whose faith and constant encouragement of my work gave me the strength and courage to go through with it all. Finally, but not least, a warm thanks is due to R.A. Bit, Peter Otoole (no relation), all the people in the labs, and the other unnamed who helped with this project. My greatest thanks and feeling however go to Lucie Jane Rees for sharing in my suffering.

I would like to thank M. Gheller and M. Civil for providing me with acess to unpublished material on the Georgica Sumerica. 5th August 1991.

13 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This thesis has been written with the intention of solving some of the problems encountered in the identification of crop storage structures and their contents. At present, in Near East villages where traditional agriculture is still practised, a wide range of crop products are stored in structures of a diverse form. These structures are not always easily distinguishable from habitation structures. In Syria, I have been able to observe that crop products and byproducts are stored to provide for the following essential uses: i) Grain for human consumption, ii) Prime grain for next years sowing. iii) Grain as for cattle, fowl and other animals. iv) Straw, chaff, etc. as animal fodder, building material and a host of other functions. A wide range of containers are used for storage, including bins made of sun dried mud, pits, pottery jars, clay lined baskets, and sacks or wooden silos which may then either be installed in separate rooms, or aggregated in one room. Although it may be relatively simple to distinguish between the four major storage products described above, the differences in their composition have meant that as yet there are no simple criteria with which to distinguish storage structures or areas and their purpose from other habitation structures or areas. With such a lack of uniformity in modern crop storage, it is hardly surprising that the identification of archaeological storage structures is at best haphazard. On archaeological sites it is not

uncommon to find the label storage room or area quite liberally assigned to any structure which is not filled with material

14 artefacts, or for which no other function could be logically assigned. Furthermore, this classification is often imposed without any consideration of what might have been stored, or why. Textual data may occasionally provide evidence of storage in a building, or may refer to storage as an activity carried out somewhere on site. Such hard evidence however is at best rare on most archaeological sites in Syria, and even if it were more common, it seldom provides sufficient information to allow confident descriptions to be made. Clearly, archaeology still lacks any universally accepted criteria for the identification of past functions of such structures. In the context of the problems outlined above, this study has two main objectives. Firstly, to attempt to identify common denominators characterising storage facilities and their contents. This will be achieved via ethnographic studies of traditional agrarian practices in present day villages. The characteristics and criteria thus identified may then be assembled into a generalised model. The second objective will be to apply this model to the interpretation of excavated structures from archaeological sites. This may be achieved by the following means: i) Comparison of the location and form of structures with those of the present day. ii) Comparison of their contents, especially the composition of charred remains of any crop products or byproducts, with modern equivalents of known affinity. It is expected that such an application of the model would lead to the identification of archaeological storage areas or features, as well as the identification of operations which are directly related to crop and crop byproduct storage, such as seed roasting or winnowing.

A multidisciplinary mode of enquiry will be employed,

15 involving the gathering of data from three principle areas of study; ethnoarchaeology, archaeobotany, and archaeology. It is hoped that the analysis of the data generated by the observations made through ethnoarchaeology, the questions raised by archaeology, and the verifications which may arise through archaeobotany, should together lead to a more complete picture of crop storage practices on archaeological sites.

16 SECTION 1: ASSEMBLY OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC

DATA.

Chapter 1: Background and General Information.

1.1 Introduction. The statement, "the present is the key to the past" (Lyell, 1830, Principles of Geology), summarises ethnoarchaeology. Ideally, by observing agrarian daily life in a present day traditional village, one can learn about the behaviour of past village communities, provided of course that the environment and crops are known to be the same. The term "present day traditional village" is used here to describe an agrarian based community which does not employ twentieth century technology to manage its crops in the field or process them back at the settlement. Instead the people rely on traditional methods passed down from father to son. These traditional methods will be discussed in this section. The ethnographic data presented in this thesis on the traditional methods of processing wheat and barley, was collected over a period of three and a half years from 1983-1987. The first area visited was the Alawite mountains, followed by the southern Hauran plain, Raquaa (especially around Lake Assad), the Amuq plain, and finally the very north east of Syria around Hassakeh and Quamichle (see fig. 1). The criteria used for choosing the villages in the various areas were based first and foremost on whether traditional agriculture was practised by at least some families if not the whole community. The second requirement was the presence of a contact who would provide an introduction to the village community and, in particular, to the families with whom time was to be spent collecting the data.

17 A key village was picked in each area to form the base for collecting the bulk of the data and visiting neighbouring villages for any additional information that might be gleaned. This strategy proved quite successful in permitting the establishment of close ties with a single community, which is very important, whilst still providing a wide range of different sources for the same information. Forming close ties with the primary community is essential because it allows detailed observation of their day to day activities, with the opportunity to participate. It is therefore possible to gain first hand experience of the very processes that are being recorded, and to check the information in a manner which would not otherwise be possible. Once a village was chosen, arrangements were then made to stay with a suitable family. Generally this posed no problem as most families were more than happy to put people up for any length of time, especially if the guest is initially recommended and accompanied by a relative or a good friend. It is very important that the family grows to trust you as you will be spending a fair amount of time in their living quarters alongside members of the opposite sex, especially wives and daughters if you are male.

1.2 Interviewing Strategy: Data on traditional agricultural processes is primarily obtained by interviewing chosen subjects from a particular village followed, ideally, by practical sessions in the fields. In reality, however, the

process is slightly more haphazard, as it is subject to the availability of the villagers and the types of activities currently in progress. The data-gathering process is further influenced by

variations in the period of time for which the different activities take place; threshing for example lasts weeks, whereas grain

dunking takes only a few days. A complete photographic record

18 should be made of each activity, depicting every detail including the equipment and tools used. The data for this project was collected with the aid of a very detailed questionnaire, originally devised by Hillman for use in . For obvious reasons certain sections had to be slightly altered or omitted for use in different regions in Syria. On the whole however, it was found to be more than adequate in covering the great majority of activities observed. For a complete copy of the questionnaire in its original form see appendix 1. When conducting the interviews it was found desirable to have more than one interviewee present. This not only guarded against any exaggerations or incomplete answers, but also allowed contested and other difficult issues to be discussed in the open. Women were also useful informants, especially on matters which men knew little about despite their claims to the contrary.

1.3 The Village Sites Visited: Six to eight villages were visited in each region see figs 1, 2a and 2b. The villages also formed a base for the sampling of present day crop processing products and by-products. Visiting such a number of villages in each area helped to highlight any very localised variations in the activities being observed, rather than simply noting general practice within the region as a whole. On a larger scale, studying so many regions was valuable in providing an overall picture of traditional agriculture in Syria without missing any regional variations. This is clearly important, as one of the aims of this study is to provide a detailed view of traditional agricultural practice in Syria with special attention to regional variations, with particular attention to changes in the main processing stages and not just processing technology.

19 1.4 Problems Encountered: Attempting an ethnographic project on such a scale is not without problems and difficulties which attain exasperating levels at times. The most immediate problem was locating villages at which traditional agriculture was still being practised. Due to a government-sponsored industrialisation programme of the agricultural sector, which was initiated in the sixties, it is now very difficult to find villages that still practice traditional agriculture. Most of the villages in the fertile plains of the north, north east and south rely, almost entirely, on mechanised crop processing and the latest available technology in plant breeding, pest control, etc. Occasionally, vestiges of the original traditional crop processing methods may be observed there; however, these are restricted to less affluent families who cannot afford the modern technology or the large tracts of land required for its application. It was these families that were able to provide me with the vast majority of the samples and ethnographic data for this area. In the Alawite mountains on the other hand, the absence of large fertile plains, amongst other reasons, meant that this region was bypassed by the industrialisation programme. Agriculture was being relegated to a minor source of income, secondary to labouring in the cities or serving in the armed forces. Only the older generations and the very young still labour in the fields. As a result of this labour shortage, very few people grow wheat at all and when they do, it is often in small quantities for personal use only. Barley, on the other hand, is slightly more common because it serves as fodder for the animals. In short, it would not be an exaggeration to state that traditional agricultural practices are dying out at a rapid pace, and

20 that once the older generations have passed away, the only record of its earlier existence will be what has been committed to paper. Other problems faced include arranging transport, for which I am indebted to Commander Fouad Nassif. He was able to arrange all the necessary transportation and provide security clearance where appropriate.

1.5 Climate and Geography: Syria is a region of varied topography; the west is generally mountainous, whilst much of the east forms a plateau 300-800m above sea level. The mountains are divided into several ranges; the Jebal al-Ansariya range, which includes peaks reaching elevations of 1500m, runs parallel to the narrow Mediterranean coastal plain. The Anti- Mountains, which lie to the south and cross the boundary with Lebanon, reach heights exceeding 2500m. The highest point in the country, at 2814m, is Mt. Hermon, in the south west. A further, relatively low range of mountains intersects the Eastern plateau, and runs between the Jebal Druze in the south west, and the in the North East. The topography has a clear influence on the climate of the country. The moderating effect of the Mediterranean means that Coastal areas tend to have mild winters and warm, humid summers. Moist winds from the west cause heavy rain here between November and March. By contrast, areas to the east of the Jebal al-Ansariya and the Anti-Lebanon mountains lie within a rain shadow, and are not

exposed to the moderating effects of the Mediterranean. Here, therefore, winter temperatures are much lower, especially in the north, whilst summer temperatures are correspondingly higher.

21 Overall, most areas of the country receive less than 250mm of rainfall per year; many parts receive less than 100mm. As one would expect in a country where 60% of the land can be described as having a true desert climate, the sharp decrease in rainfall from west to east has a significant effect on human settlement patterns. The larger settlements are concentrated within 100km of the coast; the major cities, such as Damascus, Aleppo, Horns and Hama all lie within this area. A further settlement band inland roughly corresponds with the Euphrates and its two main tributaries, the Khabur and the Balikh. This is the 'fertile crescent', inland of which population is

much more sparse and tends to be nomadic in nature, due to the lack of agriculturally viable land (Mostyn and Horani eds. 1988). For further climatological details see tables 1a, 1b, and 1c.

22 MEDITERRANEAN SHLI L H IS M A Q

Figure 1: Map of Syria. (W e is s 1 98 5)

2 3 W :IAi 3 v

IV i / \ 'y~ -A r jW • V ■ l ' i l it I V !'? 3 k ^ •'> 7 /JAM > / in/ '' ly ^ >f( W I- M 'W /W y ; / \ ‘sii/VAa/is y A - :iXjW ' ° 4 \ I \ .'*7*/

ifv-) A- !>* ^ v ''JIN V3 /

' v i m x i <

fV i^ _ K y j In A \ ] \ ' f . A ' " A |jg y j,y 'l

K i * ‘N it- w ' k_ c CD

a ^ _ %— ; gE < i» r j / -D '& / © V ■:.

IOOO m j

SoufC.

i ~

VJVJ^, Table 1 (Saad Dara) 9 3 8 £ -< > Z I Element c_ FEB MAR APR JUN JUL SEP ANNUAL PERIOD I ro CO 4k. CO CO 00 bo I Mean Temperature C 7.3 00 11.9 16.2 23.3 24.5 24.1 20.2 14.5 16.9 72-83 I | n - to O Mean Maximum Temperature C 12.31 14.9 23 27.9 31.2 32.1 CO 0 3 27.6 21.6 14.9 23.9 72-83 I

^sl 00

ro CDoo co [Mean Minimum Temperature C 2.4 4.2 cn 11.9 15.5 17.9 17.9 16.1 12.3 4.3 10.4 72-83 I 8 6 60 4k. o bo 0 3 1 Absolute Maximum Temperature C 21.2 27 29 0 3 40.8 41.8 36.6 31.6 25.2 41.8 72-83 I

■ i ■ 1 i •

4k.

0 3 CO o bo o

ro cn

CD CO o> bo o to 00 a t 12.3 -4.7 72-83 1 S9 I Absolute Minimum Temperature C 09 SS 6S ro cn 00 a t a t 4k. CD I Mean Relative Humidity % 78 76 CO 63 75 72-83 I o o 0 3 o O 0 3 CJ1 I Mean of the Total Precipitation mm 64.7 50.8 I 44.3 00 10.6 20 46.9 259.2 58-84 I ro "at CO CO 4k. CO 0 3 0 3 cn CO 4k. I Mean Wind Speed mts/sec. 3.8 4.2 4k. 0 3 4.4 3.1 3.5 79-83 I

ro ro ro CO o o

a t

a t

a t I I Maximum Wind Speed mts/sec. 23 20 ro o 20 20 20 23 77-83 I 6 I 66 66 86 66

I I Highest Relative Humidity % 1 100 98 ! 100 66 98 I 98 I 97 I 100 I 100 77-83 I i 4k. -v j 4k. cn 00 CO cn o ro 4k. -X Ol 4k. CO ro I I Lowest Relative Humidity % CO CO 25 o o *N| I Maximum Fall in One Day mm 41.5 51.5 36.5 43.5 Ul 0.5 6.5 35.5 24.6 47.5 51.5 58-84 I 4k. •vl ro 00 00 CO cn o 00 CO CO I Daily Sunshine in Hours 5.2 5.8 a t 03 11.7 10.3 8.9 77-84 I 26

Table 1 (Missyaf) caa r~ c_ c g z. 3 C I I Element JAN FEB MAR APR MAY c_ SEP OCT ANNUAL p er io d ! ro I I Mean Temperature C 6.4 7.7 11.3 15.5 o 00 24.1 25.5 26.1 24.4 20.4 14.2 8.3 17.1 5 9 -8 3 CO o ro 00 I Mean Maximum Temperature C <0 15.1 19.6 25 28.5 31.1 29.5 24.9 11.2 5 9 -8 3 I Mean Minimum Temperature C 3.5 4.8 7.4 11.3 15.8 19.9 19.3! 22.2 19.8 15.6 10.3 5.2 12.9 5 9 -8 3

1 Absolute Maximum Temperature C 21.6 26.5 32.7 38.2 40.2 I 40.2\ 42.5 39.2 CO Ul 29 24.2 42.5 5 9 -8 3 I

i n • 1 1

o 05 ro 05 s CO -si ^1 U1 - CO CO Ul CO 00 I I Absolute Minimum Temperature C -6 .6 -2.2 15.8 11.5 I 0.5 CO 09 08 89 89

Ul Ul Ul ro Ul Ul I I Mean Relative Humidity % 75 46 76 cn 6 i 86 5 9 -8 3 05 Ul I Mean of the Total Precipitation mm 283 230 187 110 00 Ul 1 1.4| 0.6 61.6 232 1252 5 9 - 8 4 1 -vj 00 I Maximum Fall In One Day mm 155 100 110 92 65 28 25 25.5 o 87.5 147 155 5 9 - 8 4 1 27 Table 1 (Hassake) I 5 (_ £ 33 C_ —i Z - < 3 3 Tl m c _ C7 a T l z m c _ 3 3 r ~ R o > C3 1 1 Element SEP o . l -*■ 4k CO CO o cn r o CO 4k r o IO IO r o r o 05 v l cn r o ro CO ro 00 0 5 cn v l v i 05 _k 00 00 IMean Temperature C CO . a 4k cn CO O 4 k r o cn - CO CO r o r o 4k cn cn cn r o CO 0 0 o r o r o 0 5 co o CO CO 0 5 O CO v l cn cn r o IMean Maximum Temperature C 0 0 k k k I — r o -*• r o IO CO ro 4k — — 0 5 o 0 0 0 0 CO mJL -*• 0 0 COCO cn cn cn r o 05 0 5 o cn V I v l 05 o cn CO CO IMean minimum Temperature C 0 0 L k I Vl 4k 4 k vj 4 k 4 k 4 k 4 k — r o v i r o ■VI — cn cn r o CO CO 0 0 _ k CO IO 0 0 CO CO r o —*■ 4k CO v l cn cn v | lAbsolute Maximum Temperature C CO k i. 1 i ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 • 4 k _ k r o cn 4 k — 4 k — 0 0 4k oo cn co cn CO 0 0 cn 0 0 COvl 0 0 CO cn CO CO 1 1 Absolute Minimum Temperature C CO k o r o 4k. CO 4k. — CO 4k v i CO CO 0 5 0 5 vj o 4k. CO 0 5 CO 0 5 cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO iMean Relative Humidity % cn ■ I o 4k. vj v l r o r o 05 4k. r o - k v i o -*■ CO _ k 00 cn r o CO 05 4k. ro v l v i v i CO 00 IMean of the Total Precipitation mm cn cn 1 4k. o IO —». r o IO CO IO 4k 00 TO cn v l 0 0 r o CO r o r o -*■ r o IO 05 4k. CO CO IOIO r o 1 Mean wind speed mts/sec CO o 0 5 ■ _L _L 0 5 IO IO ro r o r o Vj o CO r o CO r o r o o o ro o CO v i IO 00 oo oo COCO 1 1 Maximum wind Speed mts/sec CO CO CO CO 1 00 o 05 00 4k o o o o o o o o CO o 05 o CO o r o o o o o o o o cn 05 o CO o 1 Highest Relative Humidity % 00 2 2 8 l 4k 4k r o cn cn r o 05 05 cn 00 CO ro 00 cn 1 Lowest Relative Humidity % CO * • —*■ ro — cn o CO Vl ■vj ro 00 -*■ ro CO 00 CO r o ro cn CO —*■ cn 05 00 1 Daily Average Evaporation mm CO CO CO k i 4k 4k 4k o o 4k r o v i r o 00 cn oo 4k oo 00 — 4k ro cn cn cn 00 0 5 CO cn CO 00 05 cn V | v i 00 cn 4k cn 00 00 1 Maximum Fall in One Day mm oo . i 4 k 0 5 r o vj _ k r o ■>4 v l o r o COCO 0 5 0 5 cn 4 k —*• 0 0 0 0 0 5 cn 0 5 0 0 c n 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO I Daily Sunshine in Hours CO Chapter 2: Ethnographic Data.

2.1 Introduction: The purpose of this section is to evaluate the potential of detailed ethnographic data on crop processing activities, in understanding past human activities. This is to be achieved by outlining the ethnographic evidence for crop processing activities, and then exploring the antiquity of these processes. I will demonstrate their continuity through history, as well as their widespread use not only in the Near East but also in Europe. This continuity is explained by the fact that it is necessary for any crop to undergo certain cleaning and preparatory stages before it is suitable for consumption. These basic stages have not been altered since the dawn of agriculture; this reflects the fact that most of the methods appear to derive from those of pre-agrarian precursors (Harris, 1984). What has undergone change however is the technology with which these stages are achieved. Fortunately, the ethnographic record has been able to provide us with glimpses of a wide range of the technological variations possible in crop processing.

2.2 The Crop Processing Cvcle of Wheat and Bariev: a) Digging Tools: As Turkowski (1969) points out, the two oldest tools in the Near East used for hand cultivation and breaking the soil are the hoe, or

"mijrafeh" (fig.3) and the pick-axe. These two tools have a wide range of functions including the digging of irrigation channels, digging around small shrubs and trees, breaking the surface of fallow land, and cutting the roots of trees in order to kill them. These tools will be mentioned later in connection with other processes.

29 bl Tilling: Ploughing is probably the basic operation upon which all the consequent agricultural steps depend, because cannot germinate effectively and grow abundantly if the soil has not been properly tilled. Effective ploughing not only destroys undesirable weeds but also ventilates the soil by exposing the immediate subsurface layer, thus allowing air to spread through the soil structure. This also provides the necessary conditions for beneficial bacterial activity (Brigden 1984). The most common method of tilling the land is carried out using the traditional ard. This type of ploughing implement can be found throughout much of the Near East; see Seeden (1983), Turkowski (1969), Dalman (1933), and Al-Azm (1985). The complete ard is called in "mihrath" or in some regions "samd". It is made entirely of wood apart from the metal bracings and the share. Rope has also been observed in use instead of metal bracings (see fig. 4). The ards are usually constructed from local woods such as Quercus calliprinos or Elaeaanus anaustifolia. depending upon availability. The availability of wood is an important factor in determining the shape of the ard, and method of construction, especially where long straight pieces of wood are scarce. This problem is illustrated by an example from Bosra, where due to the shortage of long pieces of wood it was necessary to attach several small pieces together to form the main beam of the ard (see fig. 5). For a detailed description of an ard see appendix 2. The metal share is usually purchased from the nearby towns, although in Bosra I am informed that the local smith used to manufacture them until very recently. It is worthwhile noting that, with the exception of Bosra, which has always been considered an important

30 centre in its own right, blacksmiths and metal workers have always been based in the local towns rather than the villages themselves. The yoke to which the plough is attached is typical of several areas of the Near East. Similar examples of it come from Palestine (Turkowski 1969) and Turkey (Williams, 1971), (Al-Azm 1985). The yoke is called in Arabic "neer" and it is fitted onto a pair of draft animals, which may be either , mule or horse in the Missyaf region, while in the plains and the North oxen are more commonly used. Oxen are also described as the main draft animals in Palestine and Turkey. It has been noted that yokes were originally designed for oxen only and Turkowski (1969) does mention the fact that the main draft animals used for ploughing are cattle. Moreover most of the agricultural texts and other historical sources mention the use of oxen (Salonen 1968). It is possible that in the Missyaf region, equids had to be substituted for cattle, due to either the distance of the fields from the villages (see Hillman 1973 for examples of limits imposed by the slow pace of oxen), or their inaccessibility, on account of the steep narrow mountain paths. The use of protective padding makes it possible to use, on equids, a yoke that was originally designed for cattle. The yoke is usually manufactured in the villages, from locally grown timber. It is made from a long stout piece of wood from which it takes its name, with a pair of holes at each end. Into each of these holes fits a stick, called "massblan", at an obtuse angle so that the pair work against the animals' neck. It is then bound tightly by a piece of rope (fig. 6). In the centre of the yoke ("neer") there is a loop of leather, or whatever other material may be available, into which the long end of the ard fits. This is called the "sharaa". The "sharaa" is held in place by two small pegs called "safrawiyat". Additional to all this equipment is a long ploughmans

31 staff used for goading the animals, which is called "massas". It is made from a stick about two metres long with a flattened piece of metal called "labut" attached to the end of it. The metal piece is used to clean the ploughshare of clods of earth, (fig. 7). Crop seasonality, the level of weediness in a field, the practice of irrigation, crop rotation and field systems all play a role in determining how many times a field is to be ploughed. One must also not forget the human factor; laziness for example. Harrowing and cross ploughing are occasionally practised if the soil is very lumpy, but it is generally avoided as it destroys the furrow s.

c) Sowing: The most widespread means of sowing in Syria and other parts of the Levant is broadcasting by hand. Broadcast sowing is a specialised activity that demands a great deal of skill and experience. It relies primarily on the broadcaster being able to settle into an even rhythm by synchronising the movement of his arm and leg. Inexpert sowing, as a result of incorrect timing between successive casts, leads to bare patches in the field which are most visible at harvest time. Another indicator of poor sowing technique is variation in the thickness of the crop growing in the fie ld .

Other notable methods of sowing employed include the use of dribbling sticks and seed ards; see Hillman (1985) for details. These methods are more time consuming, but they result in better yields per litre of seed sown. They also facilitate the weeding process, thus improving crop yields.

d) Irrigation:

Field irrigation of major crops is carried out in the Khabur and on

32 the banks of the Euphrates, using water wheels, or large buckets made from cattle hide. The buckets are rigged onto a pulley system, which is mounted on a wooden frame; it is then possible to raise the water using draft animals, and then pour it into major channels built on raised embankments. At appropriate points, exits via side channels are located. These lead to individual fields or field systems. The channels are dug by both men and women using hand tools such as spades and pick-axes. Another method of digging channels is the use of a traction spade system. This involves two people and a wide spade with a pair of ropes attached to the blade. One person inserts the spade into the ground, while the other person standing opposite to him then pulls the blade towards him using the ropes thus forcing the soil up. This process is repeated in a linear fashion until the desired length of the channel is dug. In the Missyaf region, irrigation of fields and gardens is carried out using dug-out channels during spring and summer only, when the rainy season ends. The channels are dug in March and April using a pick-axe and a shovel. When irrigation is being carried out, a hoe is used to block one channel and let water go through another by piling earth against it. Because water tends to

run low in the summer, it is rationed and each family is assigned its own ration and time of day to irrigate their plots by a lottery. Down in the plain, water needs to be lifted from the river in order to reach the fields. The method of raising the water is to build a dam of stones which will raise the water up to the banks where there are channels already prepared. The water pours into these channels and runs off into the respective fields. For further details on irrigation see Oates (1976), Wulf (1966), and B.S.A.G. IV (1988).

33 e) Weeding and Culling of Green Crops. These processes are carried out by uprooting by hand or using a small called "kasouha" or "kalouch" (fig. 8). The sickles come in several sizes and tend to be manufactured locally. Weeding and culling of green crops are also carried out using sickles in Palestine (Turkowski 1969) and Turkey (Hillman 1984). Other methods have also been noted, such as the uprooting of weeds and green crops or the use of reaping hooks for weeding (Hillman 1981, 1983 and 1984). Weeding is a very important activity and is carried out in all areas. Lack of care and attention to fields can result in serious losses of crop yields. For further details on crop yield losses as a result of weed infestation see King (1966). The intensity of weeding is dependent to a great extent on the weediness of the fields themselves. Apart from the reasons mentioned earlier, field weediness is also affected by the cleanliness of the crop sown and whether the field was sown with a different crop the year before, in which case some contamination is most likely to arise. The process of weeding is called "hash" and is carried out mostly by women. It begins in April, and is done approximately every 10-15 days. The weeds, especially the grasses, are collected and fed to animals, mostly cows. The thorny weeds, however, are thrown away. Daily trips for gathering weeds to feed cows are also carried out during the spring and summer if there is no one to take them out to the fields to graze. It has also been noted in some areas that very poor families will sometimes collect weeds and sell them as fodder. Weeds are most important as animal fodder in spring, when the stored winter fodder is somewhat depleted. Barley is generally culled green for animal fodder. The culling is carried out during spring mornings and evenings by women who either use a small sickle or carry out the task by hand.

34 If the fields are near, the harvest is carried by the women on their backs. Should any long distances be involved, the crop is bound up with a rope and loaded onto the back of draft animals. A very important process is the early harvest of wheat whilst dough-ripe. It is used to make "frikkeh" by roasting the grain briefly over an open fire and then cleaning it with sieves. Frikkeh will be discussed in greater detail on pp.63-64. f) Harvesting:

Harvesting is most commonly carried out using a large sickle with

a sharpened blade, which in Arabic is called "minjal" (figs. 9 and 10). The word "minjal" originally comes from the Aramaic word "mangal" (Turkowski 1969), and this is the name still used in (Lerche 1971). The form of the sickle has been evolved over many centuries to maintain efficiency by minimising the effort required to wield it in the field for many hours at a time. The result of this evolution is a blade with the point of balance located on the backward arch before it changes to a forward curve. Cutting is then achieved with no more than a smooth circular motion of the wrist which brings the edge of the curving blade into contact with the crop at the same time all along its length (Brigden 1983). The sickle blade is made of metal and is hafted onto a wooden handle. The method of hafting is to drive the arm of the sickle into a hole running through the handle, and then bend the end to hold it firmly in place. I have also encountered a smaller version of this type of sickle used to teach children to harvest (fig. 11) in the Missyaf region. Alternative methods of harvesting include uprooting by hand (Seeden 1983, Turkowski 1969, Hillman 1981, 1983 and 1984). In Bosra large metal thimbles are fitted on to the fingers and then bound with cloth in order to protect the hands whilst

uprooting. Blunt long-handled sickles are also used instead of sharpened ones in some parts of northern Syria, Turkey (Hillman

35 1981 and 1984) and Palestine (Turkowski 1969). They are intended to facilitate the uprooting of crops rather than cutting them; for further details see Hillman (1984). Harvesting is carried out by all the family. With sickle harvesting, a harvester can cut over two hundred stalks at once. In Hassakeh and the North, harvesting claws are used to increase the number of stalks gathered for a sickle stroke, as well as to protect the hands. The claws are called "kawaneeq" and are made of metal or wood with leather bindings. In all the areas cited, the sickle strokes are made as low to the ground as possible. Dalman (1933 III, 37), as cited by Hillman (1984), puts forward the idea that reaping height is determined by the height of the crop, i.e. if the crop is unusually short, due to drought for example, then cutting would have to be done at a lower level in order not to miss the lowest ears. This however seems rather odd since farmers usually need all the available straw for fodder. When harvesting, each harvester is assigned a series of rows which run along the length of the field. Each row, called "sahem", is about a metre and a half in width. Harvesting begins at sunrise and continues until around five in the afternoon and in some cases, until sunset. In southern Syria in the Hauran plain, harvesting is carried out during the night and the early hours of the morning, both to escape the heat of the sun and to catch the early morning dew on the crops; a factor which apparently facilitates harvesting. The same applies to certain areas in Palestine (Dalman 1933, III, 1-8 as cited by Hillman 1984). However, in contrast to the above, in the Alawite mountains harvesting is carried out during the day to avoid the morning dew since it makes the stalks less brittle and therefore much harder to reap. On the other hand,

Hillman (1984) cites night-time harvesting in Turkey as a means of avoiding grain loss from over-ripe ears.

36 If it is windy, the harvester ties the sheaves as he is harvesting them by using one of the stalks to wrap around the rest of the sheaf. This process of tying the sheaves is not very popular because it slows the harvester down. When a harvester completes a "sahem", he goes back and collects the sheaves, then stacks them 2-3 bundles high in 3 metre long rows. Each group of rows is called a "sarabeh", and is composed of 2-6 rows. These are weighted down by stones to prevent the wind from blowing them away. The sheaves are gathered and stacked in the field to await collection. In the Missyaf region, a 'V-shaped tool called

"mighmara'' is used to collect the sheaves (see fig. 12). It is made of two pieces of wood, one longer than the other, tied together in the shape of a "v" by a piece of leather or rawhide. The "mighmara" is held by the longer arm and used to collect and stack the sheaths by picking them up with the open end of the "v". The process of stacking is called "ghamer". A similar tool is used in some areas of Iran. One example comes from the village of Derjesi; see Lerche (1971) for further details. The harvested wheat and barley are generally left in the fields for a week or so, in order that the stalks can dry (the ears already being dry) and are then transported to the threshing yards. Hillman (1984) indicates that the field storage in Turkey continues for weeks as opposed to the shorter periods in Syria and Palestine (Dalman 1933, III, 45 as cited by Hillman 1984).

al Transport:

The mode of transport used to carry crops to the threshing yard is

affected to a great extent by terrain. Carts are quite popular in areas where the land is flat enough to allow wheeled transport, but

they are also rather expensive in comparison to some of the alternative methods which will be mentioned. In the Missyaf

37 region for example, the nature of the environment makes wheeled transport practically impossible. The steep narrow paths down the mountain sides and the terraces do not permit the use of carts, and therefore a combination of human labour and draft animals is needed to undertake the transport. Similar means of transport are used in the Palestinian hills west of the , (Turkowski 1969), which suggests a systematic link between the environment and the equipment used in certain processes. Wheeled transport is a common method of transporting crops from the fields to the threshing yards. The carts are mainly of wooden construction with raised sides for stacking the sheaves (see figs.13a and 13b). Hillman (1985) describes the cart wheels in Turkey as being of the solid type. However, the cart wheels which I have encountered in Syria were all spoked. The carts are drawn by draft animals, after loading by men, women and children using pitchforks or by hand; sometimes with the aid of a sickle. In areas where wheeled transport is not available or viable, the crops are loaded onto the backs of draft animals, including camels, and secured with a length of rope, sometimes with a wooden hook attached to the end of it (see fig. 14). More efficient methods of transporting crops on animals include the use of large nets, made of goats' hair, which may be used singly or in pairs slung on either side like panniers. Hillman (1985) mentions hoop panniers described by Rasmussen (1981). Another interesting method of transport is the use of wooden frames called "shaher" (see fig. 15) Examples come from the Missyaf region and the Palestinian hills west of the Jordan (Turkowski 1969). See appendix 3 for further details on transport.

Hillman (1985) also mentions the use of sleds, although I have not encountered any examples in Syria. I.C.A.R.D.A. (1980), indicates that transport is carried out

38 during the night and the early hours of the morning while the sheaves are still damp with dew in order to minimise losses. This, however, would not be practical in an area such as the Missyaf region, since the inaccessibility of the villages renders travel in the dark along narrow mountain paths too perilous to consider. hi Threshing: Threshing is generally carried out from the beginning of June, approximately 20 days after the harvest. Wind activity determines the time of day when threshing is undertaken. The winds are quite erratic and can sometimes last for days on end which means that threshing can be carried out only during the lulls. Threshing is performed by men, women and children. \) Threshing yard preparations: The threshing yards, or "beidar", are situated quite a distance from the nearest houses, to avoid chaff and dust being blown about the village. Hillman (1984) cites similar reasons for the location of threshing yards in Turkey. The construction of the yards is quite simple. Each family has a plot of land with stones all around it to mark its boundary. Sometimes when they are constructed, the earthen floor is beaten down using a stone roiler called "ma'rjlaneh". From then on, every year around the end of May, the threshing yards are prepared by simply sweeping the stones away and removing the nettles and other weeds. There are known cases from other areas where the threshing yard is resurfaced

periodically. (Details in Kosay 1951, Avitsur 1966 and Dalman 1933, III, 67-74 as cited by Hillman 1984). iil Threshing Equipment: One of the more widespread methods of threshing is carried out

using a traditional machine (roller) called "al Heelain" or "jarjar" (fig. 16). It is made of a wooden frame resembling a rocking chair

39 set on a pair of wooden rollers, with 5 metal circular saw-like blades fitted on each of them. The "jarjar" is drawn by a draft animal, usually a mule or a donkey, fitted with a "v" shaped yoke made of wood (called "mi'calleh") and some padding to protect the animal's neck (figs. 17 and18). The seat is made of crisscrossed rope with a cushion on top to make it more comfortable. The roller is used to thresh and pulses. A similar roller comes from Iran (Lerche 1971), the only difference being that it is fitted with wooden paddles instead of metal blades. This model is probably an earlier version of the one used at present in Syria. The other method of threshing which may be found throughout the Near East and Mediterranean as a whole is the threshing sledge or tribulum. The sledge comprises a single rectangular wooden board or several planks attached together, fitted with pieces of , coarse stone or even small saw-edged metal blades (see fig. 19). The sledge is drawn by a draft animal, usually a mule or donkey, and is often driven by children for amusement. Although sledges are not so popular in Syria at the moment, primarily due to the increased efficiency of the "jarjar", they are however still in use in Palestine (Turkowski, 1969) and Turkey (Hillman, 1981 and 1984). Occasionally, more primitive methods of threshing are observed, involving trampling using draft animals and beating sticks. Beating sticks are usually only used when small quantities of crop need to be threshed. iih Threshing (first round): The crops transported from the fields are piled up in the threshing yard at a distance from each other to allow space for threshing, and are held down in place by large pieces of wood and stone. The crops are threshed one at a time, usually starting with barley because it is more prone to attack by pests. This is followed by

40 wheat, and then the pulses. Using a metal pitch fork called "shaoub" or a wooden one called "midrayeh khashab" (fig. 20), enough crop to cover the floor of the yard for a depth of about two feet is spread out. The preferred threshing equipment is then made to run over the laid out crop in a circular fashion around the central heap (see figs. 21 and 22). This circular motion is called "toq". During this process the crop is being turned over continuously using a pitch fork. This circulates the crop in the vertical plane so that it is evenly threshed. When the crop is fully threshed, it is moved away and piled up around the periphery of the threshing area, and weighted down with stones. This removal to the periphery is carried out using the pitch fork and a wooden spade called "jaroof" which is

made by the villagers themselves (fig. 23). A similar example is mentioned by Kosay (1956) as cited by Hillman (1984). Once this is done, a new batch of crop is unloaded from the central heap and this whole process is repeated over and over until all of the central heap is finished. The draft animals are usually watered while a new batch of crop is being laid out. This occurs on average 3 or 4 times a day depending on how hot it is. The animals are also occasionally muzzled, and almost always discouraged from eating whilst working. iv) Threshing (second roundl: Wheat and barley are given a second round of threshing to break them up even further, thus improving the quality of fodder as well as ensuring that the grain is completely threshed. According to Hillman (1985), a second threshing is commonly applied to free threshing crops in Turkey and elsewhere in the Near East. Dalman (1933, III, 129), as cited by Hillman (1985) also mentions the re-threshing of free threshing crops. The process of re-threshing is carried out by spreading the crop where it was threshed the

41 first time in a circular fashion and then having the preferred threshing equipment run over it until it is done. The wheat or barley is then piled up in the centre where the old heap used to be, using the pitch fork and the "jaroof". This process is continued until all the crop on the sides has been threshed and stacked in the centre. A broom, usually made from a local shrub, is used to sweep clean the floor of the yard. Both Turkowski (1969) and Dalman

(1933, III, 96) as cited by Hillman (1984) describe the use of brooms in Palestine, and a range of broom species used in Turkey, together with their modes of construction are given by Hillman

(1981, 1983 and 1984). To keep his central pile in place, it is beaten with a large stick at the sides and at the top which makes

it more compact (see fig. 24). This is called "talbeed". It is then covered with tree branches tied together at opposite ends to stop the wind from blowing it away until it is ready for winnowing. Use of this covering, called "jerz", is a very common practice in the

Missyaf region due to the extremely windy conditions encountered here (see fig. 25).

\) Winnowing: Winnowing is the second stage of separating the seeds from the chaff and the chob. The most widespread method is by hand using a winnowing fork, although other methods have also been recorded.

il Sieving: There are several sieving processes, carried out in a variety of sieves. The two main purposes of sieving are a) to clean the crop of contaminants that could not be removed by winnowing, such as weed seeds and pieces of chaff and chob. b) to select the seeds

for next years sowing. The removal of weed seeds is a very important process as certain species such as Lolium temulentum

42 can be highly poisonous if consumed by humans.

10 Grain Dunking: The process of washing grain is called "tasweel". Washing the grain eliminates most dirt, excrement, and similar contaminants. Wheat is nearly always washed because it is to be used for human consumption. The rest of the crops are washed optionally if it is felt that they need it. Washing also counts as an extra fine sieving because all the chaff and empty seed that were missed in the sieving are able to float away. Turkowski (1969) makes no mention of grain washing in Palestine; Hillman (1984) however states that it is carried out in Turkey prior to bulk storage.

\) "B u ra u r.

Burgul, or cracked wheat, forms an important part of the diet, especially when rice is a luxury import. The production of "burgur involves boiling the wheat in large vats and then drying it out for a few days before it is taken to the mill for crushing.

43 0

Raure 3; Hoe

44' for numbers see page 3 24

Figure 4: Ard type plough from the Alawite mountains.

Ploughshare (Seeden,1983)

40 Figure 5: Ard type plough from southern Syria. CM -I

Figure 7 Goad or 'Massas'

Figure 6: Yoke from the Alawite mountains.

10 1 CM Metre* J .

45 F ig u res ; Weeding Sickles

1.1

CM -I20

Figure 9; Harvesting Sickle Figure 11; Teaching Sickle

46 t Figure 10: Harvesting of wheat in the Hassakeh region Figure 12: "Mighmara" (for gathering harvested sheaves) from the Alawite mountains.

Figure 14: "Mi' calleh" or wooden hook, used for securing rope during transport. 0 20> CM -I

< 48 Figure 13a: A disused cart from the Raqaa region.

Figure 13b: Perean harvest wagon, "a huge wicker-work basket mounted on solid wheels..." (Fordes 192 3 p.69).

4 9 25 CM _l

Figure 15: "Shaher" used for transporting crops from the fields to the threshing yards.

50 CM -1

50 0 Metres ______i L

Figure 16: A "jarjar" frame. a- view of axle and blades, b-blade.

51 Figure 18: The yoke in place arround the neck of a mule during threshing.

5 2 I

Figure 19: Threshing sledge (tribulum) from the Hauran region.

5 3 Figure 17: Yoke from the Alawite mountains ^ used in conjunction with the "jarjar".

? CM 2 0 1 • CM _ J

Figure20 - Winnowing Fork Figure 21: "Jarjar" in use threshing a wheat crop.

5 5 wmmi

Figure 22: Tribulum in use threshing a wheat crop.

5 6 Figure 24a: Heaping the threshed crop into a mound.

Figure 24b: Beating the mound of threshed crop to compress it,

5 7 Figure 25: Threshed crop protected from the wind by a "jerz" (Alawite mountains).

mmm

58 Chapter 3: ______Crop Processing Activities Directly or Indirectly Related to Crop Storage.

3.1 Introduction. There are a number of important steps that immediately precede or follow crop storage. A detailed examination of these steps is necessary because the products and by-products of these processes are storable or restorable. These processes are: 1. Winnowing. 2. Sieving. 3. Grain dunking. 4. "Frikkeh" production. 5. Grain roasting. 6. "Burgul" production. 7. Storage of grain and other products.

As previously mentioned, there are four major uses for stored crops: i. Grain products for human consumption, ii. Prime grain for seed, iii. Grain as food for fowl and other animals, iv. Straw, chaff, etc as animal fodder. Winnowing is the primary producer of chaff which is taken

directly to storage. Sieving produces mainly seed, which may then be subjected to further processing or put in storage. Sieving residues are occasionally stored as animal feed. The end product of "frikkeh” and "burgur is groats, which is then stored for human consumption.

A detailed examination of these processes can provide valuable data on the manipulation of their products and byproducts

59 after bulk storage. This in turn can help in determining by which means and under what circumstances plant materials are likely to enter the archaeological record. Ideally, such examination of the processes will also facilitate an understanding of how the byproducts at each stage are likely to differ, thus enabling identification of the process which gave rise to this by-product.

3.2 Winnowing:

Winnowing is carried out on the threshing yard immediately after threshing if the weather allows. Winnowing begins about June and may last until September if the winds are unfavourable. Problems of timing are described for other areas by Wilson (1906) and Dalman (1933, III, 126), as cited by Hillman (1984). The sequence of winnowing the various crops is dependent on space. If a large threshing yard is being used then each crop may be individually threshed and winnowed before moving on to the next one. If a small threshing yard is being used then each batch of the harvest has to be fully threshed to provide space before winnowing can proceed.

The commonest traditional method of winnowing in the Near East is by tossing the threshed crop into the wind using a winnowing fork called "midrayeh khashab". The wind blows the chaff away whilst the clean seeds fall in front of the winnower. The fork has six prongs attached to a long handle by pieces of leather or gut, and is made in the major nearby towns. Similar examples come from Palestine (Turkowski 1969), South Syria, and Turkey (Hillman 1984). Alternative means of winnowing other than a fork, include the use of winnowing shovels (Hillman 1984), or sieves fitted with an unperforated piece of leather (Lucas 1951). Winnowing with a fork is normally carried out by men only, although Hillman (1984) records examples of women sometimes

60 performing this work in certain parts of Turkey. Only a light wind is necessary to blow the chaff away; when winnowing, the winnower stands with his back slightly to the wind and with a special movement he lifts the fork to the left up to the height of his shoulders (if he is right handed). The wind will blow away the chaff and other light materials, while the seeds fall down in front of the winnower (see figs. 26a and 26b). Naturally the lighter components and very fine chaff will fall furthest away whilst the heavier contaminants such as chob will land very near. In areas where mud-brick building is very common a certain amount of chob might be gathered separately as it makes a good temper. Most areas however do not bother with separate gathering and simply combine everything together. The chaff is then taken to storage whilst the grain is subjected to further cleaning. It should be noted that winnowing acts as an important step in eliminating many of the smaller and lighter weed seeds as well as chaff.

3.3 Sieving: The process of sieving is applied to clean out contaminants from the grain that are too heavy to be extracted by winnowing alone. Four types of sieves have been observed in use in Syria: a) "masrad" b) "abbar" c) "sanout" d) "gherbal" (Note: The Arabic names used for the sieves come the Missyaf region).

The "masrad" is a very coarse sieve which is used to

eliminate the larger straw nodes, chob and pieces of dirt. The "abbar" is a special sieve used primarily for barley and pulses. It

61 allows the seeds to pass through, whilst retaining the finer bits of straw. The "sanout" performs the same function, but theoretically for wheat only; however, not all sieve users differentiate between the two sieves, and it is not uncommon to encounter people sieving barley in a "sanout". Finally, the "gherbal" is a sieve type which is used to eliminate tail grain ("ziwan") and smaller weed seeds which drop out from it whilst the grain is retained. Any chob,

chaff and other light materials will float to the top of the sieve

and are skimmed off by hand, (see figa. 27a, b, and c). All the sieves are made from animal skins or strands of gut set on a round frame of wood. Most are manufactured by wandering gypsies who travel from village to village to sell them, although some are made and sold in the cities. It is quite common throughout Syria to see only two sieving processes for both wheat and barley. For the first sieving, an "abbar" is used to eliminate the coarser contaminants. This is followed by a second sieving using a "gherbal" for the finer cleanings. Similar descriptions come from both Turkey (Hillman 1984) and Palestine (Turkowski 1969), although in Turkey Hillman mentions a special fine sieve sometimes being used for barley. Sieving is carried out by women. It is not unusual to see the second sieving being undertaken in the courtyards of houses, although since this is a dusty process, the "beidar" (threshing yard) is generally the preferred site for this task, unless space there is restricted by other processes such as threshing and winnowing.

Apart from cleaning the grain, sieving is sometimes used to select seeds to be sown the following year. This process is common in the Missyaf region and in the plains around Horns. For a detailed description see Al-Azm (1986). Whether a special sieving method is used or not, a proportion of the crop is separated for

62 seed and then taken away for storage.

3.4 Grain Dunking: This process is optional, although in many areas grain destined for

human consumption is almost always washed. As previously mentioned, grain dunking acts as an extra-fine sieving. In order to

dunk grain slow clean water running in channels is generally used. The channel must be deep enough to allow a fair amount of grain to

be submerged, but not so deep as to hinder work. Washing of grain is carried out mainly by women and children. It begins by laying out straw mats in the base of the channel so that the water runs over them. Grain is then laid out at one end of the mats. It is washed by spreading it out in the channel and swirling it around by hand. While the grain sinks to the bottom, the empty seed husks and stray bits of chaff will float away to the end of the mat, where they are caught by a sieve (see figs. 28a and 28b). Dirt and dust simply wash away. The grain is then lifted out of the water and piled up on the other side of the channel. The material collecting in the sieve is periodically emptied into a basket which is raised on a few stones to allow the water to drain out. The washed grain, along with the bits in the basket, are transported to the houses and spread out on the rooves to dry (fig. 29). The chaff and other waste fractions are also dried before being taken to storage as fodder.

3.5 "Frikkeh”:

To produce frikkeh, the wheat crop is harvested, using a sickle, about a month before full ripening occurs. The amounts harvested tend to vary, and although harvests of up to 100 kg have been

known, the average size of harvest for one family tends to be around 40-50 kg. of grain. It should be noted that these figures are

63 approximate, and reflect present day conditions where "frikkeh" is consumed as a luxury item rather than as an essential staple. The harvest is then taken to an appropriate place on the periphery of the village in order to reduce fire hazards. Smaller amounts are usually processed in back yards or outside the home. Once a suitable place is found it tends to be reused year after year by simply clearing away whatever rubbish is left from last year's work and stacking the new harvest in its place. A little tinder is then placed underneath the crop and is set alight. As soon as the fire begins to smoulder and catch, the person in charge of the operation begins to turn the crops over using a pitchfork or a winnowing fork. This process keeps the fire smouldering, and stops it from developing into a bonfire, (see fig.30a). The crops are allowed to continue burning for approximately 3-5 minutes and are then spread out and rubbed slightly in the ground to extinguish the fire. If very large amounts are being processed, several firings are normally required before the process is complete. The crop is then winnowed with a fork, and sieved using a "sanout". The intact ears and loose seeds are then collected separately in baskets or sacks and are taken back to the homes. The ears are placed on mats and beaten with special wooden sticks until the seeds are released (see figs. 30b and 30f). Alternatively the ears are rubbed either against an upturned sieve or between the hands (Avitsur 1977) (see fig. 30d); it is this latter activity which gives "frikkeh" its name, since it derives from the Arabic root "fark", meaning rub. Although the word "frikkeh" in the modern Arabic language is generally

applied only to unripe wheat, for the purposes of this study it will also include barley. The seeds are then tossed into a straw dish to allow the

wind to blow the chaff away along with any other light

contaminants, (see figs. 30c and 30e) Heavier contaminants tend to

64 gather on the edge of the dish and are also removed. The seeds then endure a final cleaning before they are taken to the mill for coarse grinding. The groats are then dried for three days before being packed in sacks or baskets and taken away for storage. Very large scale operations are described by Avitsur (1977) and Williams (1971). These operations include threshing the crop with a tribulum and winnowing it with a fork, followed by fine sieving and hand sorting before being sent to the mill.

3.6 Grain Roasting: Grain roasting is a popular means of food preparation in the Near East. Exposing the grain to heat has several important beneficial consequences: firstly, toxins and other substances which reduce digestibility are neutralised, thus rendering the grain palatable, and fit for human consumption (Stahl 1984). Roasted grain may be stored for long periods of time due to the sterilising effects of heat, and it is ready for consumption without the need for further preparation, thus making it an ideal food for travellers, field workers or marching armies. At present however seed roasting does not occupy a significant role in the Near Eastern diet and has been relegated to a secondary position as a snack. Hillman (1984b, 1985) mentions the fact that hospitality in Turkish villages includes a bowl of freshly roast barley or wheat seeds. Examples of roast seeds include barley, wheat, , and pistachio nuts.

At Palmyra, it was possible for me to observe barley roasting. A large metal pan with some stones in it was preheated over a fire, then several handfuls of ripe barley seed were thrown

in. Salt was added and the pan was shaken occasionally to stir the contents. When the roasting was complete, the seeds were tipped onto a mat and left to cool before being collected in baskets and

65 taken to the local market for sale.

3.7 "Burgur: Each village or community has a number of large copper pots which they normally share, or in some cases rent out to each other. "Burgur making tends to be a communal task with several families participating together. First a large fire pit is dug, usually in the backyard or in some open space near the house, and the copper pot is placed over it. Grain is then poured into the pot and covered with water. Initially a strong fire is lit underneath the pot, to achieve a high temperature, then the fire is allowed to burn lower as the water evaporates. The contents of the pot are allowed to boil, whilst being constantly stirred with a shovel or some other suitable implement. The boiling and stirring is continued until 70% of the water has evaporated. The boiled grain is then removed from the pot and poured into wicker baskets or other suitable containers raised on stones to allow the water to drain out. The women then carry it on their shoulders (a piece of cloth or leather is placed on the back to protect it from dripping hot water) to the roofs or specially designated areas of the courtyards, where it is spread out to dry. The drying takes about a week if the weather is cloudy, or three days if it is sunny. During this period the grain is generally hand picked by the women to remove any remaining contaminants.

Boiled grain is eaten mixed with ghee and salt as a snack during the process. Avitsur (1977) mentions the eating of whole boiled grain, and Hillman reports similar practices from Turkey. In southern Syria it is also consumed with sugar in place of salt. Once the grain is dry, it is then taken to the mill for grinding. "Burgur is generally stored in large sacks or lined baskets; occasionally it is kept in "libin" or pottery containers.

66 Care however must be exercised in protecting the "burgur from damp as it is rather susceptible to fungal decay and general degradation. Hillman (1984) also refers to unusual containers made of dried dung. For further details on "burgur preparation see Hillman (1984).

3.8 Storage of Grain and Other Products: Once a crop has been thoroughly winnowed, the chaff is piled up in heaps using winnowing forks and brooms. It is then stuffed into cloth sacks, usually a small amount at first by hand to give the sack some support at the base, then the rest is loaded using a basket or some other container. The chaff is then transferred to

the storage areas by the usual means, on the backs of draft animals or in carts. Chaff is normally stored indoors within specially designated enclosed areas. Extra care is taken to isolate it from any animals that may be kept there. One of the commonest ways of unloading chaff is to pour it in through a prepared hole in the roof directly above the storage area. Once the process is completed the hole is sealed until the next year. In some areas, especially amongst semi sedentary bedouins, the chaff is piled, outdoors near the homes, into long ramparts about 1 metre high and then covered with a mixture of mud and chaff ("libin") to protect it from the elements. Sieving and grain dunking cleanings are usually mixed together and used as animal fodder. They can be stored separately in baskets or mixed in with the rest of the chaff. Grain, both wheat and barley, is also transported in sacks after having undergone the relevant cleaning processes. It is stored in large containers called "khalaya trab", made of libin. These containers are constructed by drying soil in the sun for a few days and then mixing it with water and chaff. The mixture is then

67 trampled using bare feet until it has reached a kneadable, dough-like consistency. Once the mixture is ready, a base is made and left to dry for approximately fifteen minutes. The sides are then built up layer by layer with fifteen minute drying intervals between each layer. These containers have a large mouth at the top through which grain is poured in. When full, a cloth is laid over the mouth and covered with libin. Access to the grain is achieved via a small, plugged hole in the base of the container. These storage jars come in a variety of shapes and sizes. In the Missyaf region, they are constructed in the shape of wheat grains (see fig. 31a), whilst in Bosra they are rectangular bins (see fig. 31b). In the Raqqa and Hassakeh regions on the other hand, grain is stored in pits lined with "libin” and then covered with straw before adding more "libin” or earth to seal them. Some of these pits can have a diameter of several metres and a depth of up to two metres, with in some cases a structure or even a building constructed above it. Similar descriptions of storage methods come from Palestine (Turkowski 1969). "Burgur and "frikkeh", in groats or whole seed form, are usually stored in cloth sacks or in lined straw baskets with some form of protective cover. Fig.32 is a good example of a typical rectangular house layout. At the top end of the house (area 1) is a bench ("mastaba"), on which lies a row of eight or nine grain storage bins made from "libin". All the grain (wheat and barley) is stored there; the first two on the left are reserved for prime sowing grain, whilst the last on the right is sometimes used for fodder grain. Fodder grain is also kept in covered baskets in the right hand corner (area 2). Area 2 is also where all the chaff and straw for animal fodder is stored. It is fenced off from the rest of the room in order to keep animals away. Pulses are kept in baskets and sacks in the left hand corner (area 3) or occasionally, if space is

68 available, in one of the "libin" bins. During winter the animals are allowed to shelter in this room, so care is taken to prevent them from reaching the seeds and chaff.

69 Figure 26a: Winnowing in the Alawite mountains.

70 Figure 26b: Winnowing in the Hassake region.

71 Figure 27a: Coarse sieving in the Alawite mountains.

Figure 27b: Coarse sieve byproduct.

72 k m . " - ■ 4

■ rS ''

Figure 27c: Fine sieving in the Alawite mountains.

73 Figure 28a: Emptying the fine sieve (grain dunking).

74 Figure 28b: Stiring the grain at the bottom of the channel (grain dunking).

Figure 29: Drying wet grain on the roof.

75 Figure 30a: Roasting unripe wheat or "frikkeh" (note that the fire is only permitted to smoulder).

76 Figure 30b: The roast ears are beaten on a mat with a wooden stick.

Figure 30c: The grain is tossed in a tray to eliminate straw chaff and other contaminants.

77 Figure 30d: The grain is rubbed between the hand to free the husks.

7 8 ' Figure 30e: Straw and rawhide tray.

79 i Figure 30f: Special wooden beating stick.

80 Figure 31a: Grain storage bins from the Alawite mountains (note construction in the shape of a wheat grain).

81 Figure 31b: Grain storage bin from the Hauran region.

82 GRAIN STORGE BINS

ROOF POSTS ANIMAL O 0 FODDER STORAGE ROOM LIVING QUARTERS j fence □ □ BREAD ANIMAL PEN ROOF POSTS KILN Q> 0 0 supporting shelter V

COURT YARD

SHADE

MAIN ENTRANCE

10 Metres J

Figure 32: Typical house plan from the Alawite mountains.

1-small tools such as sieves stored under shelter. 2- large tools such as plough and metal tools stored indoors.

83 3.9 Summary and organisation of processes into correct sequence: This flow chart represents the sequence in which the agricultural processes described in this and the previous chapter occur.

1. Tilling the soil (using a plough)

2. Breaking up the clods using hand tools

3. Harrowing

4. Sowing

5. 2ncl Ploughing (to cover up the seed)

6. Irrigation (only where rainfed agriculture is not possible)

7. Weeding (generally carried out in April)

using sickles used as animal fodder or by hand (except for thorny weeds)

8. Other forms of pest control

9. Culling of green crops

used as animal fodder

10. *Frikkeh

84 i. roasting (open fire) ii. threshing (special beating sticks) iii. winnowing (on trays or with winnowing

forks) iv. crushing (optional)

v. storage

11. Harvesting sickles: sharpened, blunt or serrated.

12. Gleaning

13. Field storage (7-10 days) allows crop to settle down and ripen fully

14. Transport draft animals used

15. Threshing yard preparation 'rollers sometimes

used

16.1st Threshing sledge or trampling

17. 2ncJ Threshing (only wheat and barley)

18. *1st Winnowing

85 19. 3rc* Threshing (any parts of the crop that were not completely threshed in the first 2 rounds)

20. *2nc* Winnowing

‘Storage of chaff

21. “ Ist Sieving (coarse) (storage of waste products)

22. *2nd Sieving (medium)

23. *3fd Sieving (fine)

* Storage of seed crop

24. ‘ Grain dunking (optional)

(storage of waste products)

25. Grain drying

26. ‘ Storage of grain and other by-products

27. ‘ Grain roasting

86 Storage of seeds

28. * Bure,. 2§. * Pounding and grinding i. boiling of grain of grain (flour, etc). ii. 1st grain drying iii. grinding iv. 2nc* grain drying v. 1st sieving

vi. 1s* winnowing storage of coarse grade "burgul vii. regrinding of coarse parts. viii. 2nc* sieving ix. 2nd winnowing storage of fine grade "burgul' viii. extra sun drying (optional)

x. storage of bran (fodder)

* Implies activities that produce storable crop products and or byproducts. 3.10 Simplified chart showing the different stages at which crop products and byproducts are stored.

(10). "Frikkeh

storage of groats or whole grain

(18, 20). Winnowing

storage of seed storage of chaff

(21-23). Sieving

87 storage of waste fractions

(24). Grain dunking (optional)

(28). Grain roasting

storage of grain

(29). Grinding and milling

storage of flour (30). Burgul storage of groats

Barley is processed in exactly the same manner as wheat. The only difference is that barley is not widely consumed by humans today and therefore the processing normally stops at stage 24 where barley is taken for bulk storage. (Note: the "frikkeh steps are not included). Pulses follow the same processing steps as wheat and barley, except that they are threshed only once, followed by winnowing and sieving before being taken to bulk storage. The two lists of steps provided above applies to free threshing wheat and barley only. It has been impossible to observe glume wheat processing, which is no longer cultivated in the areas studied, and I will therefore rely on the account given by Hillman on the basis of his research in Turkey (Hillman 1981, 1984, 1984b, 1985).

The main difference between the two types of crops is that in the case of glume the spikelets must be broken in order to release the grain. This is reflected in the additional steps of parching and pounding the spikelets followed by several cleaning

88 stages. Apart from that, the main steps are identical.

3.11 Glume Wheat Processing Steps.

1-17. The same as free threshing crops

18. Primary winnowing.

19. Storage of chaff.

20. Coarse sieving of spikelets.

21. Medium coarse sieving of spikelets.

22. Bulk storage of spikelets

(today only in wet climates).

23. Parching of spikelets.

24. Pounding of spikelets.

25. Secondary winnowing.

26. Storage of light chaff.

27. Medium coarse sieving of grain.

28. Fine sieving of grain.

29. Grain dunking.

89 30. Grain drying.

31. Bulk storage of semi-clean grain.

32. Additional fine sieving and hand sorting.

33. "Burgul" sequence.

Although there are changes in the order and number of steps between glume and free threshing crops, the actual methods of processing do not change in themselves; i.e. winnowing is still carried out using a fork in the prescribed manner, whether the crop is free threshing or not. For further details on the processing of emmer wheat, see Hillman (1984). It should be noted that Hillman considers step 31 as semi clean grain requiring further intensive cleaning before "burgul" production. I find that somewhat surprising, as one would expect the grain to be reasonably clean after undergoing steps 25, 27, 28 and 29. In the case of free threshing wheats, grain dunking (step 29) is usually the final major cleaning stage unless the crop is exceptionally contaminated with weed seeds such as L . temulentum. This fact is also supported by Hillmans description of free threshing wheat processing (Hillman 1984).

90 Chapter 4: The Antiquity of the Processes.

4.1 Introduction: There is a large body of both textual and artefactual evidence for the practice of agriculture in the Near East during the third and second millennia B.C. The textual information is derived principally from Sumerian, Akkadian and Egyptian sources, and is supplemented by representations. The actual remains of agricultural implements such as sickles and hoes have also been identified. In addition there is substantial archaeobotanical data, mostly in the form of charred plant remains. Together, the evidence supports the antiquity of the processes described earlier. This is mainly due the fact that there are a limited number of ways in which to process a crop without the use of modern machinery. That is not to say that some of methods and the tools have not undergone any refinements and improvements over the millennia, nevertheless the basic principles display startling constancy.

4.2 The Archaeological Sources: Archaeological finds of agricultural implements from the third and second millennium B.C. are rare in the Levant and . Most of the finds - generally sickle blades, hoes and ploughshares - originate from Mesopotamia and northern Syria. Unfortunately tools made from organic materials seldom survive, and only under extreme conditions such as waterlogging (Korber-Grohne 1967) or dessication. A number of human factors also play a role in reducing

the chance of survival of any tool. From ethnographic observations for example, it is known that any wooden parts of a tool which

breaks is likely to end up as firewood. Many wooden parts also suffer from parasite infestation due to age and neglect, and they

91 too will be used as firewood. Metal tools are no more likely to survive in their original form because scrap metal is often recycled until it is old enough to be thrown away, when it will subsequently deteriorate rapidly as a result of exposure. Implements of lithic origin, such as mortars, pestles, querns, stone hoes and ploughshares, and flint blades set on sickles or threshing sledges, are more likely to survive and enter the archaeological record. However, on their own they are of limited use, as they tell us little of how they were hafted or employed in the field, and thus they provide only an incomplete record of crop processing activities. Therefore, our knowledge of this subject is reliant to a great extent on a relatively small number of non-perishable arte fa cts. One possible alternative source of information, already mentioned, is representations on monuments, cylinder seals, and carvings. Some of the best examples for our period come from . This does not pose a problem however, since the main crop processing methods are very similar even to the present-day; the main difference lies in crop seasonality and irrigation due to the specific regime dictated by the Nile. A good example comes from a depiction of an agricultural scene in the tomb of prince Re'-em-kuy (Old Kingdom, Dyn. V) in Egypt. The representations here show a range of agricultural activities including harvest, transport, threshing and winnowing (Hayes 1968). The paucity of artefacts, especially organic ones, is not just restricted to the second and third millennia

B.C., but sadly persists into later periods as well. Representations still play a prominent role in providing us with information on agricultural tools and activities.

92 4.3 Textual Sources: The early textual data used in this section comes from a number of sources, mainly from southern Mesopotamia, and dating between the late third and first millennium B.C. Although it would have been more desirable to have textual data emanating from northern Syria, texts are rare finds in this area, and even rarer when it comes to dealing with agricultural activities. It should be emphasised however that the main aim of this section is to attempt to show that the agricultural activities described previously were being employed in antiquity (late 3rc* to early 2nc* millennia B.C.). This fact is certainly reflected in the data examined, however the texts only go as far as referring to a particular activity but never really describing it. So although there are many references to to various agricultural activities, there are very few descriptions of how

these activities were carried out. The one exception is the Georgica Sumerica or the Farmers Almanac which is discussed in greater detail on pp. 95-100. It could be argued that the value of these sources is diminished by the lack of description; however as mentioned above, all the evidence put together does support the antiquity of these processes, especially bearing in mind that there are few ways of processing a crop using traditional methods. Other textual sources for later periods include various Roman authors such as Pliny and , some Islamic works, and Thomas Tussers Good Points of Husbandry. Again, the purpose of including these sources is to show continuity, not only through the ages, but also in different environments.

4.4 Source Abbreviation and Chronology: This is a brief survey of and other texts which refer to or describe crop processing activities. The survey is by no means exhaustive, merely a sample of the sort of information available.

93 O.A.I. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in the Chicago

Museum (I.G. Gelb 1955). Old Akkadian, written about the time of the two kings Naram-Sin and Sar-Kali-Sarri 2261-2199 B.C.

W.E. Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Collection (Oppenheim 1948). Dating to the III period (2114-2004 B.C.).

S.E.T. Sumerian Economic Texts from the Umma Archive (S.T. Kang 1973). Dating to the Ur III period (2114-2004 B.C.).

0,T. The Old Testament. Dated early second millennium B.C.

E.B.L. Early Babylonian Letters From Larsa (H.F. Lutz 1917). Dating to around 1800 B.C.

W.L. Water for Larsa (Walters 1970). Early Babylonian period; dated from references to two Larsa kings Abisare and Sumuel over a twenty one year period 1898-1877 B.C.

S.P. Sumerian Proverbs (E. I. Gordon 1959). All the texts come from Nippur and were inscribed in the first third of the Second millennium B.C. (Isin dynasty and first dynasty of Babylon). It would not be unreasonable to assume that many of the proverbs are of an older date since some of them are found in roughly

contemporary school texts from Ur (E.l Gordon 1959).

O.B.T.R. The Old Babylonian Tablets From Tell Rimah (Walker, Hawkins and Dailey 1976). Dated to the reign of Zimrilim king of Mari, just after the death of Samsi-Adad, 1775 B.C.

94 E.R.C. The Economic Role of the Crown (Yoffee 1977). The texts come mainly from northern Mesopotamia and date to the last kings of the first Dynasty of Babylon.

Ammi-ditana : A-d. 1688-1647 B.C. Ammi-saduqa : A-s. 1646-1626 B.C.

L.B.T. Late Babylonian Tablets in the Ontario Museum (ROM 1982). Dated to the last quarter of the seventh to the end of the fifth centuries BC.

R.F. Roman Farming (K.D. White 1970). Sources used:

Varro 37 B.C. Columella; date unknown, but contemporary with Younger Seneca

(4 B.C. - 65 A.D.) and . Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.).

K.F. "Kitab al Felaha" (Ibin-al-Awam, as cited by K.D. White 1970). Dated to 1100 A.D.

T.T. Thomas Tusser: His Good Points of Husbandry (D. Hartley, ed., 1931). Dated 1557 A.D.

4.5 Georaica Sumerica: The Farmers Almanac or the Georgica Sumerica is probably the best known and most detailed source of archaeological information available on crop processing activities in Mesopotamia. Approximately forty tablets, prisms and fragments have been recovered from a number of sites: Ur, Nippur, Sippar, Babylon and

Tell Hadad. Most of the sources are school exercises and invariably are incomplete portions of the whole text. It has been possible however to compile a complete copy of the Georgica Sumerica from

95 the sources available. For further details on the sources and the sites from which they originate from see Civil (in press). Although the actual date for the creation of the text is not known, the earliest datable sources come from Ur and Nippur just before 1720 B.C. whilst the others are a hundred or so years later. It is worth noting that certain lexical peculiarities and Akkadianisms found in the present text precede an Ur III date (2114-2004). (Civil, in press). This need not imply that the text was composed in the late 3rc* millennium, merely that a copy of it may have been available at that time. The text itself was probably not intended to teach farmers how to grow and process their crops, but to teach scribes how to write about it. Nevertheless it is still the most descriptive text of crop processing for our period available at the present.

The Text: 1- Old-Man-Tiller instructed his son: 2- When you have to prepare a field for irrigation, 3- inspect levees, canals, and mounds that have to be opened. 4- When you let the flood waters into the field, its waters will not rise too high in it.

5- At the time the field emerges from the water, 6- Watch the spots with standing water, when they reach the proper point,

7- do not let the herds trample (the field anymore). 8- After you cut the weed growth and establish the limits of the fie ld ,

9- level it repeatedly with a thin hoe (of a weight) of two-thirds of a mana.

10- Let a flat hoe erase the oxen tracks, let (the field) be swept clean.

96 11- A maul should flatten the spots (with traces) of the (old) furrow bottoms. 12- The hoes should go around the four edges of the field. 13- The field will be made level, until it dries. 14- Your implements should be ready. 15- The parts of the yoke should be fastened 16- Your new whip should hang (ready) from a nail,

17- reattach the handle of your old whip. 18- It should be repaired by artisans. 19- The adze, the , and the saw, your tools, should be in good order.

20- Let braided thongs, straps, leather wrappings and whips be firmly attached. 21- Let your sowing basket be gauged, its sides made strong. 22- All necessary things should be at hand. Carefully inspect your work.

23- The plough oxen will have backup oxen. 24- The ox to ox attachments should be loose (enough). 25- Each plough will have a backup plough. 26- The assigned task for one plough is 180 iku, 27-(but) you, (re)build the implement at 144 iku. (28- [The work] will be done pleasantly for you.) 29- 180 sila of grain are spent on each bur. 30- After working one plough's area with the bar-dil- plough, 31- (and) after working the bar-dil- plough's area with a tug-sig- plough, till it (once more). 32- Harrow once, twice, three times. 33- When you fill the crevices with a heavy maul, 34- the handle of your maul should be firmly attached, otherwise it will not perform as desired.

35- When your field work become excessive,

97 36- you should not neglect your work. 37- so no one has to tell anyone: 'Do your field work!' 38- After the sky constellations are right, 39- do not be reluctant to take the oxen force to the field many tim es. 40- The hoe should work everything.

41- When you have to work the field with the seeder-plough, 42- your plough should be properly adjusted. 43- Put a leather imdumu on the kasu of your plough. 44- Install your beam with narrow pegs.

45- The boards should be spread. Make your furrows. 46- Make eight furrows per ninda of width, 47- the barley will lodge in more closely spaced furrows. 48- When you have to work the field with the seeder-plough, 49- keep your eye on your man who drops the seed, 50- so that the grain falls every two fingers. 51- He should put one gin of grain at every ninda. 52- If the barley seed does not spread (?) within the confines of the furrow, 53- change the wedge of your plow share. 54- If the bindings become loose, tighten them. 55- Where you have made vertical furrows, make slanted furrows, 56- where you have made slanted furrows, make vertical furrows. 57- Straight furrows will give you wide enough and nice edges. 58- Your lugu -furrows should be straight. 59- Make the furrows clean. Plow your portion of field. 60- The clods should be picked out. 61- The furrows should be deep (?) where the soil is thin (?), 62- the furrows should be narrower where the soil is thick (?). 63- It is good for the seedlings.

64- When the seedlings break open the ground,

98 65- perform the rites against mice. 66- Turn away the teeth of small birds/locusts. 67- When the overflow the narrow furrow bottoms, 68- water them with the "water of the first seed". 69- When the plants form (like) a reed mat, water them.

70- Water the plants in heading. 71- When the plants are fully leafed out, do not water them, they would become infected by rust. 72- When the grain is right for "de-husking", water it. 73- It will provide a yield increase of one sila per ban. 74- When you have to reap the barley, do not let the plants become overripe. 75- Harvest at dawn. 78- Three men should harvest for you: 76- one to cut the grain, one to tie the sheaves, 77- and one before him should apportion the sheaves. 79- The ones who gather the barley should not "bruise" the grain. 80- They should not scatter the grain in the stacks. 81- Your daily work (should start) at daybreak. 83- Gather in (sufficient) number 82- your force of helpers and grain gatherers. 83- Lay down the sheaves. 84- Your work should be carefully done. 85- After having had a stale coarse flour (for so long),

85a-do not let anyone thresh (just) for your (new) bread, 86- (but) let the sheaves rest. 87- The rites for the barley in the sheaves should be performed daily. 88- When you transport your barley,

89- your barley carriers should handle small amounts. 90- Mark the limits of an uncultivated plot of yours.

99 91- Establish properly the paths. 91a- Your implements should be [...]. 92- Your wagons should be in working order.

93- Feed (well) the wagon's oxen. 94- Let your prepared threshing floor rest for a few days. 95- Run the roller (?) to make ready your threshing floor.

96- When you thresh, 97- tie the teeth of your threshing sledge with leather straps, they should be secured with bitumen. 98- When you make the oxen trample (the grain), 99- your thresher should be strong. 100-When the grain lies (threshed) on the ground, 101-perform the rites of the grain not yet clean. 102-When you winnow, 103-put an intelligent person as your second winnower. 104-You should assign two persons to move the grain around. 105-When the grain is clean, lay it down "under the stick" (to measure it). 106-Perform the rites day and night. 107-Release the grain at midday. 108-Instructions of the god Ninurta, son of Enlil. 109-Ninurta, faithful farmer of Enlil, your praise be good!

100 4.6 The Evidence: The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the antiquity of the processes described previously, and to expose the incompleteness of the evidence available to date. A list of all the main processes and the range of evidence available to support them has been compiled and then tabulated at the end for quick reference (see table 2). It must be realised that the list is neither exhaustive, nor the final word on the matter as new evidence is continually being brought to light. Much of the new evidence however will still be plagued by the problems discussed earlier.

\) Tilling: a) Textual Evidence. G.S. lines 15-18; preparation of ploughing equipment. lines 23-31, 39, 41-46, 53-55; general details on ploughing, lines 9, 12, 40; use of hoe.

W.E. Noor I (Umma); payment of wages to ploughmen, pick-axe and spade workers. Note: the term pick-axe Nig-gul is rarely mentioned in Ur III texts.

010 (Puzris Dagan)\ list of barley wages for ploughmen. ”46 (kur) 180 (sila) barley (measured in) kur: ploughman Lu'neze, 40 kur: ploughman Qur-di-lum, 31 (kur) 270 (sila) (measured in ) kur: singly working ploughmen (APIN-la didli\ in summa 118 (kur) 150 (sila) barley (measured in) kur from the field: Da-bad (are) with Su-E'-a (ki A/A/), date.”

Seed and fodder texts from Umma and Nippur, dated to the Ur III period, which mainly deal with the amount of seed needed for

101 sowing. They also mention the amounts of fodder required for ploughing oxen. (Maekawa 1984). S.P. proverbs 2.86 and 2.91 deal with ploughing oxen, example: 2.86; An ox heaps up (?)...(?), its furrows are well done.

O.B.T.R. text 137 mentions oxen for ploughing.

E.R.C text TCL 174, dated to the thirteenth year of A-s, refers to wages for ploughmen.

R.F. Cato describes a Campanian plough with a wooden share (135.2), while Pliny in 'Natural History' (XVIII.172) mentions four different types of share and their uses. Columella 1.9-3 describes the characteristics of a good ploughman: "The ploughman (arator bulbulcus) needed to be tall and sturdy, for in ploughing he stands almost erect, and rests his weight on the s tilt." Columella II.2.27-28 gives a detailed description of ploughing using oxen, including information on how many feet can be ploughed by a pair of oxen before needing rest (116 feet).

Arab sources such as K.F. and Al-Jawbari (A.D. 1302) give extensive details of tilling implements and operations.

T.T. p.143 gives a description of the different ploughs and yokes required by a farmer. example: Two ploughs and a plough-chain, two culters, three shares, with ground clouts and side clouts for soil that sow tares, With ox-bows and ox-yokes, and other things mo, for ox team and horse team in plough for to go'.

102 p. 114; notes on tillage, including details on how furrows should be laid. b) Artefacts and Representations: There are no finds of complete ploughs from either the second or third millennia B.C., or from the Roman periods. Several stone ploughshares have been found at Hama and Mishrife in North Syria, and these date from the second millennium B.C. (Steensberg 1977). Iron shares have been recovered from Khorsabad, and dated to the reign of Sargon II (Ellison 1982). Hoes were initially made of stone, and later of metal. Early

examples of stone hoes come from the site of Hassuna (level 1a). The stone axes had traces of bitumen, which was probably used to attach wooden handles to them. The excavators suggest that they were used for breaking up the soil (Safar and Lloyd, 1945). For further information on stone hoes, see Steensburg (1964). Metal hoes have been found at many sites including and Mari. The Kish example was found in the Y cemetery, dating to the middle of the third millennium B.C., (Watelin and Langdon 1934), whilst the Mari example has been dated to the Agade period (Parrot 1955). Another common implement found on archaeological sites dating to the second millennium is the split blade. Sites yielding such blades include Tell Sifr, Susa, Ischali, Khafajeh, Kish, Nippur, Sippar and Telloh (Moorey 1971). Moorey has suggested that this implement was used as a spade (see fig. 33). There are numerous well-documented examples of ploughshares from the Roman world. For further details see K.D. White (1967).

The earliest depiction of an ard plough comes from Uruk Warka and dates to the Uruk IV period (around 3250 B.C.) (Salonen 1968). A cylinder seal dating to ED III from Tell Suleimeh (level IX

103 grave 63) shows a seeder plough in operation. (al-Gailani-Werr 1982). There are many examples of ploughs depicted on cylinder seals dating to the Akkadian period. For further details see Moorey (1978) and Frankfort (1939). A clay figurine from Byblos, dated to the late third early second millennium B.C. shows a pair of oxen yoked together, and an ard beam extending along the left leg of the right ox (Dunand 1954). Egyptian funerary wall paintings such as those of prince Re-em-kuy, depict a seeder type plough. There is also a votive spade from Susa (date unknown), which bears the

inscription "Marru belonging to the god Nabu" (Steensberg 1977).

Several models of ard ploughs or their component parts have been found, although these do not come from the Near East. For example, from Arezzo in Northern Italy comes a bronze model of an early ard, of unknown date. From Telemon, Etruria, comes a wooden model of a body ard, dated to the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Finally, two bronze models from Roman Germany have been found; both are typical beam ards and date to the late 4th century A.D. Mosaics may also be informative; an example from Cherchel in Algeria contains on the first two registers two representations of a sole ard, dated to early/middle 3rd century A.D.

ii) Sowing:

a) Textual Evidence.

G.S. lines 46-54 relate to sowing in general.

O.A.I. tablet 44 lines 1, 9 and 14. Reference to seed barley Se numun.

W.E. text I 34 (Umma). The Sumerian word for sowing seed is Se numun.

104 Example: "57 sila barley for sowing (?) for/of Lu-U tu, 60 sila barley for/of Ur-Sin, from Ur-mes the barley for seed..."

There are a number of texts from Umma and Nippur that are known as seed and fodder texts dating to the Ur III period. They are primarily concerned with calculations of amounts of barley seed required to sow an area of one square nindan , and the amount of

fodder required for the oxen (Maekawa 1984).

S.E.T. text 118, WHM 705, AS; reference to seed barley.

There are a number of texts from Ebla referring to seed for sowing. Example: "... of the village of Sagu; 26 Gubar of barley for sowing." (Pettinato 1981).

S.P. texts 1.103, 2.87 and 2.88. Example: "Whether he has eaten or not the seed grain is good."

O.B.T.R. text 303; reference to seed corn.

R.F. Pliny (XVIII.197) describes broadcast sowing.

T.T. p. 56, 58, 59; general comments on sowing.

b) Artefacts and Representations: Apart from a small number of bitumened baskets found in Mesopotamia, there is little unambiguous artefactual evidence of sowing, and indeed it is quite plausible that these baskets were themselves used for other purposes, as at PPNB Abu Hureyra where they probably served as grain stores (Hillman, per. comm.). There

are however representations of seeder ploughs (see section dealing

105 with tilling), and a Roman sower on the Cherchel Mosaic, which shows him walking right foot first whilst broadcasting seed with both hands from a basket hanging around his neck (K.D. White 1970).

T.T. p.95 depicts a man broadcast sowing, also advancing with his right foot.

Hi) H arrow ing:

a) Textual Evidence.

G.S. lines 32-34.

W.E. texts E22 (Umma), B7 (Umma), and Noor I (Umma). Example: "8 Harrows, brought into ... -house, from U., seal of A.”

S.E.T. text 65, WHM 344, SS. 127, WHM 569, AS. 131, WHM 625, AS. 136, WHM 940, SS.

Islamic sources, including K.F., describe two different types of harrows; a break harrow called the mijarr, and and a broad wooden board called al-Malik.

T.T. pp. 56, 58, 67, 94, 131; details of harrowing. Example:"... To harrow the ridges, ere ever ye strike is one piece of husbandry Suffolk doth like."

b) Artefacts and Representations: There are no identifiable finds or representations of harrows from

the 3rd and 2nc* millennia B.C.; indeed there are no representations prior to the Middle Ages.

106 iv) Irrigation:

a) Textual Evidence. S.E.T. text 124, WHM 624, AS. Refers to irrigation. b) Archaeological Remains and Representations.

There is a great amount of literature covering the subject of irrigation. For further details see Adams (1981), Oates (1976), and B.S.A.G. (1988).

v) Weeding: a) Textual Evidence. S.E.T. text 58, WHM 531, AS. 61, WHM 794, AS. 62, WHM 493, SS. 63, WHM 344, SS. 133, WHM 732, AS. All refer to weeding.

W.L. text 35; a request to send men to weed a field.

E.R.C. text YOS 13 49 (A-s 9); a request for hoes. "10 copper hoes/ for weeding/ in the field(s) of the city Malah / under the responsibility of Gimillum dumu-e'-dub-ba-a."

R.F. weeding, or runcatio was done by hand and took one and a half days per acre.

T.T. pp. 58, 66, 96 and 101 refer to weeding, p.66 also describes

107 weeding hooks. b) Artefacts and Representations.

Although sickles and hoes may be used for weeding, it is most common to carry out the process by hand. There are plenty of finds of sickle blades (see section on harvest) and hoes (see section on tilling) that may have been used for weeding. There are however no representations that clearly depict weeding itself.

vi) Harvest:

a) Textual Evidence.

G.S. lines 74-87 generally describe harvesting and stacking of sheaves.

W .E. texts TT11 (Nibru) and KK12 (Umma). Ex: KK12; 70

copper-sickles from store house ( e -k is ib3 -ba-ta) ku-li has

received, date.

S.E.T. texts 27, WHM 726, AS. 28, WHM 144, AS. 29, WHM 208, AS. All refer to harvesting.

30, WHM 885, AS. 31, WHM 237, SS. Refer to harvesting and emplacing sheaves. 53, WHM 871, ? 54, WHM, 401, ? 115, WHM 591, SS. Refer to field storage.

108 W.L. texts 45, 49 and 53 deal with payments of grain to harvesters.

O.B.T.R, texts 97 and 157 refer to harvesting.

E.R.C. texts YOS 13 73 (A-s 8), YOS13 49 (A-s 7), YOS13 72 (A-s 9) deal with requisitions and weights of copper sickles used in harvest. Texts YOS13 396 (A-d 29), YOS13 59 (A-d 33), YOS13 79 (A-d 34) and VS7 60 (A-d 34) deal with wages for harvesters. Example: YOS13 72 (A-s 9) "72 sickles/weight 20 minas of copper/ finished work/ for reaping grain/ in the fields of Kish/ received by..." Example: YOS13 48 "Ibni-Marduk, son of Belanu, received (an amount) for a harvester from lli-iqsam, muerrum. At harvest time he will furnish a harvester..." (the rest of the text was destroyed).

R.F. Varro's description of harvesting (RR 1.50.1): "There are three ways of harvesting corn. One way, that found in Umbria, is to cut the straw down with the sickle close to the ground, laying each sheaf, as it is cut, on the field. When a good number of sheaves has been made up, they are gone over again, and the ears are cut off from the straw, sheaf by sheaf. In the second method, used for instance in Pecenum, a curved piece of wood, witha small iron saw at the end, is used. This grasps a bundle of ears, cuts them off, and leaves the stalks standing in the field to be subsequently cut close to the ground. The third method, adopted mainly in the neighbourhood of Rome and in most other places, is to cut the stalk, the top of which is held with the left hand, midway

down...That part of the stalk which is below the hand remains attached to the ground and is cut later, while the part which is

109 attached to the ear is carried off to the threshing-floor in baskets."

Columella's description of harvesting (2.20.3): "There are, furthermore, several methods of reaping: many cut the straw in the middle with the spitted sickle; these are either bill-shaped or toothed; many gather the heads only with "divers", and others with combs..."

Pliny's description of harvesting (18. 296): "Elsewhere the stalks are cut through with the sickle and the ear is torn off between two "divers". In some places the stalks are cut off at the root, in others they are plucked out, roots and all; those who employ this last-named method explain that in the course of it they get the land broken, although in fact they are drawing the fatness out of it."

K.F. refers to harvesting by uprooting and using sickles.

T.T. pp. 84 and 86.

b) Artefacts and Representations. Sickles have been found on many sites in Mesopotamia, such as Kish, Nippur, Nuzi, Tello, Assur, Warka, Nimrud and Khorsabad. Flint sickles have been recovered throughout the third to the first millenniums. Copper and bronze sickles are most common on third and second millennium sites, while iron sickles have only been found on first millennium sites in Assyria (Ellison 1982). A large number of sickles of varying shapes and sizes have survived from the Roman period. For further details see K.D. White (1967). Representations include those in the tomb of prince

110 Re'-em-kuy. They show four harvesters cutting wheat with sickles while another person ties up the sheaves in bundles (Old Kingdom, Dyn. V). The tomb of Menena (Dyn. XVIII) also shows a harvest scene (Hayes 1968). The Roman period is also quite rich in representations, especially mosaics of pictorial calenders, most of which span three centuries; from the 1st"3rcl centuries A.D.

vii) Transport of Harvest:

a) Textual Evidence.

G.S. lines 88-93 refer to the transport of barley in wagons.

S.E.T. texts 68, WHM 766, SS. 74, WHM 220, AS. References to the transport of barley by river boat. 46, WHM 619, AS. 50, WHM 333, ? 51, WHM 1011, ? References to transport to store houses.

O.A.I. tablet 33 column ii; reference to wagon parts.

O.B.T.R. texts 145 and 137 refer to pack asses carrying grain. Example: text 137, "...Now, six pack asses (must remain to) carry barley continuously "

b) Artefacts and Representations:

Although there are no identifiable remains of carts that can be associated with harvest transport, finds of carts have been recovered from various sites. Examples of such carts include those

111 recovered from the Kish Y cemetery graves. The only representations of harvest transport known to me come from Egypt. In the tomb of Re'-em-kuy, sheaves of crop are stacked on nets or frames and are transported by donkeys. Similar scenes come from the tomb of Panehsy in Thebes (Dyn. XIX).

viiO Threshing:

a) Textual Evidence. Four words which occur in ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform sources have been recognised as denoting threshing implements. These words are: gis-bad (-ra) kissappu dajasta Har-ha-d It is suggested that the first two of these words refer to the plostellum poenicum, or "jarjar", and that the last is a tribulum or threshing sledge (Steinkeller 1990).

G.S. lines 94-95 refer to threshing yard preparations, lines 96-101 refer to threshing.

O.A.I. tablet 33 columns i and ii; references to an order for threshing board pegs.

W.E. texts F27 (Umma) and D22 (Umma) refer to threshing floors,

text G21 (Umma) refers to threshed barley.

S.E.T. texts, WHM, reign:

34, 445, AS.

112 35, 606, AS. 36, 370, AS. 37, 192, AS. 38, 519, AS. 39, 713, AS. references to barley threshing.

40, 764, AS. reference to barley threshing using a stick.

S.P. texts 2.85, and 2.87 refer to the use of oxen during threshing. Example: 2.87; " The ox (is) too close to the threshing floor; the seed (grain) will not be sown." Text 2.144 deals with the proper location of threshing yards.

O.B.T.R. text 163 deals with threshing yard preparations.

E.R.C. text PBS7 108 (dated between A-d year 34 and A-s year 3) is a letter detailing with instructions on the maintenance of threshing yards.

O.T. Deuteronomy 25:4 requires that the ox is not muzzled whilst threshing.

I Chronicles 21: 12-28, II Chronicles 2: 10 and 15, and II Chronicles 3: 1 refer to threshing yard floors.

R.F. Varro (1.51.2), Columella (11.9.1) and Pliny (HN XVIII.295) mention the preparation of threshing yards, including flagging, smearing with cow-dung, and rolling. They also refer to the threshing methods themselves; for example flailing by hand, trampling with oxen or horse, and the use of threshing sledges including the tribulum and the plostellum poenicum, which is

113 known as the "jarjar".

Islamic sources including K.F. refer to trampling, threshing sledges, and the "jarjar"

T.T. p. 108 refers to threshing floors. p.p. 66, 88 and 107 refer to threshing in general. For example: p. 66; "Keep threshing for the thresher till May be come in, to have be surer fresh chaff in thy bin;..."

b) Artefacts and Representations. There are a number of finds of flint blades that have been identified as being associated with threshing sledges (for further details see Al- Azm 1985). There are also two cylinder seal impressions and a stone plaque which each show a threshing sledge of the tribulum type (Littauer and Crouwel 1990) The tomb of Re'-em-fcuy depicts donkeys trampling on harvested crop. The Tomb of Menena (Dyn. XVIII) also shows oxen trampling corn whilst men are heaping crop on the threshing yard using winnowing forks (Hayes 1968).

ix) Winnowing:

a) Textual Evidence. G.S. lines 102-105 refer to winnowing and turning of grain.

O.A.I. tablet 33 columns i and iii deal with a requisition for 2 wooden spades, probably to be used for winnowing.

W.E. text G 21 refers to barley winnowed with a spade.

114 S.E.T. texts 47, WHM 327, AS. 46, WHM 619, AS. 48, WHM 719, AS. 111, WHM 420, AS. These refer to the winnowing and raking of barley.

R.F. Pliny (34 and 35) and Columella (II.20.5) describe two alternative methods of winnowing: by tossing the grain in a winnowing basket or by using a winnowing fork. Varro (RR I 52.) describes winnowing with shovels: "After the threshing the grain should be tossed from the ground when the wind is blowing gently, with winnowing scoops or shovels. The result is that the lightest part of it, called acus and palea, is fanned outside the threshing-floor, whilst the grain, being heavy, comes clean to the basket."

K.F. refers to winnowing with a fork.

T.T. p.105 " Some useth to winnow, some useth to fan, some useth to cast it as clean as they can..."

b) Artefacts and Representations.

There are few finds winnowing forks (K.D. White 1967); the activity however is well represented in harvest scenes found in Egypt such as the tomb of Re'-em-kuy and a Dyn. XVIII sculptured relief. Winnowing fans may also be found displayed on Roman monuments.

x) Sieving:

a) Textual Evidence.

115 The Sumerian word GI.MA.AN.SIM and the Akkadian word nappitu (nappu) meaning sieve both appear in the texts (CAD, Vol N). - CAD Vol. N: gi.ma.an.sim.igi.tur.tur = pa-qa-tum with narrow mesh Hh.lX 136ff (CAD Vol N). 1. sieve: five silas (of barley) 2 BAN 3 SILA ana na-pi-tim u mahhaltim 2 BAN ana madda=nim (see mandanu) UCP 10 78 No. 3:5; GI.MA.AN.SIM IN.NU.DI a straw sieve Kraus, AbB 5 176:19; Gl na-pi-tum (in heading of a list of reed objects) OBT Tell Rimah 333:1 (all OB); 2 GIN KU.BABBAR ana 1 -en na-pi-tum ana E KI.LA ana PN nadna two of silver for one sieve (?) were given to PN for the .... Camb. 430:5; nappu s.; sieve; OB,SB,NB; wr.syll. and GI.SA.SUR; cf .napu v. (a) in OB lists: 1 na-ap-pu-u-um 1 GIS.GAN.NA one sieve, one pestle (beside nappitu). (b) in NB [1-et] e-si-it (text-RA )-tum 2-ta GIS bukannu 1 -en Gl

nablalu 1 -en Gl di-[...]-tum 1 -en nap-pu-u sa PN ina pan PN2 one

mortar, two pestles, one stirrer, one ..... , one sieve, (property) of PN, are at the disposal of PN2 (tools of the brewer) VAS 6 182:25, see Oppenheim Beer 15.

(c) in SB: you draw with flour the Irhan River [kisad (?)] n a ri GI.SA.SUR tasahhap SE GIS.BAN tumallama ina muhhi GI.SA.SUR tasakkan you cover the bank of the river with a sieve, you fill a sea/7-container with barley and place it on the sieve CT 23 1:2f., cf.ibid. 4; nap-pi-i [...] (in broken context, part of a prescription) AMT 53,1 iii 9.

Roman sources sources refer to the use of a sieve capisterium (R.F.) to clean the grain especially in cases of particularly good yields. It is also recommended that grain which settles at the bottom of the sieve because of its large size and weight should be used for seed. T.T. p.142 also refers to sieving.

116 b) Artefacts and Representations. The only archaeological finds of sieves for our period come from Egypt. The first example is a small very fine sieve made of reed. Its small size and fragile nature would suggest that it was a flour sieve used for small scale kitchen work. The second sieve, also fine meshed, is slightly larger but more robust and was probably used for sieving grain. Both sieves are housed in the British

Museum and date to the Middle Kingdom. It is worthwhile noting that evidence for grain sieving is rather rare for our period. This may seem surprising, since the activity is nowadays regarded by many traditional farming communities as crucial for the removal of weed seeds and other contaminants. It is not, however, the only means of cleaning grain; intensive weeding and repeated winnowing followed by hand cleaning can be equally successful in eliminating unwanted contaminants. In fact many of the Roman sources recommend secondary winnowing as an efficient cleaning method, only requesting sieving in the case of particularly good yields. Furthermore, there are still semi sedentary agricultural communities in Syria today that rely only on winnowing as a means of cleaning grain. It is therefore possible that sieving up to the Roman period, and perhaps later, did not play a crucial role in crop processing. There is however plentiful evidence that sieves were commonly used for other purposes, such as brewing.

xi) "Frikkeh":

a) Textual Evidence. The Sumerian term Se za-gin duru is generally taken to mean green (unripe) grain/barley. This term is sometimes associated with Se

117 sa-a which means roasted grain/barley (Powell 1984). Similarly the term abahsinnu is interpreted by Powell (1984), and also CAD Vol. I (p.3), to mean grain harvested at an early stage, and used for roasting, soups, etc. A letter (CAD Vol. I p.3) from Jasmah-adad, the viceroy of Mari, to his father king Ashurnasirpal (883-859 B.C.), refers to abahsinnu being sent to the king as the first fruits of the year, and subsequently served as food at a royal banquet. One

would assume that the unripe barley was prepared in some way to render it palatable for humans. The most probable suggestion is that it would have been roasted in the same way that "frikkeh" is. There are two other Old Babylonian sources that support M. Powell's interpretation of the word abahsinnu (H. Klengel 1983 as

cited by Powell 1984). CAD Vol. 1 also refers to Neo-Babylonian field rent contracts in which a tenant has to deliver small amounts of abahsinnu as well as ripe barley and straw. The term Se sa-a (roast barley) is common in the Ur III period; less so gig sa-a (roast wheat). In cases where the term Se sa-a is associated with Se za-gin duru (unripe grain/barley), the most likely explanation is that the grain is roasted in the same manner as "frikkeh", in order to render it edible. Whether it is crushed into groats and cooked like "frikkeh" is today, is not known. However there is a type of flour called hisletum (crushings or groats) in Akkadian, which was made from roast barley, and which was very common in the Ur III period (Postgate 1984). This indicates that the production of groats occurred, and that the process may also have applied to frikke h .

There are also Biblical references to what is most likely to be "frikkeh":

118 Leviticus 2:14 - "And if thou offer a meat offering of thy first fruits unto the Lord thou shalt offer for the meat offering of thy first fruits green ears of corn roasted on the fire...."

Leviticus 23:14 "And ye shall eat neither bread nor roasted corn, nor green ears until the...."

In Leviticus 14, the term Aviv is used, which means to roast on a fire .

Pliny describes the harvest of unripe grain, but he does not mention how it was processed, and so it is not known whether or not he was describing "frikkeh". During the Ottoman period (late 19th century) the purpose of "frikkeh" was twofold: (a) To provide farming communities with an early source of food, should their winter stores run out before the main crop was ripe enough for harvest. The ability to access crops up to one and half a months early could prove crucial for the survival of the community during a lean year. Furthermore the high sugar content in the seeds gives them great value as a food, as well as rendering them palatable to eat. (b) As a means of hiding or reclaiming a part of their crops before the army and the tax collectors raided the threshing yards. The Ottoman army generally came for the grain after the main harvest, since they required the grain to be ripe for making bread. A peasant however could salvage a fair amount of his crop by harvesting part of it early. This trick was quite successful in fooling the Ottomans, and thus permitted the farming communities, especially small ones, to survive that much longer before taxation and other

119 factors led to a breakdown in the system. "Frikkeh was also used to distort the amount of crop harvested when it came to share cropping. Share cropping and absentee landlordism was very

widespread in Syria and other parts of the Near East until very recently. Hence, if a farmer produces "frikkeh", he gains that much

more of the harvest, and it would be very hard for the land owners and the tax collectors to work out shares etc. Whether there were any adverse reactions, or attempts at punitive measures by either the state or the landlords to the making of frikkeh, it is not known.

I have encountered no such information or references as yet.

The social and economic conditions behind the reasons cited for making "frikkeh" are not unlike some of those that prevailed in the Levant at the end of the third second and first millennia B.C. (Heltzer 1982), thus making "frikkeh" production an attractive option for those people who were trying to scratch a living during those hard times. Unfortunately, there is no archaeological evidence as yet for the making of "frikkeh", nor are there any representations that depict the process. There are no recognisable Roman references to "frikkeh", nor does Thomas Tusser mention it in his Good Points of Husbandry. It should be noted that there are some negative points associated with "frikkeh", which have caused it to be relegated to the status of second class food: (a) Harvesting early inevitably means a decrease in crop yields, as a result of the lower weight of the immature grains. (b) The inability to make bread or "burgul" (the main staples of

Levantine diet) due to the high sugar content in the seeds. During the last stages of maturation, the sugars in the seed change their chemical nature to starch. This starch, together with gluten, is essential for giving dough its consistency.

(c) It is impossible to use unripe seeds for sowing.

120 xii) Seed Roasting: The Sumerian term Se sa-a , meaning roast grain/barley (Powell 1984), is common in the Ur III period. A more specific, though less common term, Gig sa-a, means roast wheat. In W.L. text 123, the Hurrian word Qayatum is used to describe a preparation made from roast barley. There is also a reference from the site of Karana that mentions palace payments of Qayatum to its labourers (Dailey 1984). The Akkadian term Qalu means to roast. It is applied to wheat and barley and other seed types such as cumin, cress, mustard, etc. (CAD Vol. Q). The term Qalu can also be used in the context of a roasting pan (CAD Vol. Q p.72). There is plenty of textual evidence for seed roasting from as early as the late third millennium B.C., and this persists into the Neo Assyrian period. In fact it would seem that roast barley was a dietary staple in the same way that rice or potatoes are today, since this food is mentioned not only in the context of rations to the workers, but also as food at a royal banquet. Roast barley was often crushed into groats. The Akkadian term hisletum refers to a course type of flour known as crushings or (groats), which is very common in the Ur III period (Postgate 1984). It is quite likely that roast barley groats were a staple in the same way that "burgul" is today in the Near East and it is probable that the "burgul" process evolved directly from it.

a) Textual references to roast grain: On the stele of Assurnasirpal II: line 128: 100 SE. es-si qa-lu-te line 129: 100 SE. su-qa-lu-te

Translates as; 100 (baskets) of fresh roast barley and 100 (baskets) of roast Su for the royal banquet (Wiseman 1952). Su is

121 a form of wild plant which occurs in Nuzi references alongside vetch plant lists (CAD Vol. A. p.66). There are also references to the roasting of other types of seeds. For further details see CAD Vol. Q. p.171). Qalu : a pan for roasting grain (CAD Vol. Q. p.72).

O.T. Ruth 2:14; "And she sat beside the reapers: and he reached her roasted grain, and she did eat and was sufficed and left."

I Samuel 17:17; "....Take now for thy brethren an ephah (measure) of this roast grain and these ten loaves, and run to the camp....

I Samuel 25:18; "Then Abigail made haste and took .....five measures of roasted grain and laid them on asses."

II Samuel 17:18 and 27:28; "...Barzilai the Gileadite of Roqelin brought...wheat and barley and flour and roast grain and beans and lentils and

roast pulses."

The Hebrew word for to roast is "Qali", which is derived the the Akkadian word Qalu (to roast) (Geller 1989, pers. comm.).

xiii) Buraul:

There is no direct evidence for boiling grain before the Middle Ages. That is not to say however that the process of burgul making was unknown, because boiling is simply one of several methods by

122 which burgul can be produced. There are two main reasons for boiling grain in the burgul process; these are (a) to increase its storage life, and (b) to eliminate the need for further cooking if so desired. Grinding the grain to groats on the other hand simply improves its palatability. As previously mentioned however, seed roasting achieves precisely these very same aims, the only difference being that instead of boiling the grain it is roasted. The final outcome is the same; instantly edible seeds. Although roasting no longer plays a primary role in the Near Eastern diet today, it did have an important place in the late third and second millenniums B.C. and also in later periods. One possible explanation for the shift from seed roasting to boiling may be that roasting is more labour intensive. The amount of grain that can be roasted is restricted by the size of the pan since there are obvious limits to how large a pan can be before it becomes too heavy and cumbersome to manage. A pan that is too large would only decrease the efficiency of the roasting process and increase the amount of labour required. Although boiling pots or vats are affected by the same rule, even a moderately sized burgul boiling vat of the sort seen in most Near East villages, is still capable of holding substantially larger amounts of grain than the largest roasting pan. Furthermore, grain boiling simply requires that the grain be placed in the vat and stirred occasionally for several hours. To roast the same volume of grain however would require continuous attention, as the process is more delicate, and constant refilling would be needed due to the smaller size of the pan in comparison to the vat.

123 xiv) Storage: a) Textual Evidence. O.A.I. tablets 33 col. i, 22 line 6, 44 lines 1, 9, 14.; references to seed barley S.E.numun. Tablet 47 line 2; reference to emmer flour.

W.E. tablet S7. (Umma). " 1 Kur 150 sila barley (measured in) royal kur, a sa'-du offering for Sara, from the month Ur to the month Pa-u'-e, being two months, from the su-tum -storehouse He'-ma-zi-zi has received from Ur-Li-sin, date." I 34 (Umma). " 57 sila barley for sowing for/of Lu-Utu, 60 sila barley for/of Ur-Sin, from Ur-mes the barley seed, from ld-pa-e' the barley (to feed the) oxen. ..." This text is a seed and fodder text. The barley feed for the oxen, se HAR-gu , is probably chaff. J.8 (Umma). "... barley for seed to be returned to the granary (and) chaff (?), M. has received from A." 24* (Umma). "1 k u r barley allowance ( se-kur-ra ) (of) Lugal-ku-ga-ni, 1 kur barley allowance] (of) Lu-dingir-ra[a], from the storehouse of A-pi-sal, ..." C.8 (Umma), C.1 (Umma) and BIN V (Umma). refer to bran as food for sheep and humans. Bran comes in several grades: white, black, fine a nd ordinary. BIN V refers to ordinary bran as food for workmen, whilst C.1 mentions bran bread. F.12 (uncertain origin). The text refers to barley filled into earthen pots, utul.

S.A.T. text 74, 220, AS: "12 male workers for 1 day from the threshing floor of the Baddu field loaded barley in the boat (and towed and carried it) into the granary of Apisal. 8 male workers for 1 day at the threshing place of the field of E-girgilu th re w (winnowed) the barley (and) carried the barley. Foreman:

124 Lugal-ezen. Sealed by Gududu. The year when the high priestess of Eridu was installed." Text 76, 446, SS: ”12 male workers for 7 days from the threshing place of the Ninurra-Annegar(as) field to the granary of Apisal loaded barley in the boat (and) unloaded the boat for the second time. Foreman: Lu-Sara. Sealed by Lugal-hegal. The year when

Su-Sin became the king." Text 89, 587, AS: "5 male workers for 3 days loaded the barley in the boat; for 15 days, towed the boat (upstream), (and) sailed the boat (downstream); for 2 days unloaded the boat; for 2 days stored the barley; for 1 day (when) south wind had risen (?); from the

border to Edana; wages (were paid) from Kasahara. Foreman; Lu-girizal. The year when the high priestess of the great festival hall of the goddess Inanna was installed." Text 110, 555, AS: "20 female workers for 3 days filled (the sacks or baskets) with barley in the granary of Apisal and hauled (it) into the granary. From Ses-sig. Receipted by Egalesi, via Ur-Lama, the messenger of the king. The month of the divider. The year when the high priestess of the great hall of the goddess Inanna was installed."

E.B.L. Text 103, 110, 8, 94 and 13. references to grain and seed orders from granaries. Example "...There is seed and grain ... Take it out from the granary ..."

W.L. Text 40: "To Nur-Sin, my lord, speak. ... give 2 barrels of barley to Warad-kubi ... he will return (it) to its granary ...." Text 63: " ... Your oxen [are hungry], they have not been touched and A[la] has not given me money for fodder. ... [Then] I went to get straw.... "

Texts 67 and 93: refer to a person called llum -naser , who was in

125 charge of a granary, and in receipt of wages and food for workers and .

O.B.T.R. Text 180 M 188 homers, 1 NIGIDA, 3 seah of barley according to the measure for sibsum -taxes. Outgoing from the grain store in several deliveries. ..." Text 303: " To Aham-arsi say, thus the governor: hand over the rations, seed corn and fodder for X days. Return the barley which you took in exchange and come yourself tomorrow." The text refers to the man in charge of the granary.

E.R.C. Texts YOS 13 33 (A-d 33), 13 289 (A-d 34) and 13 42 (S-d 13) deal with the repayments of grain loans to the granary.

R.F. Columella, Varro and Pliny all discuss storage at great length. They mainly stress the need for dry, low temperature conditions, and security from vermin.

T.T. p. 76. refers to barns and protection from damp and browsing anim als.

The main purpose of providing a sample list of textual information on storage is to demonstrate the wide variety of crop products and by-products that would have been stored. These include barley, wheat, barley seed, chaff, roast barley and wheat, various grades of bran, groats and different types of flour.

b) Archaeological Remains and Representations: Many sites in Mesopotamia and Syria have produced architectural features that have been interpreted as storage rooms of some description. Few of these sites however have been able to provide

126 detailed information on the nature of the materials stored. Most commonly, rooms or features are identified as grain stores on the basis of the presence of charred grain and/or grain storage jars, bins, or similar features. Rarely, however, is any attempt made to identify the precise nature of the grain stored, apart from a general determination of whether it is wheat or barley. In recent years more effort has been put into the examination of charred plant remains, thanks to advances in the field of interpretive methodologies in archaeobotany.

Nevertheless, the question concerning the purpose, i.e. the functional destination, of the crop product and/or by-product being kept in storage remains unanswered. The following list of sites which have produced grain storage structures of one type or another is by no means comprehensive. It is hoped however that it will at the very least demonstrate the paucity of information available on this topic.

1. Svria:

Tell Brak: The palace of Naram Sin . 2300 B.C. The magazine rooms 10, 13 and 16 yielded large quantities of barley (H. vulaare and H. distichumT The Sargonid houses on areas CH and EH also produced barley. CH, a kitchen in a private house, contained a mudbrick bench two metres wide, and a rectangular mudbrick bin of which the contents is unknown.

The Hurrian house areas, dated to 1350 B.C, yielded barley. FS level dated to UR III; room 3 in this level, which was part of the large private house, contained a number of grain silos (Mallowan 1947).

127 Ebla: Mardikh II B1. 2400-2250 B.C. Room L.2834 in palace G had large jars of corn set in a fitted brick bench (Matthiae 1977).

Alalakh (Tell Atchanal. Level IV palace: Room 35, (a store room), contained great terracotta storages jars found in situ. Room C5 contained a hearth, a very large storage jar, and a round terracotta oven. Room C6 contained, in situ, a large storage jar containing a cylinder seal. No reference has been made to the to the contents of any of these jars, or to their function. Level IV private houses: House 37 was a complex of domestic rooms; rooms 4, 5 and 6 had fragments of pottery belonging to large storage jars. The contents and function of these store jars are unknown. Level I. house 37A. Storage jars were found in rooms 2, 6 and 11, but again, no reference is made to either contents or function. (Woolley 1955).

Nuzi. the Palace:

The north western part of the palace has been identified as an area of courtyards and store rooms. One group of rooms around a paved courtyard L 101, included a cellar with thirty seven large jars and

smaller vessels. The contents of the jars are unknown (Pfeiffer 1935).

Mari. Palace of Zimri-Lim (second millennium B.C.1:

Rooms 165 - 167; large jars were found in the structure apparently labelled as a kitchen. Large jars and a heap of bitumen obstructed the door of room 152. Margueron reinterprets rooms 24 and 25, and the room block south of 131, as magazines. Some of the stores and

128 cellars had large storage jars found in situ. The contents of the jars are unknown. (Gates 1984).

2. Mesopotamia:

Telul Eth Thalathat (Ninevite 5): The granary is a rectangular building with outer buttresses. It contains 10 rooms divided by a central wall, crossing from east to west. There were no traces of doorways into the rooms, but sleeper walls for ventilation were found underneath. There is no reference to the contents of the granary. (Fukai, Horiuchei and Matsutan 1974).

Fara: Thirty two silos were found at Tell Fara dating to the EDIIIa period, eleven of which were excavated. The silos are of cylindrical construction built out of baked plano-convex brick in a herringbone pattern. From their contents, these silos have been interpreted as grain storage silos. They would have been able to hold a maximum of one hundred and twenty five cubic metres (4 metres in diameter

and 10 meters deep). Textual evidence from the site refers to large quantities of rations being distributed from the silos; this might conveniently explain why such a large number of silos were needed (Martin 1986).

Tepe Gawra II: Stratum XIA. Room G of the Round House is interpreted as the citadel granary because carbonised kernels of grain were found on the walls. (Speiser and Tobler 1950).

129 Khafaieh. the Oval Temple. House "D" is interpreted as a private residence, probably occupied by a high priest of the temple. Room L 43:2 may have served as store room for food and drink. Room K 43:5 was the only room that produced charred plant remains (barley and lentils). The suggested interpretation however is that it was an office or an archive, because it lies directly behind the main reception room. The room contents included one bowl, one unnamed implement and a model wheel. No objects were found in room L 43:2 (Delougaz 1940).

Tell Asmar. private houses. ED III: Room J 19:64, served as a store room/kitchen. This is indicated by the presence of large jars, thick-walled ribbed pots, and querns (stratum V b). Room J 19:11, contained two bread ovens and a quadrantal bin/kitchen (stratum IV a). Room J 19:7, contained a corner bin and three stall-like compartments. It has been suggested that these compartments were used either as a stable or a sheep pen (stratum III). Tell Asmar Northern Palace. EDIII:

The south east corner of room E 16:16 contained a large storage jar buried to its neck; beside it was a number of rubbing stones. The central court F 17:6 contained a large hearth and a very large vat or bin with many rubbing stones and pieces of broken pottery associated with it. Room F 17:5 contained rubbing stones, mortars and pestles, and a sunken storage jar. Rooms E 16:11-12, contained kilns and storage jars. None of the jar contents are known. (Delougaz, Hill and Lloyd 1967).

130 Ur. First Dvnastv (EDIIH: The subsidiary building in the North corner on the ziggurat terrace has been interpreted as a kitchen with three large store rooms at the back of the building proper. This structure later became a specialist shrine to the moon god Nanna. Ur. Third Dvnastv 2150 BC:

The great storehouse E-Nun-Mah, built by Ur-Nammu contained scores of magazines used to store offerings made to Nanna and the dues paid to him. Information concerning what was stored in the magazines comes primarily from the tablets; very little of what we know stems from the room contents themselves. Data on the goods stored includes grain, livestock, and dairy products. Texts also refer to outgoings of rations to workers and state officials, priests, and other personnel.

(Woolley and Moorey 1982), (Woolley 1974), (Woolley 1923, 1926, 1934).

3. Anatolia:

Hacilar: ll-l 5400-5250 B.C.

Room G is identified as a granary (Macqueen 1986).

Trov Vila:

Immediately inside the South gate there was a structure which can be described as a house. The kitchen had a sink, baking ovens, and storage rooms containing wheat (Macqueen 1986).

Bevcesultan. Late Bronze Aae:

At Beycesultan there is fine example of a grain shop or food store. This was a rectangular room 5 metres by 4 metres. Standing along

131 the walls on either side were large storage jars, some almost 1.5 metres in height, about half full of lentils or barley. In one corner of the room a small stair led up to a gallery which ran round the room and gave access to the jars from above. There was also a grain bin made of mud brick in one corner (Macqueen 1986).

4. Palestine:

Khirbet Kerak. EBIll:

The complex consists of a quadrangle with emplacements for nine round silos (each 10 metres in diameter). Its proposed function is a granary or sanctuary (Wright 1985).

Jericho. Middle Bronze Age:

At Jericho, storerooms containing storage jars have been found; it is assumed that they held grain (Wright 1985).

Sharuhen. Late Bronze Age: The Egyptian "residence" has a storage wing and a number of later storage pits or silos (Wright 1985).

Tell Mor. Late Bronze Age:

The site was a fortified warehouse with galleries containing pithoi (presumed to be for grain) (Wright 1985).

Beth Shan. Late Bronze Age:

Here there is a subterranean storage silo 4 metres in diameter and 3.5 metres in depth. The silo has mudbrick walls and floor (Wright 1985).

132 Meaiddo.

A large storage pit measuring 7 metres in diameter was preserved to a depth of 7 metres (pit 1414). The pit/grain silo was stone lined, with two sets of stairs leading to the bottom (Wright 1985).

The majority of textual sources mentioned throughout this section merely refer to particular processes but do not actually describe them. All that can be positively deduced from these texts is that certain processes were carried out; texts do not tend to elucidate the manner. As mentioned previously however, the range of methods which can be used to process a crop without the use of modern machinery is relatively constant and limited, and for this reason it is possible to obtain adequate details of these processes from the ethnographic record in most cases. It is therefore sufficient to know from a text simply that a particular process was employed, perhaps with some details of the tools involved; a combination of this information and ethnographic data will enable a reconstruction of the process as a whole with reasonable accuracy. In short, the main aim of this list of sources is to show that certain processes were carried out, and not necessarily to show the methodology, although such information is always welcome.

4.7 Conclusion.

The aims of this section were to outline the details crop processing activities based on ethnographic sources, and then to demonstrate their antiquity from archaeological sources. Demonstrating their antiquity involves tracing their continuity through prehistoric and historical periods using sources ranging from the fourth millennium B.C. up to the nineteenth century A.D.

The evidence suggests that the processes and the

133 techniques involved in crop processing have changed little during the past six millennia, until the arrival of modern machinery in this century. Clearly therefore, traditional crop processing activities still observable in the present day (in areas where traditional technology has survived) are of indisputable relevance to archaeologists who are seeking to reconstruct past patterns of subsistance activity, especially in farming ('primary produce') settlements, and who, by excavating, are seeking to identify the past functions of excavated structures directly or indirectly involved with grain processing and/or storage of grain products.

134 (

Table 2

REPRESENTAT TEXTUAL ARTEFACTUAL PROCESS IONAL TILLING XX X

SOWING X - X

HARROWING X --

IRRIGATION XXX

WEEDING XXX

HARVESTING X XX

TRANSPORT OF X - X HARVEST

THRESHING X X X

WINNOWING X X X

SIEVING X X X

FRIKKEH X - -

GRAIN ROASTING X - -

BURGUL - - -

STORAGE X X X

135 Figure 33: Split blades from Tell Sifir in (Moorey 1971).

136 SECTION 2: ASSEMBLY OF THE MODERN PLANT

SAMPLES.

Chapter 5: Sampling and Analytical Procedures.

5.1 Introduction. The purpose of this section is to erect a model using the relationship between the composition of crop products and byproducts, observed processing activities, and settlement contexts in modern traditional villages (as defined earlier). This will be achieved by first outlining the methodology applied to collecting, processing and classifying these samples. Then discriminant analysis will be employed to establish the criteria for distinguishing between the various products and byproducts within these samples. Once the model has been constructed, its archaeological applications will be examined, with special attention paid to the identification of storage contexts and the nature of their contents.

5.2 The Relationship Between Composition Classes. Observed

Activities and Settlement Contexts. The existing theory behind the use and application of ethnographic studies of crop products to archaeology was established by Hillman in 1973. To quote Hillman (1984, p. 1): "About thirty distinct operations are involved in growing a crop and converting it to food for human consumption. Recently, ethnographic studies of archaic agrarian systems surviving in the present day indicate that each of these operations has a measurable effect on the composition of these major crop products and by-products. The composition of

137 these crop products thus embodies information on the way the crop was managed in the field and processed back in the settlement." Hillman was able to establish his rationale by recording details of: a) The contexts or processing areas in which these activities occur. b) The various processing stages coupled with large scale sampling of their products and byproducts. c) The compositions of these samples, noting, for example, the ratios of different weed species and chaff present at each stage. The variation in composition occurs because each stage is responsible for the elimination of certain contaminants until the grain is clean enough to be prepared for human consumption. Thus each processing stage produces a product and a byproduct or byproducts, which will be dominated by one or several components. The various byproduct components form a composition which will be unique to that product and will set it apart from other products and byproducts. Hillman was able to demonstrate this rationale on the basis of his studies at Asvan and other villages in north, east, and south-eastern Anatolia (Hillman 1973, 1981). The relationship between crop product composition, the village context, and the observed activity, may be clearly seen in present day situations. On archaeological sites however, this relationship will rarely be easily discernible. (See fig. 34). If however the crop processing stage can be established via a consideration of the composition of the archaeological sample,

then it might be possible to identify the function of the context, and the nature of the activities with which it was associated. Both Hillman and Jones (Hillman 1981, 1984, 1984b, and 1985) (Jones 1984), in their studies on charred remains, have been able to show that ancient crop remains tend to exhibit patterns very similar to those that are seen in present day traditionally processed crop

138 products and byproducts. The argument for the similarity between contemporary crop processes and ancient ones has been outlined above.

5.3 Sampling Procedures.

Three regions were chosen for the the purposes of this project: the Hauran plain, the Alawite mountains, and the north Khabur. Six villages were visited in each area (see Background and General Information), with the aim of collecting plant samples of present day crop products and byproducts. In order to ensure that the range of samples available was broad enough to provide credible statistical analysis, random samples of the products and byproducts of threshing, winnowing and sieving were taken from up to six different wheat harvests in every village visited. The exception is "frikkeh", which was only collected from villages in the Hauran plain.

The size of all the samples was uniformly restricted to a weight of five kilos, with the exception of threshing and chaff, for which a five litre measure was used instead, due to the bulk involved. The weighing was carried out in the field using a local set of grain scales, whilst the volume measurements were taken in an old ten litre oil tin. Although these methods may appear to be crude, they have provided us with a fairly uniform set of random samples.

In some villages it was necessary to purchase a certain amount of crop still standing in the field, which would then be processed solely for the purposes of this project. In general however, it was possible to acquire the samples at no cost with the exception of seed grain and "burgul", where a nominal fee might be expected.

Furthermore, in the Missyaf region, a number of problems

139 were encountered whilst taking these samples. These were mainly associated with the fact that, due to the socioeconomic problems which plague the area as a whole, an ever decreasing number of people are cultivating wheat. This meant that the number of different wheat crop harvests which were available for sampling was severely restricted; for example, in some villages only 3-4 families out of 20 or more grew wheat that year. The Hassakeh region presented different problems; here, due to intensive modern farming, it was very difficult to find farming communities still using traditional farming methods and relying solely on rain fed agriculture; many of these communities now use irrigation and chemical fertilizers. Certain areas in Syria have also been subjected to aerial spraying of pesticides; these too had to be carefully avoided. All these factors have to be taken into consideration when collecting samples, since all will have marked effects on the crop composition. It is important when collecting samples to ensure that not only have the crops been processed in a traditional manner, but that the fields have been tilled using ard ploughs instead of , and that chemical fertilizers and pesticides have not been employed at any stage.

5.4 Analytical Methods. The initial sub-sampling was carried out in Damascus. This was done by sub-dividing each of the fractions randomly into quarters using a riffle box. Such a means of random sub-sampling has been shown experimentally to be reliable by van der Veen (1982). Only one sub-sample from each fraction was brought over to , due to the limitations on weight and space, and to the limited amount of time available for working on the samples. These sub-samples were then further sub-sampled in the laboratory using

140 a riffle box, and fumigated to prevent the spread of any weevil infestation.

The subsamples were sieved using 4mm, 2mm,1mm, 500mu and 250mu Gallenkamp laboratory sieves in order to aid the sorting

procedures. They were then sorted using a Wild M5 microscope (6x10 and 12x10 magnification) into the various classes of compositions found within that sample. Each subsamples was then

sorted to the point of diminishing returns (i.e. when no new species were recorded).

The different seed types were identified primarily by comparison with the Near East seed collection compiled by Hillman and housed in the Department of Human Environment at the Institute of Archaeology. As weeds of crops, most of the seed types proved to be identifiable without any great difficulty. 5.5 Choice of Processes to Sample: Repeated visits to the same regions over four years, coupled with good local contacts, have made it possible to gather samples of products and byproducts from every processing stage. It was decided that for the purposes of this project, only storable products and byproducts would be examined. The reason behind this decision lies in the fact that it is only from this stage onwards that crop products are likely to be exposed to fire, and thus to have a chance of preservation by charring (see Hillman 1981 for d e ta ils).

Charring may occur whilst the grain is in storage within structures that happen to burn down (whether intentionally, for example as a result of aggression, or accidentally), or as part of the processing that follows storage, in which case both product

and byproduct may end up in the fire. These include final hand cleanings/fine sieving, and cooking.

The exceptions to this rule are crop processing activities

141 which involve intentional exposure to fire as part of the activity prior to storage and possible further processing. These activities include grain roasting, and the production of "frikkeh". The following product and byproduct samples were used: a) Winnowing byproduct for fodder and other uses: the chaff, chob,

etc of wheat, barley and other crops are all mixed and stored together. It is worth noting that it is very common for coarse sieve

byproducts to be mixed in with the winnowing byproduct. b) Coarse sieving byproducts. Although I have not encountered this byproduct stored separately, this may have occurred in antiquity. (Jones 1981 refers to separate storage in modern Greece). c) Fine sieving byproduct. This is generally stored separately as fowl fodder, or as an extra source of human food in times of hardship. Byproducts from further fine sieving immediately before cooking may be discarded on a fire or simply scattered about the courtyard if fowl happen to be around. If no fowl are kept by the community, it is possible that the material may be mixed in with the winnowing byproduct for fodder, or simply thrown onto a fire. d) Coarse sieving product: grain (wheat or barley) is occasionally stored in this condition, especially if it was designated for further transport or piecemeal fine sieving, or perhaps intended for animal fodder.

e) Fine sieving product: barley for human consumption. f) Fine sieving product: wheat for human consumption. q) Buraul (boiled wheat, is generally stored in bulk and ground into groats piecemeal. It is not uncommon, where large communal mills are available, for large scale grinding of groats to occur. Hillman (1984) refers to the separate storage of the bran. h) "Frikkeh”: can be stored in the form of seed or groats (the same

as burgul). The byproducts of "frikkeh" are always discarded. i) Roast barlev: the roast seeds can either be eaten immediately as

142 a snack, or stored in bulk. This activity produces no byproduct apart from the occasional few seeds which might get overcooked (i.e. burned); these will end up back in the fire or on the ground.

It should be noted that: i) Grain-dunking byproduct is not listed above because it is always mixed with category "a", and is therefore unlikely ever to be preserved on its own. ii) Medium sieving is not listed above because both product and byproduct undergo immediate further processing. They are thus unlikely to be exposed to fire. iii) It is quite plausible to assume that in antiquity (and indeed even up to recent times), where the grain was intended as rations for the poor or in periods of hardship, the fine sieving byproduct would be mixed in with it. The grain therefore might be fairly free of chaff and chob, but not of certain weed seeds and tail grains. iv) "Frikkeh" production involves intentional exposure to fire as part of its processing, and therefore is likely to produce charred plant remains from all its processing over and above storage.

5.6 Discussion: Although the axiom that every activity produces a characteristic assemblage unique to itself is true, the final interpretation of these assemblages can be complicated by human unpredictability. This unpredictability can produce variables which are likely to affect the crop product composition; for example the mixing of different byproducts. It is hoped that the above discussion has gone some way towards highlighting these problems. This matter will be examined in greater detail in subsequent sections.

143 sample relationship B structural context composition from which sample (known) was excavated

relationship A relationship C (uncertain^ _ * (uncertain) \ \ s activities represented

sample (B) ? no identifiable composition structures at sample site

relationship A (C)? (uncertain) \ \ v activities represented

Two sets of relationships encountered on archaeological (from Hillman 1973)

village crop product relationship B composition context (observed)

relationship A relationship C (observed) (observed)

observed activities

The same relationships on present-day settlements: all are observable and measurable.

Figure 34: Relationships between crop product composition, contexts and activities (Hillman 1981 p.128). Chapter 6: Identification and Interpretation of Crop

Compositions.

6.1 Introduction. Variations in composition occurs because each crop processing stage is responsible for the elimination of specific contaminants. Hillman and Jones have attempted to classify these contaminants into categories, and to quantify their occurrence at important stages as a means of distinguishing between them. Results based on their research have shown that weed seeds are a very important contaminant, as different products and their byproducts contain different proportions of certain weed species. Both Hillman and Jones found that certain characteristics relevant to crop processing are found in weed seeds. These characteristics were responsible to a great extent for the presence or absence of these seeds in a given composition class.

6.2 Characteristics used for Identification. The three main characteristics applied by Hillman and Jones are as fo llo w s : i) Winnowabilitv or aerodynamic quality: Hillman states that "For any given wind strength, the probability that a seed can be winnowed out of the prime products seems to depend primarily on the ratio of its surface area to its weight (m m 2 .g "1)" (Hillman 1984 p. 24). A decrease in size leads to an increase in the ratio, resulting in an increased elimination of small seeds by winnowing. Seeds with winged appendages or hairs are also more easily winnowed and are therefore more likely to be common in winnowing byproducts (Hillman 1984; Jones 1984).

Examples cited by Hillman include Linaria vulgaris. Rhianthus serotinus. Artedia sauamata. Allenia autrani and several species of

145 Scabiosa. iil Sievabilitv or seed size: Both Hillman and Jones agree that seed size is important not only for winnowing but also for sieving. Small weed seeds pass through the mesh while large weed seeds are retained. Using modern samples, Jones has classified weeds seeds relative to the size of the fine sieve mesh (Jones 1984). Hillman classifies modern seeds according to the crop product in which they are found, and subsequently according to the range of sieves used (coarse, medium and fine). However, since with very few exceptions sieves do not survive on archaeological sites, Hillman (1984) classifies archaeological weed seeds according to whether they are larger than the largest spikelets, smaller than the bulk of spikelets, or smaller than the bulk of prime grain. It should be noted that Hillman's reference to spikelets is due to the fact that the modern crops which he has studied include the glume wheat varieties such as emmer (Triticum dicoccuml. as well as free threshing wheats and pulses; Jones however examined only the free threshing wheats and pulses, and for this reason had no cause to refer to spikelets. The use of prime grain or spikelet size is justified because it is most likely that sieve mesh sizes would be adapted to the size of the grain or spikes under cultivation in the communities concerned. Furthermore, using grain or spikelet dimensions observed in archaeological remains automatically takes account of any regional or other variations that may arise from anomalies in grain size (for example, the very small grains recovered at Gordion in Turkey: Nesbitt, in prep.). It would also allow for crops whose seeds are radically smaller or larger than wheat and barley grains, such as millet or broad beans.

146 in) Headedness: This refers to whether seeds are freely dispersed upon maturity or remain in heads (capitulae, or capsules, or clusters of nutlets). Many headed seeds are freed when undergoing processing (threshing or pounding), and are subject to characteristics i) and ii). Some however, especially immature ones, fail to break up, and this inevitably has an effect on the composition. If the heads remain attached to the "straw" of the parent plant then they are mostly eliminated by winnowing, and the heads (or their seeds) will be found in the winnowing byproduct. If, however, the heads containing the seeds become detached from the parent plant during threshing, then they are mostly eliminated by coarse sieving (Hillman 1984; Jones 1984). Heads of the same size as the spikelets (or grain) being coarse sieved will then remain with the

prime product concerned, and the seeds will be released when, for example, the spikelets are broken up by pounding. However, the seeds thus released are often recognisable as having arrived by this route from their very state of immaturity (Hillman 1981, 1984).

These three characteristics however do not act independently of each other. In order to take account of all three of them simultaneously, Jones grouped her weed seeds into the following categories: BHH = big, heavy headed. BFH = big, free, heavy. SHH = small, headed, heavy. SHL = small, headed, light. SFH = small, free, heavy. SFL = small, free, light. (Jones 1984).

In order to retain the advantages inherent in using a

147 classification system relatively free from complexity, this system takes no account of whether or not the seeds remain attached to the parent plant (whether in heads or nutlets), and hence get winnowed out with the weed straw. The Hillman system is significantly different since it takes account of factors such as these, by classifying the seeds according to the crop product(s) in which they most commonly occur. However, this in turn imposes its own limitations, namely that the seeds must be classified by reference to an ethnographic model at the start of any analysis of composition, and this itself involves making certain assumptions.

Most importantly, it assumes that patterns of association of specific components with named crop-products in the present day also existed in the past (i.e. that crop product composition has remained largely unchanged through time). This assumption has so far been vindicated by studies of archaeological assemblages by both Hillman and Jones. Nevertheless, such assumptions need to be clearly stated at the start of any analysis. The Hillman system also involves a marginal limitation in assigning each seed or chaff type to a particular crop product; any type which in modern crop products has been found to occur equally frequently in two or more products, must be eliminated from the analysis. On the other hand, fewer taxa generally have to be eliminated in this way than in the system developed by Jones, which requires the elimination of all taxa present in less than 10% of the samples (Jones 1984, 1983). Indeed for sites such as Cefn Graeanog (Hillman 1984), such a system of elimination would result in the loss of the majority of the data, and analysis would be impossible (Hillman pers. comm.).

Clearly then, both systems involve advantages and disadvantages. To the statistician, the theoretical basis of the Jones system is highly preferable. However, it is less useful for

148 small assemblages, or for use with a small collection of samples, and cannot be used on sites where a significant proportion of the seed or chaff taxa are present in less than 10% of the samples. For the purposes of this study, it was finally decided to classify the weed seeds collected from Syria according to the three main characteristics codified according to Jones' (1983, 1984) system, and then to group them into new categories established on the basis of elements derived from both the Jones system and the Hillman system, albeit with a number of novel features.

The following classification procedure was used: 1. Size:

This is the characteristic which can be most accurately determined, since it is possible to take direct measurements of seeds (Jones 1983). Jones took breadth measurements of weed seeds and scored them on a scale of 1-5 (1 being smallest). Although such a method appears to have so far been successful for Jones, these categories bear little relationship to the different crop products in which the weed seeds occur, and make no allowance for the fact that the same weed type can occur in entirely different product types if the grain of the host crop is of a quite different size (as with millet and barley). For these reasons, an alternative method representing a practical streamlining of the Hillman system is to be proposed here. Weed seeds are measured and grouped into three categories: i) Seeds smaller than prime grain. These may be equal to or smaller than tail grain,

ii) Seeds equal to prime prime grain, iii) Seeds larger than prime grain.

Hence group i) would represent all small seeds under Jones'

149 classification system, whilst n) and m) would represent the large ones. Where glume wheats are concerned, it would be appropriate to add a further two categories as follows: iv) Seeds or heads smaller than emmer spikes but larger than prime grain.

v) Heads larger than spikes.

The advantage of this system is that size is directly related to prime grain and therefore to processing activities, rather than simply relating to an arbitrary scale of 1-5. It should be noted, however, that sieve size measurements taken from locally manufactured sieves were used to establish the size of both prime and tail grain, rather than taking direct measurements of grain. These measurements however will still relate directly to the dimensions of prime grain because as mentioned previously, the mesh size of both coarse and fine sieves is based on prime grain size. Hillman applied the same technique to his modern samples from Asvan and other villages in East Anatolia (Hillman pers. comm.). However, when interpreting the composition of ancient weed-crop mixtures, the original sieve mesh sizes are clearly not available, and it is necessary to estimate the original mesh diameters from the frequency-distribution of prime grain sizes (as proposed by Hillman 1984), or alternatively to simply classify ancient seeds relative to the lower end of the range of ancient prime grain diameters direct (as in Hillman 1981).

2. ^A erodynam ^css” and "Headedness".

These are more subjective characteristics than size. Aerodynamicness relies on the presence or absence of features

such as wings and hairs, and on density and shape, whilst headedness provides an assessment of the likelihood of seeds to

150 remain in their heads after threshing (Jones 1984, Hillman 1984). Jones (1984) used a scale of 1-5 to assess these two characteristics, so for aerodynamicness, a score of 1 is very light, and 5 very heavy. For "headedness", a score of 1 is very unlikely to remain in a head, whilst 5 is very likely to (for further details see

Jones 1984). By contrast, Hillman (1984) argues that classification by these two characteristics cannot be applied independently, as their effect in deciding which product a seed becomes associated with is dependent on a combination of other factors such as head size. He therefore integrates "wingedness" with seed or fruit size, and "headedness" with head size in two of his product related classifications. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study, the Jones system was adopted, since this system is relatively straightforward and proved most effective for Jones in her studies (1983, 1984). The only problem however is that "aerodynamicness" of both seeds and heads is often determined by their ability to stay attached to the weed "straw" during threshing, and thus get winnowed out with the straw. This is often the case with the capsules (plus all their unreleased seeds) of many species of Silene. the immature capitulae of many genera of Dipsacaceae (eg. Cephalarial and Compositae (eg. Sejratula), the naked (ie. unheaded) nutlets of Polygonum aviculare. and many genera of Boraginaceae, such as Anchusa and Bualossoides (Hillman pers. comm.). The effect

of these aerodynamic tendencies of superficially un-aerodynamic

structures is to require that, in interpreting the composition of ancient remains, we allow for the possibility that many seeds were not separated from the prime products during sieving, but during the first winnowing. This duality of sources of such seeds

however will rarely be apparent in archaeological assemblages preserved by charring, as winnowings rarely survive as separately

151 recognisable entities. In the attempt to classify the weed seeds according to the categories and three letter codification discussed above, it became apparent that this system would not embrace all seed and product categories discovered within the samples collected. The impediment arises from the fact that most weed seeds, whatever their attributes, will winnow out if the seed remains attached to the straw. This applies even to seeds in the BFH category. The over simplified assumption therefore that winnowing byproducts will be dominated entirely by SFL and SHL is misconceived. Furthermore, the category BFH is inadequate because it does not differentiate between the larger end of the size range, which would normally be eliminated by coarse sieving, (for example large umbelliferae seeds), as opposed to those similar to, or slightly larger than, prime grain, which will probably need to be eliminated by hand sorting. Despite these shortcomings, it was decided to attempt to apply the classification system outlined above. Any attempts at modification of the system to cover the issues raised above would produce the requirement that every weed species is assigned a range of different categories. Such an action would have made the system clumsy and unworkable. Instead, attention was focused on the positive or negative effects of ignoring these issues.

On the basis of the observations of Hillman, Jones and myself, as presented in the above arguments, it was possible to predict with reasonable accuracy the effects of the processing sequence (which generated the study samples) on the composition of products defined in the forms of the six weed seed categories on the processing stages. The predicted patterns of composition of five major products and byproducts are as follows:

152 Abbreviations: Major contaminant- Mac. Minor contaminant- Mic.

(a) Winnowing byproduct: Mac = SFL, SHL, SFH. Mic = SHH, BFH. (b) Coarse sieve byproduct: Mac = BHH, SHH, SHL. Mic = BFH, SFH. (c) Fine sieve byproduct: Mac = SFH Mic = BFH (d) Coarse sieve product: Mac = BFH, SFH. Mac = SHH. (e) Fine sieve product: Mac = BFH. Mic = SFH.

6.3 Further Points. i) The above discussion applies to both free threshing wheat and barley. Although it may be argued that the slight difference in grain size between wheat and barley may have an effect on the weed seed categories, the fact that the majority of agricultural communities use the same sieves for both crops, especially for fine sieving, negates this effect. It is therefore justified to use the same categories for the weeds of both wheat and barley. This categorisation however cannot be extended to all the products of glume wheats.

ii) The presence of headed seeds in category (a) is due to the problems with headedness and aerodynamics discussed above. iii) It is very likely that byproducts (a) and (b) will be mixed together in storage, although small quantities of (b) might become

mixed with (a) as a result of "sweepings" of spilt sievings from courtyards being thrown onto domestic fires for which winnowings had provided the tinder. iv) The effects of "frikkeh" processing on the categories is discussed separately. v) It is assumed that processing activities such as grain roasting and parboiling for "burgul" production have been included under

group (e) (fine sieve product), since the products do not undergo any further major changes with respect to their overall

153 composition.

6.4 Simplified Processing Sequence: showing association of weed seed categories with maior products and bv-products:

N.B. This list applies to free threshing cereals and major contaminants only.

Byproduct ------Winnowing SFL, SHL, SFH.

Product BFH, SFH, SHH, BHH.

Byproduct Coarse sieving BHH, SHH, SHL

Product BFH, SFH

Byproduct ------Fine Sieving SFH

Product BFH

By-product ______Par boiled G ra in ------Product None "Frikkeh BFH Grain Roasting

154 ■ ------■ w . ------.v ^ >-1-^-1 yy >-•»■>■■■ ■ above:

Trigonella radiata (podded seed) BHH Carthamus sp. BHH Scandix iberica BHH Avena sterilis BHH Poa bulbosa forma vivipora BHH Henrardia pubescens BHH Ranunculus arvensis BFH Galium aparine BFH | Cephalaria syrica BFH Convulvolus arvensis BFH Torilis leptophilia BFH ; Bifora testiculata BFH i Lolium temulentum BFH Aegilops crassa BFH Aegilops speltoides BFH ■ Aegilops tauscii BFH ' Avena sativa BFH | Rananculus sp. SFH | Galium cf. articulatum type SFH Brassica sinapis SFH Coronilla scorpioides SFH Vaccaria pyrimidata SFH Gypsophilia pilosa SFH Rumex sp. SFH j. Polygonum avicularea SFH | Reseda lutea SFH | Chenopodium album SFH I Chenopodium rubum SFH Medicago lupulina SFH Euphorbia macrolada SFH Chrysanthemum coronarium SFH i Cuscuta planiflora SFH Salvia acetabulosa SFH Veronica arvensis SFH Veronica polita SFH Buglossiodes arvensis SFH Anthemis cotula SFH Torilis nodosa SFH I Descurainia sophia SFH Sinapis arvensis SFH Rapistrum rugosum SFH Centaureae sp. SFH i Campanula strigosa SFH

155 jOrnithogalum narbonese SFH |Muscari comosum SFH Agropyron sp. SFH Phalarissp. SFH Lolium rigidum SFH Papaver rhoeas SHL Trifolium sp. SHL Trifolium sp. SHL Plantago lagopus SHL , Plantago lanceolata SHL I Phalaris paradoxa SHL | Sonchus oleraceus SFL I Nardurus sp. SFL | Anisantha sterilis (Bromus type) SFL , Bromus danthoniae (squarosa) SFL Malva sylvestris SHH Cichorium intybus SHH j Chicorium pumilum SHH I Chrysanthemum segetum SHH ; Silene conoidea SHH I ; It should be noted that the above classification applies only to plants (

I which are sufficiently mature for seeds/fruits not to remain attached to I ! the parent plant during winnowing (see earlier discussion).

6.6 Other Non Seed Contaminants. j [Chaff and straw are the main contaminants under this category, and i t their importance in interpreting crop compositions has been recognised by Hillman and Jones. The problem however lies in quantifying these components, especially light straw which forms the bulk of any winnowing byproduct. Jones' approach was to quantify rachis fragments and culm nodes only; she states "the most durable parts of the chaff and straw of free threshing cereals are the rachis and culm nodes, so both rachis internodes and culm nodes were counted" (Jones 1984). Hillman however would prefer to extend this strategy to include culm bases and awn fragments, since these components do regularly survive

in archaeological samples, and their use in interpreting compositions

156 anuws xne laenimcaiion ot specmc rorms ot crop nusoanary ^niuman

1984). He also included spikelet forks and glume bases, which are not relevant to studies on free threshing cereals, such as those conducted by Jones and myself. On the strength of the above argument, the presence of rachis, and culm nodes were quantified and incorporated with the results from the weed seed categories. Unfortunately it was not possible to include culm bases and awn fragments. Note: The above discussion applies mainly to free threshing cereals.

With glume cereals, there are additional chaff components which are likely to survive as charred archaeological remains. | i; : 6.7 Brief Description of the Maior Classes of Composition Found in Crop Products and Byproducts: \). Winnowing byproducts: This fraction is dominated by light chaff, all heavier straw nodes which remain attached to larger pieces of straw, and lighter portions of rachis. It will also include the majority of the light free weed seeds, as well as some of the heavier winged ones, and the headed ones in cases where: i a) the seeds were sufficiently immature to remain in the heads, and | b) the heads remain attached to the weed straw. j It also includes all cases where the nutlets remain attached to f I the straw (eg. Bualosoides arvensis). even quite mature specimens. ii). Coarse sieve byproduct:

This fraction is commonly incorporated with the above, and will contain the remainder of any large coarse pieces of straw (chob), denser portions of rachis, big heavy headed seeds, and any other • smaller headed seeds which were not eliminated by winnowing. I Hi). Fine sieve byproduct:

The main components of this fraction are small free weed seeds, along with any tail grain or stunted seed produced by the host crop that is

157 sman enougn 10 pass tnrougn a Tine sieve. ivT Coarse sieve product:

This fraction is dominated by seed from the host crop, along with both big and small free heavy seeds. Occasional pieces of coarse straw and denser rachis fragments (especially basal segments) may also work their way into this fraction.

v). Fine sieve product: This fraction will almost be entirely dominated

by the host crop, along with the more stubborn big free heavy seeds, especially those which are very similar in size to the prime grain. Examples include: Aarostemma aithaao (in wheat but less in barley) j and Lolium temulentum. vi). Other products: This section covers fractions that are products of prime grain, such as "burgul", roasted grain, and frikkeh. The fractions [ are dominated by the host crop, with the occasional big free heavy seed I; | that has escaped fine sieving and a possible hand-cleaning. "Frikkeh" | fractions will be discussed later. For a full list of sample compositions see table 3 (area key: H - ; Hasakeh, B = Bosra, M = Missyaf).

The full list of the major components found in each sample of crop products or byproducts is laid out in table 3. Weed taxa are only listed according to their assigned category as outlined above.

I

158 CT o 3 3 S CL c o O 3

Table 3 wii

ICrop: Trit. Trit. Trit. H Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. I 0 I- 80 00 cn ro CO ro ro CO 00 CO ro cn Triticum sp. grains: 22 cn o cn CO 00 o 00 iHordeum sp. grains: co cn 23 ...... 42 o ro o o o o o I Avena sativa grains: o

ILens sp. seeds: O O ro o o o OO I Vicia sp. seeds: o

ro OO O

o o o o ro lLathvrus sp. seeds: o 96 06 ZZS 009

■vl ro

o cn cn cn ro 00 o I I Culm nodes: CO cn 98Z

1 1 Rachis fraaments: 1266 CO cn ro 476 1186 1306

ro o o o o o IBHH: CO 98

o cn 00

CD ~n X 23 72 I 09

I co CO ro 00 I I SHH: cn 24 26 1 52 159

ro O) o CO 00 CO CO 00 144 128 SHL: 309 O I- SO CO o 00 00 I I SFH: 47 cn 211 's i cn 00 00 CO CO I I SFL: o - i X

32 CO CO 4*. CO ro cn CO CO O o o ro 05 98 I ro o co Trit. X 1361 108 472 151 117 28 05 o ro o o o cn o Trit. 2 1992 120

92 05 CO ro 00 ro ro 00 o 4k o o o o CO 681 Trit.

00

ro 23 00 05 4k CO cn o CO o cn 00 o o o 09 ro

Trit. •H D5 S cr CD CO 1005 3 4 k ro 00 O CO CO ~vj CO 008 o o CO CO §

Trit. 3 S IQ *

22 CO o 00 4 k ro __k 66

0 5 008 CO 4 k cn CO o ro 98 0 5 4 k Trit. 2 2981 123

74 cn 9 8 ro CO 4k -N| CO 4 k -v i o 4 k ro o 2831 I o cn Trit.

42 ro CO 05 -s i 98 00 o o 66S 4k o O o CO CO 0 5 rt 1 Trit.

168| 00 4 k OJ cn 4k CO 0 5 cn -s i ro 0 5 ro 0 0 ro o ro o 'vl

1'6Q) -1 K 1556 110 122 30 o> CO CO ro ro ro o -t*. -t*. 00 Trit. S

156 ■tk. 914 52 67 82 00 73 Ol o ro ro o o o 009 CO Trit.

ro CO 00 cn 20

CO 908 CO cn cn co o CO o 99 Trit. CD 1420 163 26 cn ro CO ro CO o ro o 00 CO CO oo Trit. 01 CD g; CD CO $ 1143 3 25 98 22 00 3 23 CO to 22 O 00 ro o -u cn CO 'vj 00 §

Trit. 3 * 03 (Q *

1121 Q. ro to C

23 o o o 00 CO cn

•u CO S9 CO o 24 !ro 00 ro Trit. 03 1520

CO 112 CO a> 00 CO 24 ro ro 00 CO o cn cn o ro o CO Trit. 03 1795 154 4 7 8l

ro 25 O) •^i cn cn 80 00 CO 00 ro o ro ro rt 1 Trit. 03 1181 2 0 0| 132| ■u ro CO ro cn ro cn 00 cn CD o o cn cn

ie i I I I I 212 1 2 I iTrit. ro

ro 268 83 72 cn 45 ro CO o o o o 00 co •Nj Trit. r o 1234 00 cn 00 o r c r ■u ro ro 06 c r ro ~vl o 00 o 00 ro 00 00 Trit. ro 1962 cr CO CD 'v l 29

00 98 00 -fe . 00 ro 00 o ro o Trit. ro

cn _L o cn ro 00 00 c r ro CO ro ro cn 00 o ro CO o CO I o 0) CT CD CO

2 O2 (Q2 *

162 ; < o cr o Q. C 0) ct CD CO o O o 0) OT CD OT o' "O CO 00 ro CO CO CO cr> CO CO CO I I Sample no: CO cn 37 X X X X X X X lArea: X I I Crop: Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. I ro -U ro ~v| cn 05 o 00 CO oo o o ITriticum sp. qrains: 05 05 7332 1241 1900 4327 ro ro CO o ro 05 O cn 05 iHordeum sp. qrains: 1400 413 CO 107 o O CO o I I Avena sativa qrains: o o o o o o o o I I Lens sp. seeds: o o O o CO O ro I I Vicia sp. seeds: cn ro O O o ro o lLathvrus sp. seeds: ro ro ro ro I I Culm nodes: 2276 1150 2250 1062 2638 CO 3421 05

ro

o ro oo ro o cn I I Rachis fraaments: 7458 1453 1347 2600 cn 00 o 3572 69 cn 00 CO 00 05 I I BHH: 32 56 00 00 163 o 'v j 05 CO 00 I BFH: CO 22 ro ■vi ro ro '-si CO CO CO ro CO CO 05 ro 0 5 CO CO o I SHH: CO

ro ro ro ro ro ro ro CO cn cn o ro -o CO CO o o CO CO SHL: 96 -U c n ro 00 cn ro CO CO I SFH: CD o o o o o o o I I SFL: o 1 iTrit. I X 3675 2232 1224 951 435 44 98 ro ro 39 o 00 CO o o Trit. X 6748! 1869| 220 172

05 40 CO 00 cn o cn CO CO o o o o ro Trit. 2 3357 2963 2998 224 -u 27 co 4k. o ■^i ro o 4k. o o o CO Trit. 2 9862 2840 8421

ro 341 o ro CO 42 Table coarse 3 sieve byproduct

o cn 968 -v j cn CO o Trit. s 4269 3473 6985 176

52 ro 4k. 43 o CO OO CO ro o 691 Trit. 3548 3456

CO

ro 33 cn cn 4k. CO CO ro o o 44 o o 4k. CO o cn o ro o -a , Trit. 10076 3811 7960 111 34

ro 40 CO CO o 00 4k. o 00 o o o 180 [o cn cn Trit. s 4211 00 1663 122 ro 46 o CO CO ro o 00 CO 00 ro CO o rt I Trit.

4k. ro cn ro cn CO cn ■Vj CO 0 5 4*. o 4k. ro *N| ro 00 o o ~vj -v j |8 9 |8 |S00S

164 210 I 48 I Trit.

00 2311 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 o CO o 00 o ■vi ro ro oo o o Trit. S 5541 1398 180 133

28 00 52 03 o o CO 00 o o o o CO Trit. S 30161 7192 36 03 4 00 76 oo -U ro 00 o 00 00 o OS 24 roI ro ro Trit. CD 1 2 214 6 2 367 279 976 o o 00 00 cn Table coarse 3 sieve byproduct o 00 cn o o o o Trit. CD 12219 2763 5528 163 317 45 00 00 52 o ro CO o o o o Trit. CD 3630 94111 1958

22 ro 00 on 00 ro 53 o ro on 00 o o 0 3 Trit. 03 6391 80 98 2 4 9 246 00 28 ro -c* o ro CO cn o CO 00 03 o o o o Trit. CD 5828 3721 00

22 0 3 75 55 00 00 00 o 00 o ^nI o o o cn rt I Trit. 03 5 3 0 0|

257| 00 159 CO 00 ro ro 00 o oo CO cn CO 00 o 00 ro o o 0 3

165 42 I 2 1 21 I 33 I 10014 2116 I | 522 1 671 I 57 I iTrit. 1 CD

cn ro o 00 o o Trit. CD 9020 4748 272 176 29 cn cn o 00 098 ro o o o o 809 00 Trit. CD 10062 2348 5200 49 CO co 59 86 o 890 ~vj -U o o o o cn rt 1 Trit. DJ

CO 61381 ro cn ro ro ■t*. ro 00 o o CO 00 CO o o o I860 9 |9 |0SS |0 9 |0 0J g; CD co o 0)o c/> CD CO 5' < CD cr T 3 3 a. c o

166

*n cr O Q. C o

Table 3 Fine sieve ■o S9 cn cn 00 ro cn cn cn 1 1 Sample no: cn 63 64 X X X X X X X [Area: X ICrop: Trit. Trit. T rit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit.

CO ■vl CO CO ro 00 ro ro cn iTriticum sp. qrains: 98 o CO 142| OS 45*. ro "si CO CO CO ro iHordeum sp. qrains: ro o o ro o o o I I Avena sativa qrains: o o o o o I I Lens sp. seeds: o O o O o O o o o IVicia sp. seeds: o o o o lLathvrus sp. seeds: o o o O o o o I Culm nodes: O o o o 177 o o o o o o o o I Rachis fraaments: o

o o o o o o o o I I BHH: o o 69 CO ro o cn ro CO I I BFH: CO 42 -U cn *>0 ro I I SHH: ro cn 00 ro ro CO I I SHL: o ro ro CO o ro ro CO ro o cn I I SFH: o 190 o o o o o o SFL: o o 216 I 73 I iTrit. X

ro o ro 4*. o cn o 00 o o o o CO 69 | Trit. X

ro ro 00 ro CO o 70 o cn 00 00 o o o o o cn Trit. 2

372 CO "si o •vj cn ro o o o o o o oo 00 Trit. 211 98 ro 72 o CO cn o o o o o o o FineTable sieve 3 Trit. 172 cn "s| o 00 cn o o o o o o o cn CO CO Trit. s O' ■O 3 Q. 118

189 C 20 28 o "si o o o o o o o o o CO Trit.

ro 22 ro 00 CO cn 75 o CO CO o COro o o o o ro "si Trit.

CO 42 "s| cn 76 o cn ro CO cn o o o o o o o oo rt I Trit. 127| ro oo "si o COcn o o o o o o cn m "si

178 20 I iTrit.

—1. ro cn ro ro ■vj o cn 0 5 00 o o o o o o ro CO 00 Trit. 265

CO 79 o o o CO CO o o o o o o 00 90 I- Trit. 299 CO ro 35 o 00 o 0 5 o CO o o o o ■Vj o Trit. CD

CO o ro CO 00

o 00 CO cn o ro o o o ro o CO cn FineTable 3 sieve byproduct Trit. CD 311 20

27 ro CO o 00 o 0 5 o o o o o CO o 25 I ro Trit. CD 223 ro CO 00 o CO CO ro o o o o o o o 00 CO Trit. CD 416 20 37 ro cn 00 o cn o o o o o o o ro 0 5 Trit. CD

395 ro o 0 5 0 5 CO o o o o o o 0 5 8 S Trit. CD

ro 178 ~vi cn o CO o CO ro o o o ro 98

179 33 I [Trit. CD

oo ro ro CO 00 o o o o o o o o o ro Trit. CD

cn 00 o o CO o o o o o o o CO 00 Trit. 03

0 5 ro ro o CO 00 CO cn ■vi o o o o o o o oo ro CO rt I Trit. CD

CO ro 00 00 CO ~vl CO o CO *vj CO CO o ro o o o o o o 0) ct; cd co TJ 5‘ CD CO CD* < CD O* ■a o a. oc

180 O Q. C o

Table 3 fine sieve T3 -Pt CO CO cn CO ISample no: 92 93 96 97 CO 00 X X X X X X X Area: X Crop: Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. Trit. CO o 00 ■p*. CO CO ~sj ■Pt CO o CO Triticum sp. grains: 356 50 15440 25420 32468 45318 cn CO CO cn cn cn CO cn cn iHordeum sp. grains: 47 0 2120 132 500 00 ro o o O o I Avena sativa grains: o o o o o o I I Lens sp. seeds: I o ro ■vi ro -p*. CO o Vicia sp. seeds: o -Ps o o o O Lathyrus sp. seeds: O ro o -Pk "vl CO ro -s i Culm nodes: o ro 00 cn cn •pk. 00 cn 00 cn cn Rachis fragments: 22 00 cn

I 181 00 o cn ■p*. o o 00 I BHH: 00 >. p ro ro 00 cn cn 00 o o ro - I BFH: 143 1 72 265 00 00 ro o 0 5 I I SHH: 1 3 ro ro *. p ■ 00 o cn ■P*. o ro OO SHL: 47 o o 00 ro cn 00 CO •fc. 00 —L ro cn I SFH: 42 cn ro o o o o I SFL: o o o Trit. X 18820

32 ro ro ro ro ro 4k. CO o o 05 cn cn ro o o CO Trit. X 22560 276 630 100 's i 25 4k. 00 00 o ro o o Trit. 8 8 9 2 2 352 218 cn o o O cn cn -s i o o o o CO Trit. 5 33 352

4k. 42 44 cn 7 6 o o o CO 00 o cn o o o ro Trit.

CD cr CD

61 1 2621 co

819 5‘ 85 ro 31 CD CO CO o CO ro 's i cn o ro ro o ro CO

Trit. CD* < s CD ■o 3

25583 a. c o 355 25

ro 29 4 *. CO o CO ro ro o CO o 4k. Trit. 19673

CO -s i CT> cn ro cn

o -s | LZ CO -s i o ro o o ro I. SO Trit. 39815

cn 4k. CO 4k. cn ro o o CO CO ro 00 cn ro o o o 00 90 I. rt I Trit. <: 25752I 436| 4 7 Ol 00 3 0| o err CO cn CO o CO o ■si

182 Trit.

CO o 162

48 o 0 5 CO oo O o 0 5 0 5 "si o o 0 0 0 0 Trit. S 32861 503 524 109 -c*. 55 o 0 0 0 5 cn ro CO o o cn o 312 I Trit. S 0 12 208 110 52 7 3 o ro o o 0 0 cn CO o o ro 0 0 Trit. CD 23135 465 0 0 1 11 0 5 CO oo o CO o CO CO CO 0 0 o o 20 I Trit. CD fineTable 3 sieve product 33498

ro 112 20 0 5 ro o o CO o CO o o 'vl Trit. CD 27152 238 22 CO cn CO CO o o 0 0 cn o CO CO Trit. CD 19854 to ro CO 0 5

o 09 to o ro o o o o o o 06 Trit. CD 21255 28 35 o o ro CO 0 5 o oo o ro o cn cn rt 1 Trit. CD 271181 41 3 4 0 5 0 0 CO CO o CD o 1 00 o cn o cn 0 5

183 ' (D 0) cr CO 5‘ CD o CD OT < Q. C o cd T> CO ro o "4 1 1 8 CD CD CD CD iT rit. T rit. T rit. Trit. I ro cn o CO CO ro CO CO CO 3 8 1 7 3 2 8 8 9 8 ■t*. -v l O -v i o CO CO cn 8 2 2 o o o o ro o o ro o o cn o CO o o ~vj •c*. ro CO CT) cn CO o 184 cn o o ro ro 00 CO 00 I 251 ! 2 7 5 ~vj O ■^4 00 ro ro 3 3 -s| CO CD CO I I 6 2 cn •v j o o o

c o Q. o 57

Table 3 other T5 Z I ZZ -u ro ro ro 00 CO ro cn ro ro ro I Sample no: cn X X X CD CD X CD X > CD 03 ICrop: Trit. T rit. T rit. T rit. T rit. Trit. Trit. Trit. I ■sj ro ro Triticum sp. grains:! 3 0 1 5 5 3 6 0 0 9 22871 4 0 5 2 8 2 8 1 4 3 3 2 2 5 8 2 0 1 9 2 CO

o o o o o o o ro o o o o ro o X CD X 86 "s| ro ro cn ro ro cn CO ro 00 cn ro IBFH: 186 cn CO CO CD o ro X X C/D

ro o o o o

ro 00 o cn r~ X C/D L 99 9 9 z z ro 00 cn -t*. "si CO CO ~n X C/D o o o o o o o ISFL: o rit. T 00

03 ■Ew 03 ro

o 09 | o 03 o o o o o 03 o 86 00 CO | H ro 9 8 1 2 4 88 1 82 1 30 1

o 6 9 -si o o o o o o rit. T 2

03 2 1 2 114 131

o 8 8 03 o o o o o cn rit. T 2 9 8 6 7 2

03 03 o 03 o l\3 cn CD -E*. o o o o o o r\3 r\3 rit. T 2 0) g; CD 0 0 0 0 2 03 2 7 2

70 O 03 03 S o o r\3 o o o o o o o 03 CD rit. T 2 TJ 3 Q. Co 2 5 7 6 2 w 03 03 O 8 4 03 o cn o o CD o o o o o o o rit. T 231 3 82 3

r\3 03 03 ■fr. 03 o CD ro o cn o o o o o o CO cn Hord. “D

03 cn

2 4 o o 03 o 03 cn 9 6 o ro o o o o 03 od I Hord. T>

r\3

1 1 8| 00 03 37 1 03 "vj o cn o o o o o o o 00

186 138 1 Hord. “0

CO ro 57 78 ro o o o o o o ro o Hord. "0 299911 110 139 35 o o o CO o o o o X "0 o EL 71 112751

ro 140 o o 69 CO

58 cn o o o ro o o o o CO o o ro Hord. "0 34273

CO o o o o cn o o o o o o o CO Hord. "0

CO o CO o LZ o o o o o o o o o CD Hord. “0 32269

45 cn o o 00 o ro o o o o cn rt 1 Trit. CD 353151

1 1 9l ro CO o o cn CO o o o o ro o 00 cn

187 rit. T CD 3 7 1 8 3

cn 5 2 co o o 00 ro cn o 00 ro o o o zn 1 rit. T CD 6 2 4 3 3 9 4 2 8 4 1 9 8 2 3 5 8 o o ro o 00 o o o rit. T CD 6 1 0 9 2 50 1 CO 149 7 7 ro 5 2 o ro cn o 00 CO o o o rit. T CD 6 9 3 1 3 150 5 8 -U ro 6 7 o 00 o o o o o o o rit. T CD a l 3 te products other 3 Table 27641 102 152 151 CO

o o cn o 89 00 o o o o ro rit. T CD 5 6 5 0 3

ro 44 05 o> 3 7 cn o ro o o 0 5 o o o o no rit. T CD 2 8 7 5 3

ro CO CO cn

o 8 6 o CO CO o cn cn o o o CO CD 0 6 5 8 3 29 1 5 7

ro 3 2 o cn o o cn o CO o o o o CD 289811

cn CO o _k CO o 00 00 o o o o S9 i-

188 112 I I I I CD 31274 168 24 CO o> cn o o 00 o o o o cn ro

CO ro ro 6l 2 00 ro ro 8l 6 cn o ro o o o CO o o o o ro a l 3 te products other 3 Table

189

Table 3 coarse sieve product

9 L 99 1 9 2 4k 05 0 5 CO 1 Sample no: cn CO 1 60 161 1 62 X X X X X X lArea: X X o o T rit. T rit. T rit. Trit. 1 -p T rit. T rit. T rit. T rit.

00 CO iTriticum sp. grains: 2 5 4 8 8 2 1 6 7 5 3 2 4 1 8 18921 2 6 2 2 2 3 1 6 7 5 CO o 213421 L Z 4k. ro 00 ro 4k. ro cn ro cn co 05 05 CO iHordeum sp. grains: CO 00 1 95 o o 4 *. ro lAvena sativa qrains: o

1 1 Lens sp. seeds: o o o o 05 CO 1 1 Vicia sp. seeds: cn o ro o o o o o o o ro o lLathvrus sp. seeds: o o o I

n

4k. - CO ro 4k. _i. ro 05 ICulm nodes: 05 S 8 4 k cn 4k. ro 05 CO CO cn

iRachis fraaments: 2 9 7 2 190 o cn o CO CO |BHH: o 4k. ro 00 o ■vl ro "v j 4 * CO cn o o ro ro ro CO cn cn IBFH: 05 o 4k. ro 00 ro CO 00 o CO ISHH: 2 2 05 o CO ro 00 ro CO 00 ISHL: CO 2 4 4 *. o 4k. ro ro CO ro cn CO CO cn ro CO ISFH: 1 6 7 112 CO o o o o o o ISFL: o 49 I 29764 I 373 I 166 1 rit. T X 207 263 CO o ~sj ro o ■vj —x CO o CO rit. T X 25263 419 311

20 CO CD o CD o CO o 00 o o ro o ■sj rit. T S 30436

295 CD CO CO o LLZ 00 99 CO o ro o o o ro 891 rit. T 34720 82 28 CD o ^sl 69 I- cn 986 691- ro CD CD ro o o product sieve coarse 3 Table rit. T 42195 1236 CO ■U 00 CO -t*. 'vj o 00 CD CD cn ■vl o o o rit. T 2 37119

CD •Vl ro CO ■Pfc ro S9Z cn -vl 00 ro o ro o 00 o —X rit. T 27367

337 CO 1 3 ■p*. CD ro ■u 00 'si o ro _ x o 00 CO o o CD ro ro rit. T S 31742

-c*. 25 ro ro 00 o ~s|

00 o 899 los CO oo CO rt 1 Trit. 261581

ro __L 00 CO CD ro "si o CO CO -U CD ■p*. o o o o 00 |0 9 |0 -P»-

191 —i 28573 55 00 'vj 00 0 5 -v j o ■^1 05 CO 00 ro o o CO o co cn rit T S 30090 214 328 417 176 2 2 2 2 1 0 o CO •vl cno o rit. T

ro

414 00 0 5 177 45 05 ro ISO ro cn CO o ro CO ro 05 o CO o 00 CO rit. T 33651 533 572

2 2 cn CO

o "si 69 CO o o ro 0 5 00 product sieve coarse 3 Table rit. T 03 38744

CO cn 179 CO CO 00 92

o ro "vi S 9 ro ro ~vl o o o o rit. T 03 25328

05 CO 0 5 CO o 00

o 00 ro 66 o o 419 Icn 00 00 o o ■n. rit. T 03 28565

N> 320 CO 37 -u CO CO CO CO s s o o o ro Trit. ro 33423 213 183

cn 24 cn 0 5 -e*. cn o o CO 0 5 o o o rt 1 Trit. ro 191921 5 0

0 5 V I 00 o 'vj ro -Cx CO o o o -U |6 |6

192 I 42 I I rit. IT 03

ro 4k 140 ro 297 ro o> 00 00 o CO oo 00 o CO o 00 o o cn rit. T 03 31669

00 I 00 00 -vj 00 00 4k o 00 4k o

37 ro 4*. oo Cn 05 00 cn 00 o o ro CO rt 1 Trit. 03 291171

4*. 44l cn cn ro ro 4k. ro 00 CO ■vj cn ro CO o o o o ro 00 product sieve coarse 3Table

193 Chapter 7: Statistical Analysis.

7.1 Introduction. In this section the data outlined and prepared in the previous section will be subjected to statistical analysis. The results will then be used to build the model upon which the archaeological samples and their contexts will be interpreted. The statistical analysis to be carried out is called Discriminant Analysis (also known as canonical variates analysis - C.V.A. - in the multivariate case). Jones applied this method on her modern samples from Amorgos, and after a certain amount of trial and error, built a model which she then applied to her archaeological samples (Jones 1984). Charles was also able with some success to apply the Jones model to his archaeological material from Abu Salabikh (Charles 1990).

7.2 Discriminant Analysis. The purpose of discriminant analysis is to find a set of linear combinations (’functions') of the original variables which best emphasise the differences between a set of predefined groups. There is, at most, one less function than the number of groups, but one hopes that a much smaller number of functions will adequately represent the main differences between the groups. Whether this is likely to be so can be ascertained by examining what are called the 'eigenvalues' of the functions. The functions with the highest eigenvalues contribute most to the overall differentiation between the groups; if a small number of functions (hopefully two or three) have markedly higher eigenvalues than the other functions, then they can be taken to represent the main differences between the groups.

Each such function consists of a weighted combination of

194 the original variables; the weights are Known as loadings, ana may be either positive or negative. Variables with a high loading (whether positive or negative) on a particular function make a substantial contribution to that function, and hence to its ability to differentiate between groups. The statistical theory is set out in many textbooks, for

example Kendall and Stuart (1976). For discussion of its general relevance to archaeology, see Doran and Hodson (1975), and

Shennan (1986).

7.3 Data Preparation. The first step in preparing the data table was to transform the main variables (the weed seed categories) into percentage values, then take the square root of these values. These variable are: BHH, BFH, SHH, SHL, SFH, and SFL (see table 4). The main purpose of transforming the original values into percentages was primarily to standardise the data, thus eliminating any effects that the size of a sample might have on the outcome of the analysis, which is mainly concerned with the frequency of the variables. The square roots help to minimise the differences in size between the variables. Jones (1984) also notes the extraneous variations and their effects on the analysis. To overcome this problem she too standardised her raw data by using percentages

and square roots. The second step was to take the standardised variables and carry out a canonical variates analysis with them. This was accomplished by running the data through a programme (CVA) which

is part of the IASTATS package written by Duncan et al. (1988).

The data consisted of 187 samples, which were grouped into 8 clusters:

195 1 - Winnowing byproduct. 2 - Coarse sieve byproduct. 3 - Fine sieve byproduct. 4 - Fine sieve product. 5 - Burgul. 6 - Frikkeh. 7 - Roast grain.

8 - Coarse sieve product. The data was then scored on the six variables described above (BHH etc). The results are listed in table 5. The summary of the new variables lists the eigenvalues for the six variables, of which the first three are the highest and therefore the most useful. The standardised variate loadings (see table 5) represent the best 6 functions (columns) in order of hierarchy, 1 being the most useful, and 6 being least useful. The rows represent the loading of a given variable in a given function: Row 1 = BHH. Row 2 = BFH. Row 3 = SHH. Row 4 = SHL. Row 5 = SFH. Row 6 = SFL.

In the first function the negative loadings represent fine sieve products and byproducts, with the highest being the BFH group. The positive loadings represent winnowing and coarse sieving

byproducts, with the headed groups being dominant. In the second function the positive loadings represent fine

sieve byproducts, with the highest being the SFH group. The negative loadings represent big or headed groups, with the highest

196 being b h h or b i - h . The third function separated winnowing byproducts from coarse sieve byproducts, with a negative loading for BHH and a high positive loading for SHL. The third step is to transform the variable loadings in the first three function columns, into a set of co-ordinate points for a

3-dimensional plot. This was achieved by running the transformation matrix of the canonical variates analysis through another programme, T.V.A., which is part of the same package (IASTATS). The results are listed in table 6. The results are then plotted on two axes (functions 1 and 2).

See fig. 29.

7.4 Results: The scattergram (fig. 35) represents 8 clusters scored on 6 variables (the weed seed groups). In the plot it is possible to see a very marked difference between winnowing and coarse sieve byproduct (dominated by headed seed categories), fine sieve byproduct (dominated by small free heavy seed categories), and other products (dominated by big free heavy categories). To a lesser extent there are also difference between: 1) Winnowing byproduct and coarse sieve byproduct.

2) Fine sieve product, coarse sieve product, and; 3) A possible group which may represent burgul, frikkeh, and roast barley.

Unfortunately however, it is not possible to reliably distinguish between any of the clusters mentioned in group three. In view of the results outlined above, it was decided to

investigate the possibility of separating the three problem clusters mentioned earlier (burgul, frikkelh, and roast barley), and perhaps at the same time to attermpt to improve on the

197 distributions Detween winnowing Dyproauct ana coarse sieve byproduct, and fine sieve product and coarse sieve product. The following methods were employed:

7.4a Use of Logarithms. Canonical variates analysis (C.V.A.) was carried out on the same data again (using the same steps mentioned previously): but instead of taking a square root of the percentages, a logarithm, which is an alternative means of standardising the data, was taken in its place. It is not possible to predict whether a square root or a logarithm will be the more suitable in any particular situation, and therefore often both are tried. The results however were not as satisfactory as those carried out using square roots. The procedure failed to have any effect on separating the three problem clusters. The overall areas of distribution between the clusters were less marked.

7.4b Use of Straw Nodes and Rachis. In this attempt it was decided to increase the number of variables to 8, by adding the values for straw nodes and rachis fragments. The data was prepared in the same manner described earlier, using square roots and C.V.A. The results were again not very promising. Although this procedure greatly improved the distinction between the headed categories (winnowing byproducts and coarse sieve byproducts), small free heavy categories (fine sieve byproducts), and the big free heavy categories (fine sieve products, coarse sieve products), it dramatically reduced the differences between the other clusters, making it almost impossible to separate them from each other (see tables 7 and 8 and fig. 36).

198 /.4c use of hive Clusters. Since the main problem lay with the big free heavy-dominated clusters, especially burgul, frikkeh, and roast barley, it was decided to run a C.V.A. using the 8 variables, as before, but with only 5 clusters. The clusters used were the 3 mentioned above, and both fine sieve and coarse sieve products. It was hoped that the clusters would have more room to spread out on the scattergram, and thus any minor differences could be highlighted more easily. The results, unfortunately, were disappointing. Although there was a distinct difference between the fine sieve product and the coarse sieve product, the C.V.A. failed to successfully separate the other three problem areas (see tables 9 and 10, and fig. 37)

7.5 Discussion.

The overall results of the canonical variates analysis were a success despite the few problems outlined above. The first C.V.A., scoring eight clusters on six variables (fig. 29), enables us to distinguish between five of the eight clusters. The failure to distinguish between frikkeh, burgul, and roast barley, was hardly surprising considering the close proximity in their compositions. All three originate from the same source - the fine sieve product - and although they undergo different processes, there is little alteration to their compositions. It should be noted that the differences between these three products and fine sieve product are relatively small, and focus on minor concentrations of the same weed seed categories, unlike, for example, the difference between coarse sieve and fine sieve byproducts. It is probable that these minor differences may be attributed to hand cleaning, relative weediness of the crops, and the fact that lighter weeds seeds and straw will probably float to the surface and be skimmed off during boiling (production of

199 Durgui). it would, therefore, not oe surprising it in some cases one or more of the three products in question were to be indistinguishable from the fine sieve product. Since these three products are indistinguishable from each other on the scattergram, and their compositions are very similar to that of fine sieve products, it was decided to run a C.V.A., using five clusters - excluding frikkeh, burgul and roast barley - scored

on eight variables. The results were consistent with previous

findings (see tables 11 and 12, and fig. 38).

7.6 The Model.

The aim of this model is to establish a methodology for distinguishing between the major crop products and byproducts of wheat and barley. This methodology was arrived at with the aid of discriminant analysis (or canonical variates analysis - C.V.A.) Through C.V.A. it has been possible to successfully distinguish between coarse sieve products and byproducts, winnowing byproducts, and fine sieve products and byproducts. It has not been possible however to distinguish between burgul, roast barley, and frikkeh. The first two are fine sieve products which have undergone further processing, whilst frikkeh undergoes slightly different processing techniques in order to arrive at the fine sieve product stage (see Chapter 3). In all the cases however, the final stage of processing does not radically change their composition. This in turn would explain their close similarity both to each other and to the fine sieve product. Nevertheless, they are very important crop products, which are often stored separately, and which are therefore likely to to

appear in archaeological contexts (the evidence for the importance and archaeological relevance of these processes has been discussed

200 previously;. The failure to distinguish between these products means that it will not be possible to identify them when they occur in archaeological contexts. Furthermore, it increases the likelihood of their misclassification under the category of fine sieve products, due to the closeness between them. Another limitation is that this model in its current form may only be applied to free-threshing cereals. This limitation applies because glume wheat processing involves additional stages which not only produce a wider range of products and byproducts, but also affect the overall compositions (Hillman 1981, 1984); a particular example is the pounding of spikelets, which not only liberates the grain but also breaks up weed heads and liberates the seeds. This means that weed seeds whose progress within the processing sequence would normally be determined by their headedness, now rely instead upon the size and aerodynamic characteristics of the seed. This in turn may have a marked effect on which product or byproduct they finally become associated with. It should also be noted that in the processing of glume wheats, the first sieving only eliminates headed weed seeds larger than spikelets, while spikelet heads and weed seeds of similar or smaller size would have passed through. In free-threshing cereals however, coarse-sieving eliminates all headed weeds seeds larger than grain. Hillman, Charles, and Jones have also noted the differences between glume wheats and free-threshing cereals, and their effects on the composition of weed seeds (Hillman 1981, 1984; Jones 1984; Charles 1990).

201 f.f i ne ArcnaeoioQicai ADPiicaDintv or tne Moaei. It is possible to apply this model to the interpretation of archaeological plant samples by directly comparing the statistical results derived from the modern ethnographic samples with those that can be generated from archaeological samples. The ability to identify the product or byproduct to which an archaeological sample belongs to is invaluable in helping to interpret the context

from which it has been derived. This model makes it possible to distinguish between most if not all of the major products and byproducts generated by archaic (traditional) systems of processing free threshing cereals. The use of weed seed categories is very important because emphasis is placed on the size and aerodynamic characteristics of the weed seed, rather than the species to which it belongs. This consequently eliminates the problem of geographical or climatic limitations to the application of the model. The practical reality of this advantage is further confirmed by the fact that it was possible to use ethnographic samples from three different regions without affecting the viability of the model. One of the strengths of this model therefore, is that it is not restricted to one site or region, but may be applied to any part of the world, providing that the weed seeds used are correctly classified, according to the characteristics described previously. With certain modifications, the model may also be applied to crops other than free-threshing cereals: it is important however to establish the processing sequence specific to the particular crop or crops in question, and to modify the model accordingly. An

example of this are the differences, discussed previously, between free-threshing and glume wheats.

Although the model can not hope to provide us with precise information on the methods which were used to process the crop in

202 anuquny, n may comirrn tnai ims acnvny uucurrau, ana aiso suggest any other processing activities that may have preceded or followed it. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, there are a limited number of ways in which to process a particular crop, and such information may be gathered from ethnographic, textual, and other such records (see Section 1).

203 Table 4

BHH BFH SHH SHL SFH SFL Nodes Rachis 2 86 16 41 141 10 377 1266 1 0 14 160 1 1 0 103 17 95 786 2 0 23 24 63 502 8 72 195 3 3 7 2 1 88 47 3 90 475 4 1 18 8 139 6 9 460 1186 5 0 72 26 144 2 1 1 11 280 1306 6 0 10 33 128 90 5 356 735 7 0 15 52 24 88 18 600 528 8 3 5 7 142 32 13 312 919 9 0 98 28 151 108 6 472 1361 10 0 21 38 92 1 2 0 2 684 1992 11 0 13 11 1 0 15 14 268 885 12 1 9 17 127 49 3 300 1005 13 0 13 45 186 99 22 800 3322 14 0 17 74 94 123 9 544 2981 15 0 10 86 42 138 1 599 2831 16 1 48 52 168 66 2 461 1832 17 1 91 61 1 2 2 1 1 0 12 412 1556 18 0 82 67 52 156 5 914 4182 19 0 9 15 81 33 15 269 805 20 0 12 26 2 0 51 19 438 1420 21 0 92 2 2 178 98 25 344 1143 22 1 65 32 2 0 1 103 4 298 1 1 2 1 23 0 9 24 168 32 2 386 1520 24 3 78 38 165 154 15 478 1795 25 1 25 8 132 2 0 0 6 400 1181 26 0 10 72 83 240 18 268 1450 27 0 17 32 156 90 1 2 358 1234 28 1 8 64 93 85 8 612 1962 29 0 31 23 155 1 0 2 1 2 552 1181 30 61 9 320 132 28 0 2276 7458 31 32 1 0 247 172 96 0 1150 1453 32 56 7 93 250 44 0 2250 1347 33 48 18 261 225 15 0 1062 2600 34 88 11 326 207 33 0 2638 12580 35 48 22 119 302 44 0 342 3572 36 69 16 372 334 18 0 3421 10570 37 35 9 348 132 62 0 2762 4228 38 29 44 98 251 28 0 2232 3675 39 19 13 172 2 2 0 35 0 1869 6748 40 27 10 224 142 17 0 2963 3357 41 3 6 27 396 206 11 0 2840 9862 42 42 13 278 176 52 0 3473 4269 43 33 23 234 330 41 0 500 3548 44 40 34 1 1 1 2 0 0 98 0 3811 10076 45 33 11 1 2 2 180 108 0 1663 8298 46 68 17 152 194 57 0 2798 4672 47 30 8 311 173 9 0 2311 3487 48 28 14 133 80 39 0 1398 5541 49 82 22 348 248 18 0 3016 7192 50 41 24 279 76 38 0 2142 10015 51 30 19 82 163 45 0 2763 12219 52 38 5 251 132 22 0 3630 9411 53 26 14 303 149 28 0 2980 6391 54 22 7 87 380 13 0 3721 5828 55 31 28 159 257 19 0 5300 8941 56 33 42 128 2 1 1 51 0 2116 10014 57 52 29 272 176 8 0 860 9020 58 34 17 368 98 49 0 2348 10162 59 43 66 395 240 21 0 3289 14528 60 0 20 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 61

20 4 0 6 2 10 204 0 0 0 63 0 69 1 12 154 0 0 0 64 0 129 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 65 0 31 17 12 190 0 0 0 66 0 42 5 8 327 0 0 0 67 0 16 7 9 172 0 1 1 68 0 18 4 12 216 0 0 5 69 28 8 0 5 281 0 0 1 70 0 42 15 17 372 0 0 0 71 0 5 2 1 3 98 0 0 0 72 0 16 18 14 172 0 0 0 73 0 28 20 10 118 0 0 0 74 0 33 11 22 289 0 2 3 75 75 0 19 2 315 0 0 0 76 21 0 5 9 127 0 0 1 77 0 20 18 16 155 0 0 0 78 0 39 19 10 265 0 0 0 79 0 6 7 21 299 0 0 3 80 0 15 19 28 301 0 0 2 81 0 34 6 20 311 0 0 0 82 0 25 42 39 123 0 0 0 83 37 0 15 20 416 0 0 0 84 0 3 16 6 395 0 0 1 85 0 17 17 19 272 0 1 3 86 0 21 33 24 180 0 0 0 87 0 1 7 3 150 0 0 0 88 0 24 27 5 163 0 0 0 89 0 89 13 17 389 0 0 2 90 4 143 1 47 84 0 13 58 91 0 581 2 0 19 2 4 3 92 6 152 1 0 54 28 0 8 2 0 93 3 281 1 30 6 0 1 36 94 0 321 6 14 42 0 7 64 95 0 172 13 18 55 0 2 15 96 8 265 2 28 71 0 1 0 22 97 3 438 2 3 21 0 7 35 98 5 225 6 20 32 0 1 2 21 99 8 276 4 25 71 1 1 18 100 1 352 6 11 1 0 0 0 57 101 0 468 9 42 1 0 0 5 44 102 0 235 7 31 85 2 1 2 31 103 2 292 9 25 41 1 1 29 104 1 367 13 27 67 0 1 27 105 1 511 0 48 92 0 3 62 106 5 436 3 30 85 1 3 71 107 6 481 7 36 61 0 11 48 108 2 503 5 16 48 0 9 55 109 3 312 5 28 52 0 0 37 110 3 465 1 0 63 0 9 39 111 0 213 0 0 41 2 9 20 112 0 238 3 22 1 1 0 3 15 38 113 0 292 2 0 50 19 0 10 61 114 0 176 9 12 28 0 8 35 115 1 341 1 0 31 81 0 9 18 116 0 198 8 27 62 1 4 10 117 0 251 7 21 57 0 1 2 41 118 1 275 7 33 73 0 1 1 31 119 5 228 0 41 39 0 7 65 120 0 182 0 0 76 0 0 2 121 0 215 3 0 51 0 0 0 122 0 135 7 2 82 0 1 1 123 1 172 3 10 41 0 1 4 124 0 225 9 18 65 0 0 0 125 2 186 1 2 5 39 0 2 5 126 0 98 0 12 2 2 0 16 58 127

2Q5 0 251 11 0 74 0 5 9 128 0 117 3 0 50 0 2 15 129 0 188 1 7 59 0 0 4 130 1 2 1 2 13 1 88 0 3 7 131 0 104 9 5 32 0 11 25 132 0 272 2 0 70 0 6 8 133 0 309 0 1 0 35 0 10 17 134 0 265 0 1 2 39 0 1 32 135 0 95 5 3 42 0 2 11 136 0 118 1 5 61 0 2 7 137 1 57 0 4 78 0 0 9 138 0 1 1 0 0 1 35 0 1 3 139 0 206 3 1 69 0 6 13 140 2 171 1 0 52 0 0 0 141 0 152 0 0 67 0 2 5 142 0 106 0 0 91 0 3 14 143 0 134 0 0 27 0 7 12 144 0 150 0 1 45 0 0 8 145 0 213 5 0 119 0 1 0 41 146 0 175 8 0 52 0 18 25 147 0 249 1 2 0 89 0 8 32 148 0 315 2 1 77 0 25 28 149 0 85 1 0 0 48 0 21 10 150 0 152 15 0 1 0 2 0 38 68 151 0 267 0 2 61 0 16 44 152 0 193 9 0 98 0 5 35 153 0 206 11 0 75 0 23 13 154 0 1 1 1 19 1 48 0 18 54 155 0 168 24 1 1 1 2 0 14 38 156 0 227 2 0 0 82 0 19 26 157 0 310 48 1 0 213 0 9 75 158 3 177 2 2 21 152 0 1 2 29 159 0 2 2 2 19 38 167 0 6 72 160 1 160 6 32 1 1 2 0 1 2 54 161 3 354 61 7 298 1 4 33 162 0 501 13 19 354 0 7 41 163 5 482 2 24 490 0 4 58 164 1 250 28 8 172 0 16 26 165 10 263 1 1 2 37 207 0 7 49 166 0 309 67 20 419 0 1 18 167 8 377 92 31 29 5 0 3 66 168 5 69 7 28 82 0 15 52 169 14 436 16 18 384 0 5 41 170 2 51 8 27 5 765 2 11 90 171 0 321 62 13 337 0 13 48 172 2 289 50 25 428 0 1 18 173 6 264 31 3 189 0 4 60 174 11 168 55 6 187 0 1 2 88 175 7 328 22 3 214 0 1 0 7 176 1 612 29 12 424 0 6 95 177 4 572 17 2 2 533 0 9 69 178 2 531 56 17 392 0 7 82 179 0 365 99 2 648 0 18 38 180 3 419 49 37 293 1 14 55 181 9 541 10 24 561 0 6 51 182 2 166 50 1 117 0 3 14 183 0 268 8 19 140 0 19 42 184 0 174 33 4 188 0 1 36 185 5 284 37 32 233 1 3 57 186 12 545 44 27 429 1 7 29 187

2 06 Table 5 Canonical Variates Analysis

There were 137 units Scored on 6 variables

Units were grouped into 3 clusters

As % of As % of Comp. Eigenv. Variance total Cumulative total

1 573 . 677 22.552 53.06 22.6 63 . 06 2 170 . 290 7.371 20 . 61 29 . 9 33.67 O 40 .254 2 . 478 6 .93 32 . 4 90 . 60 A O A ^ 4 ± U . 4 0^, 1 .356 3.79 33 . 3 94 .39 5 *-L • Or W^ X . ^ Cj 2.35 >->**.* o 97 .25 ^ C O 6 0 . 575 0 . 584 2.75 ^ ^ . u 100.00

Raw variate loadinas

(rows = original variables, cols = canonical variates)

i- Ck 3 4 5 6

1 0 .357 -0.9238 -0.809 1 .773 0 .8243 0 .234 2 -0 .945 -0.3928 0 .836 0 . 622 -0.5522 -0.425 3 0 . 214 0.1412 0 . 168 0 . 510 -0.9161 -0 .132 4 0 .434 -0.0277 1 . 078 0 . 464 -0.2439 -0 . 495 5 -0 . 442 0 .9645 0 .691 0 .721 0 .0396 -0.238 6 1 . 192 -0.9375 1 . 352 0 . 549 -0 . 0711 4 .647

Standardised variate loadinos

(rows = original variable s , cols = canoni cal vari a t e s )

3 A 5 6

1 0 .155 -0.4032 -0.351 0 . 772 0 .3531 0 .101 -0.737 -0.3065 0 .652 0.436 -0.4309 -0.332 3 0 .236 0.1553 0 .185 0 . 562 -1.0107 -0.200 4 0 .427 -0.0272 1 . 061 0 .456 -0.2449 -0.483 5 -0 . 365 0 .7970 0 . 571 0 . 596 C .0327 -0.238 6 0 . 244 -0 .1923 0 . 277 0 .113 -0.0146 0.953

207 Table 6

Transformation of Variables

There were 137 units Scored on 6 variables

Scores were calculated for 3 new variables

New Scores

1 1.9486 0.7359 4 . 47312 /. j O l x 1.6933 -0.76977 o4 5.1213 2.9154 -0.44617 46 6 .9994 -1.3335 -C.12123 3 6.9324 0.8227 2.84697 47 7 .7453 -2 . 0231 -0.40063 4 7.0953 -0.47 S 3 0.72177 48 7.5953 -2 . 0623 -3 .42067 5 6.5011 -2.1909 1.06425 49 7 . 8088 -2.3096 -0.72899 6 2.8932 1 . 3743 3.03747 50 6.8480 -1.7750 -2.10455 7 4.7698 2.1134 2.31428 51 7 .9471 -2.6169 -1 .07449 8 4.9197 1.5816 2 . 06876 52 8 .3343 -2.0392 -1.28524 9 5.9382 -0 . 3095 1 . 01300 53 7.4260 - 1 .7049 -3.75350 10 0.8503 0.8421 3.25112 54 8.1197 -2 . 3141 -1.34534 11 4.5892 1 .6113 3.31549 55 8 . 2343 -2.9983 -1.42618 12 4.7602 -0.4343 2.55116 56 7.9609 -2.3253 -1.36415 13 4.8083 0 .9517 1.76335 57 3.2809 -2.3412 -0.55375 14 5.9350 0.3625 1.37416 53 8.5731 -3.5609 -1.27530 15 5.3441 1 .4601 1.93435 5 9 7.6133 -1 .9372 -1.76513 16 5.7254 1.7350 1.62707 60 8.0276 -3 .1199 -0.53930 17 5.6298 -0 . 9663 2.64950 31 -0.1350 4.2314 -2.23262 IS 1.8305 0 . 4704 2.43171 62 2 . 2131 5 . 2107 -1. 61579 19 4 . 0712 -0.2027 4.06533 63 1.0471 5 .9303 -1 .70417 2 0 5.5152 0.4443 2.17954 64 -0.7503 3.0175 -0 .23631 X 5.2075 0 .3956 ^ n 2.22544 65 -1.7482 2.4677 1 .21127 ^ C j 2.1658 -0.0903 4.29024 5 6 -0 . 5573 4.6781 0.52455 23 3.6734 -0.3943 3.93692 o 7 -0 .053'’ 4.9046 -0.73055 24 6.6405 -0.3499 3.25466 6 3 0 .7533 4.9316 -1 .44370 25 3.2432 0.3611 2.43565 59 0.1953 5.3553 -0.92043 26 2.0492 3 .1579 1.75099 70 -0.1055 5.1935 -1.82176 27 4.5369 2.9006 1.93702 71 -1 . 0277 5.3102 -0.54961 23 4.5133 1 . 5974 3.14203 7 2.7629 4 . 5295 -0.17311 29 5.3922 1.5633 1.11429 7 3 0.5309 5 . 0606 -0 .70121 30 2.7982 1.9793 2.33411 74 0 . 0624 3.9041 -0.51662 31 6.6047 -0 .7531 *9 ^ - 3 . C 4 0 0 9 / u -0.7403 5 .1371 -0.07197 6 .5573 -0 . 4936 -4.32212 7 6 -2.1093 4 . 5205 -1.20215 3 3 7.5742 -2.3035 -2 .63731 77 0 . 1973 4.4308 -0.71517 34 7.4923 -3 . 5409 -3 . 64524 73 1.2143 4.2396 -1.06810 35 3.5919 -2.1331 -0.65339 79 -1.2415 5.0553 -0.54544 3 5 7.7626 -3 . 0945 -0.60196 30 1.5832 5.9213 -1 . 62262 37 3 .9C6~ -3 . 2133 -''..43231 31 1.6322 5.1731 -1.33692 38 S.3647 -1 .3345 -1. 0 2 = 34 ? *■> -0 . 439"’ 5.2493 -1. 50999 39 7.5831 -7.2942 0.15243 3 3 1 . 0 2 0 2 3.7594 1.15966 4 0 3.2053 -2.1959 -0 . 47105 34 0 . 5371 3.0629 -1 . 40102 41 3.6952 -2.7423 -1.05676 3 5 ^ ^ ^ r\ -> 5.3 910 -2 . 34309 ~tA tL> 3.5363 -3 .0646 - 1 _1 C 7 57 26 0.8550 5.37 6 9 -1. 09627 43 3.4493 -2.3497 -0.37 4 50 27 0.3752 4.8610 C . 20671 44 7.5414 -2.3622 -1.04159 S3 2.1206 5.3394 -3 . 43374

208 89 -0.8655 4.9831 -0 .83713 139 -5 . 335S -1.2006 -0 . 29721 90 -0.6273 4.2035 -0 .73063 140 -5.1594 -0 . 9445 -0 . 39766 91 -2.1343 -1.1547 1.49507 141 -5 .1917 -2.0603 -1. 89238 92 -4.9799 -2.5137 -0.59318 142 -5 . 6439 -0 . 4326 -1. 04924 93 -1 . 6948 -0.3342 1.31607 143 -5.2698 1.1812 -0 . 99918 94 -2.9337 -5.7559 -0.45481 144 -5.7581 - 2 . 1 2 2 1 -1. 37704 95 -4.3413 -2 .7721 0.37077 145 -5.4055 -1.3309 -0 . 44403 9 6 -3.4567 -1 .0001 1.40143 146 -5 . 2054 0.2844 -0 . 87902 97 -3 . 3449 -2.9250 0.11287 147 -5.1652 -1.0396 - 1 . 06182 93 -4.6400 -4.9251 -1.9 5 2 S 3 148 -5.1265 -C .6832 -0 .99410 99 -3 . 2231 -3.3504 -0.12339 149 -5.3514 -1.6523 -0.65662 100 -2.7811 -3.4255 0.65572 150 -4 . 6039 0 . 4346 -0 .94524 101 -3.8429 -3 . 0374 -1 . 23264 151 -4 . 6528 0 .3266 -0.89532 102 -3.3237 -4.7635 0.23692 152 -5.3852 -1.8997 -0.50653 103 -2.6491 -1 . 5684 2 .68445 153 -5.0653 0.1168 -0 . 88703 104 -2.8452 -3.7968 1.05919 154 -5.0922 -0.6297 -0.98333 105 -3.2438 -3 .6212 -0.45672 155 -4.0325 -0.1498 -0.32054 106 -3.5191 -3 . 8666 -0.32037 156 -4 .1706 9.8171 -0 . 35811 107 -3.3913 -3 . 4247 0.65418 157 -4.8585 -0.5967 -1 . 02500 103 -3.6044 -3.7936 -0 .04703 158 -3 . 7188 0.8427 0.34251 109 -4.3157 -3.8462 -0.53349 159 -2 . 7720 0.4007 0.55157 110 -3.5673 -3 . 2039 9.38286 160 -2.9973 0.3455 1.79008 111 -5.3238 -3 .4849 -2 .17538 161 - 2 . 8618 0.0545 1.53839 112 -4.6652 -3 . 0435 -0.25644 162 —3.0566 0.39 34 -0 . 02911 113 -2.9402 -1 .1736 2.51983 163 -4 . 3356 0 .7730 0.59638 ^ " 4 -2.5216 -3.5571 1 . 307 3 9 164 -3.9439 0.8368 -0.03848 ^ O O C E 115 -3.8118 -2.3433 0 .82062 16 5 -3.7335 ^ V □ 0.02131 115 -3.675 8 -2 .1193 0 . 87 4 2 3 166 — 1.27 ~7 -0 .1409 -0.15094 117 -2.7299 -1.6855 2 . 48368 167 -3 . 0239 2.3635 0.44373 113 -3.9203 -1.7 300 1 .17209 168 -2.5496 0.1544 -0 . 04936 119 -3.4575 -1.9853 1 . 13769 169 -1.2534 W • X -k. / 0 .85503 120 -2.9273 -3 .7104 0.61929 170 — 3.59 3 0 3.1373 -0 . 55864 s s * * 1 21 -5.6658 -0 . 5565 -1.05981 JL * x -3.4426 ^ . C ^ -0 . 207 03 -•'■VO * * t ~ y r \ o 1 -5.4721 -1.6305 X . X / / vj vj 17 2 - 3 . OS17 1. 8139 0 . 30676 1 2 3 -4.5095 0 .4983 >0 . 0 96 26 173 -2.9758 2.5275 0.63337 _ n -> * -i 174 -4.0347 •--« • ^ ^ -4- J m 2 ^ O 7 3 174 -3 . 713 4 -3.0830 -1.06549 ^ * r c 125 -3.89 50 -1 . 2610 1 . 1S 2 41 17 5 - 2 . 3 20 4 O . * 4 0 O / -1.43553 126 -3.9254 -2 .6355 -0 . 59434 176 -4 .0434 -0.3354 -1. 077C3 127 -3.9662 -2.0235 1.44691 1 / / -4 . 297 5 0.5191 -0.03159 123 -5.1737 -1 . 1089 -1 . 0 6710 173 -3.9500 0.3460 0 . 00332 129 -5.2828 -0.3391 -0.9 2733 17 9 -3.7526 0 . 5~ 0 2 0.03339 130 -4.7162 -1.1860 0.56575 ISO -3 . 3392 2.6655 -0.741S9 131 -4.5331 -0 .8619 -0.83265 1 S1 -2.7341 -0.1139 1 . 09535 132 — j> . ^240 -1 . 0149 3.70552 182 -3.7581 0.8234 -0 . 25465 133 -5.5597 -1 . 5290 -1.15854 183 -3 . 2405 0.2497 -1.26301 134 -4.8125 -3 .1809 -0 .04538 134 -4.0546 3.0253 1.12740 135 -4.6889 -2 .7508 0 .25391 1 8 5 -3.547 3 1.9083 -0.01544 •*> ^ r\ r * r> 13 6 -4 . 3234 -0 . 2600 0.51073 136 ~ c * . ^ O 2? G -3.1133 1.02219 137 -4.5456 -0 .0373 0 .70373 187 -3.0501 -3.2019 0.19851 138 -3 . 6173 1 .3586 -0.21125

209 F_it_ between original and transforraed units

Unit F it ; Unit F it ! Unit Fit !! Unit F it ! Unit F it

1 0 .70 39 0 . 97 77 0 . 96 114 0.75 151 0.98 2 C . 33 40 0 .98 78 0 . 91 115 0 . 35 152 0 . 90 3 0 . 83 41 0 . 97 79 0 . 92 116 0.94 153 0 . 97 4 0 . 92 42 0 .98 80 0 . 97 117 0 .33 154 0 .95 5 0 . 94 43 0 .98 81 0 . 99 118 C . 91 155 0.84 6 0 . 80 44 0.98 32 0 .98 119 0 .93 156 0.95 7 0 . 92 45 0 . 99 83 0 . 90 1 2 0 0 .89 157 0 .93 8 C . 93 45 0 .84 84 0 . 99 1 2 1 0 .88 158 0 . 90 -1 O O 9 0 . 33 47 0 .99 85 0 . 96 ± A 4Ca 0 .93 159 0 . 66 10 0.73 4 3 0.92 36 1 . 00 123 0 .98 160 0 . 37 -L X 0 . 39 49 0 .93 37 0 . 93 124 0 .93 161 C . 31 12 0 . 87 50 UC • O o o SS C . 95 12 5 0 .90 162 0.69 13 0 . 94 51 1 . 00 89 0 . 99 126 0 .94 163 0.93 14 0 . 90 52 0 .98 90 0 . 96 127 0 . 91 164 0 .80 15 0 .93 53 0 .93 91 0 . 56 123 0 . 94 165 0.93 16 0 . 94 54 1 .00 92 C .75 129 0 . 96 166 0 . 20 17 0 . 92 55 0 .98 93 0 . 35 130 0 . 95 167 0.96 13 0 . 62 56 C . 9 9 94 0.99 131 0 . 99 163 0 . 54 19 0 . 37 57 0 . 97 95 0 . 91 132 0 .35 169 0.15 20 0 . 39 58 0 . 99 96 0 .33 133 0 . 92 170 0 . 69 21 0 . 91 59 0 . 97 97 Q .82 134 0 . 39 171 0.73 22 0 . 89 60 0 .98 98 0 . 97 135 0 . 90 172 0 . 94 23 0.73 61 0.92 99 0 . 92 136 0.95 173 0 . 97 24 0 . 34 62 0 . 99 1 0 0 0 .71 137 0 . 96 174 0 .82 25 C . 35 63 0 . 96 1 0 1 0 . 30 133 0 . 66 175 0 .45 26 0 . 76 64 0.69 1 0 2 0 . 84 139 0 . 91 176 0 . 86 27 0 . 87 65 0 .30 10 3 0.73 140 C . 96 177 0 . 99 28 C . 95 66 0 .95 104 0 . 86 141 0 . 96 173 0 . 91 29 0 . 97 67 1 . 00 105 0.85 142 0.38 179 0 .94 3 0 0 . 39 ft 0.98 106 0 . 37 *1 A O n . 85 130 0 . 99 31 0 . 87 69 0 . 99 107 0 . 39 144 0.38 131 0.72 0 . 90 70 0 . 99 108 0.98 145 0 . 91 182 0 .78 33 0 . 77 71 0 .86 109 0 . 99 146 0 .96 183 0 . SO 34 0 . 89 72 0 . 97 1 1 0 0 . 97 147 0.94 184 0 . 96 3 5 0.95 73 1 . 00 1 1 1 0.96 143 0.95 135 0 . 97 3 6 3 3 3 74 0 . 87 1 1 2 0 . 56 149 0.93 136 0 . 50 -> 7 0 . 93 75 0 .36 113 0 . 60 150 0 . 96 187 0 . 63 3 3 1 . 00 76 0 . 97

210 Function 2

-Pw r\j o i\s o> oo

+ O

CO

CO

♦ + ■ ■ + • + + ■•II ■■■

X □

u

T1 0 "n 2 3 £=. ® ® ®

©S < D)

n

□ aa TJ

211 Table 7

Canonical Variates Analysis

There were 137 units Scored on 8 variables

Uni t s were grouped into 3 clusters

Sumir.ar y of the new variates

n5 '6 of n S ' o Of Corrp . Eigenv. Variance total Curr.ul a t i ve total

1 1239.120 47 .595 69 .95 47 . 5 69 . 95 306.555 12.499 13 . 37 60 . 1 33 . 32 T 29.361 2.067 3 .04 62.2 91 . 36 4 15.340 1.559 O Q 63 . 7 93.65 c 10 . 674 1.364 2 .00 65 . 1 95 . 65 6 1 . 548 1 . 0 2 1 1 . 50 66 . 1 97.15 7 0 . 366 0 . 976 1 .43 67 . 1 98 . 59 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 .962 1 . 41 6 8 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 0

P aw va r i a t e 1 cad inqs

(rows = original variables, cols = canonical variates)

1 o 3 4 r 6 / o

- -0 . 11376 0 . 330 -0.2 3 6 3 - 1 . 916 - i .9 5 0 0 1 .0242 0 .1232 0 . 250 1.52023 1.122 0.5074 -0 .137 0.1252 -0.4 550 -0.1656 0 .112 0.44350 -0.196 0 . 3136 -0.560 -0.2 3 5 9 -1 . 0 5 0 3 -0.0147 -0 . 288 4 0 .03360 0.124 -0.0620 -0.500 0.3043 -0 .2275 -0.4867 0 . 596 5 1 . 16398 -0.27 0 1.2324 -0.196 0.0905 0.2303 -0 .0920 0.332 o -1.53567 1 . 479 -0.5707 -3.106 2.1579 0.5712 5 . 5602 -1 .152 / -0.13739 0 . 425 0.5250 0 ^ ^ 3 -0.2323 -0 .3955 0.3133 1 .145 ry i o -0.00952 0 .632 1.2033 u> 0.1243 - 0 . C 3 6 9 -0 .3061 -0 . 542

212 T tandard: s . 1 varlate Toad: ngs

(rows = original variables, cols = canonical variates)

r> 1 2 -J 4 5 5 7 O

1 -0 . 04075 0.23 5 -0.0313 -0.6573 -0.6725 0.3514 0.0440 0.0357 1.03020 C . 7 6 0 0.3433 -0.1267 0.0849 -0.3033 - 0 . 1 1 2 2 0 . 0757 3 0.35940 -0.157 0.2553 -0.4490 -0.1391 -0.3497 - 0 . 0 1 1 S -0.2304 4 0 . 07170 0 .107 -0.0532 -0 . 4283 0.6393 -0.1552 -0.4175 0 . 5113 5 0 .84065 -0 .195 0.9262 -0.1418 0.0554 0.1563 -0.0664 0.2400 6 -0.22530 0 . 217 -0.0339 -0.4567 0.3173 0.0840 0.8176 -0.1694 7 -0.09994 0 . 309 0.3326 0.0933 -0.1912 -0.2 877 0 . 2319 0.8331 8 -0 . 00730 0 . 523 0.9230 -2.2445 0.0957 - 0 . 0 6 66 -0.2347 -0.4152

213 Table 3

Transformation of Variables

There were 137 uni t.s Scored on 3 variables

Scores were calculated for 3 new variables h w Scores

* X G 1 1 2 J

1 - 7 . 1 7 4 1. / 4 51 2 . 1 3 4 3 4 5 — 10 .7 1 6 0 . 4 3 6 5 - 0 . 2 2 5 1 2 - 6 . 9 9 3 - 1 . 7 2 3 3 1 . 9 4 3 3 4 o -1 1 .1 3 7 0 . 5 9 4 9 -0 .0 4 2 4 3 .3 5 1 - 0 . 7 5 6 3 - 0 . 1 0 4 3 4 7 —1 1 . 0 0 7 0 . 5 1 5 4 — c . 7 o 2 3 4 - S .5 1 6 - 0 . 3 5 0 2 -1.1702 •» o - 1 1 . 3 9 4 0.2392 -0.6127 5 -11 .141 0 . 3 6 9 1 - 0 . 4434 4 9 - 1 1 . 0 0 5 0 . 6 1 4 4 - 0 . 3 6 2 3 S - 6 . 3 3 4 0 . 3 9 5 3 1 . 6 1 0 2 50 — 11 . 312 0.4423 -0.1310 7 - 3 . 4 9 1 0 . 1 4 6 4 1 . 5 4 8 4 51 - 1 1 . 137 0 . 5 9 6 2 - 0 . 4 0 61 3 -3 . 025 - 0 . 5 3 5 1 0 . 3 3 0 1 52 - 1 1 . 0 0 7 0 . 1 3 1 6 - 0 . 5 6 9 7 9 - 1 0 . 1 2 3 0 . 5664 0 . 3 6 7 8 5 3 -11.954 0 . 3701 - 0 . 2 2 3 2 - n - 6 . 7 9 1 1 . 3 5 3 2 2 . 0 2 6 5 54 - 1 1 . 2 3 1 0 . 4 7 6 1 -0 .6 0 1 3 >4 ^ -9 . 413 0 . 5 9 39 1 . 3 1 4 3 55 - 1 2 . 1 3 9 0 . 6 1 3 5 -0 . 90 1 5 ■x. o - 9 . 8 5 2 0 . 7 5 2 0 0 . 3 9 4 7 56 - 1 1 . 5 7 3 3 . 5 9 8 3 - 0 . 3 1 5 2 1 3 - 9 . 3 0 6 0 . 4 0 2 4 1 . 0 4 5 5 57 - 1 0 . 5 0 7 0.0316 -1.2S75 j <4 - 1 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0336 0 . 5 1 1 3 5 3 — -1.1 . u 53 0.4552 -1 . 4023 1 5 - 3 . 3 0 2 - 0 . 0 9 9 4 7 . 9 3 9 5 5 9 - 1 1 . 1 4 2 0 . 4 4 4 7 -0 . 077 2 1 6 - 9 . 3 6 9 —0. 3 3 4 9 0 . 9 3 2 5 5 0 - 1 1 . 1 2 3 0 . 6 7 1 5 - 0 . 9 3 5 1 u 7 - 8 . 7 3 5 1 . 0 2 1 9 0 . 5 6 7 5 c 1 3 . 6 6 3 - 7 . 2 7 9 5 -- 0 .8 0 2 6 o * r- l- o ~ O . G -t 3 1 .2 4 1 9 1 .9 7 6 2 6 2 1 . 293 - 3 . 14 5 2 -1 .6 0 4 7 ~ /» r> «“> /- - 8 . 9 7 5 1 . 2 5 5 7 1 . 0 8 0 7 o _> 1 . 9 5 0 - 9 . 0 3 7 1 — u . o o o o * n -1 -1 “.0 - 9 . 3 6 3 0 .2 1 3 9 0 . 4 6 0 7 c m 4.950 -5.2991 1 . 6 l i / 21 -9 . 530 0 . 2 4 6 6 0 . 7 4 1 4 6 5 5 . 7 5 4 -3 . 1295 - 0 . 0 6 2 3 e c - 5 . 9 3 2 1 . 3 5 6 1 1 . 7 3 2 1 6 5 -* . VJ o —5. 3 371 - 0 . 5 5 3 3 -7 . 4 3 4 1 . 7 7 6 4 " . 5 4 7 1 67 J . (11 .3 0 0 4 -0 . 5074 1 C '> _ 4 - 1 0 . 5 9 1 0 . 7 4 9 5 w • G 2 3 ~ . .6 5 -7.3 419 0.1017 2 5 - 7 . 2 6 0 C . 9710 l .3 x 0 9 6 9 3.021 -6 . 9521 0 . 9 8 1 2 >- rs ^ #■> » <- x O - 7 . 3 3 4 U . _ G c . o i / / G 3 . 3 3 9 - 7 . 50 4 4 0 . 1 9 4 6 27 -7 . 6 4 9 G . G O J. / 1 .7 2 6 7 "1 3 . 7 0 9 - 6 . 9 4 6 4 - 0 . 1 9 0 8 2 3 - 3 . 7 9 2 0 . 4 7 3 2 1 . 4 7 3 5 7 2 1 . 1 3 4 - 3 . 4 5 6 2 - 2 . 2 9 3 1 2 7 - 9 . 6 4 3 0 . 0 2 6 6 1 . 0 57 6 3.090 -7.7721 - 0 . 7 5 5 7 o e -3 .1 3 5 0 . 5001 1 . 5 1 5 2 i ^ 3 - 6 . 5 2 0 6 - 1 . 0 6 9 7 X - 1 1 . 3 7 7 VG • G >*. G •4 0 . 0 9 9 9 75 3 . 2 4 7 - 5 . 9 2 5 3 1 . 0 0 3 1 3 2 -3 .7 1 4 - 0 . 6 5 2 9 0 . 1 2 3 9 5.130 5.9451 0 . 07S3 3 3 - 1 1 . 0 5 0 0 . 4 S 3 3 - 1 . 4 513 T T 3 .6 9 1 - 5 . 6 1 1 9 — 0 . 0 4 9 6 *1 < n ^ « 3 4 -1 0 . 4 o 7 0 . 9239 - 0 . 3 5 2 0 * o 2 . ” 5 7 - 7 . 6 3 2 3 ” i . 4 G G V 3 5 -1 1 .4 4 0 0 . 1 7 5 4 - C .9 1 7 3 79 H J( O - 5 .6 2 4 1 - 0 . 0 9 0 5 * r> r>. r\ 3 o “ 1 7 . 3 7 4 7 . 5 9 8 2 . Ci/U 1 7 3 ... r* ^ ^ - 3 . 7 3 1 7 0 . 024 0

3 . - 1 1 . 5 0 4 0 . 4 3 2 6 ~ X. . G O x. 31 1 . 9 3 5 - 3 2 3 37 -0 . 5163 o o 3 3 - 1 0 . 7 9 3 0 . 0 2 2 1 -7 . 1 3 0 5 O <4, 2 ."loo - 7 . 5 6 0 6 -0 . 1 9 1 0 ■> Cl r* — -> ^ rr - 1 1 . 0 0 8 “ i r ^ i r 3 3 •• i) . 410 ( _ c . 7 5 7 5 r-r /-» -1 r- o - c > • G _) / — w . / G ^ f 2 4 2 . 3 7 S -> . g x. g G —0. 7 5 0 1

41 " l i , J O O G . t . ^ G • ' ".-..Uwli 2 o 0 .256 - 9 . 7 0 9 C - j . 3 3 3 4 _ - *• r 7 C rs 4 —r ^ _*T 4 O O n : 2 V' . -* / G X i_ • O V *♦ J 3 5 2 . 4 5 1 / . -a g x G C . ~x J x, -* ■*- *T «• -» ■« o o <"> -i » 4 3 ' 1 1 • 129 1 . 133 3 L • G #' *_ G 2 7 c . 3 4 4 • L j j 6 - U . O 1 j •* 44 _ ^ ^ *T 'I •*' * rs ** * Q - 9 . 3 3 1 G • *» G • X G O 0 . 575 -L G • -L O O - 1 . 3 3 0 1

214 39 4 . 203 - 5 . 3 2 5 8 -- 0. 1 4 7 7 L / 2 6 .0 0 3 1 .3 0 0 7 — x . _> 0 5 9 C 4 . 4 5 3 - 5 . 0 2 4 4 0 . 0 77 0 -a G 5 . 9 4 6 2 . 1 1 3 1 0 . 0 1 1 7

91 2 . 962 2 37 2 3 1 . 2 1 0 4 X *± X G . 4 4 i-. 30 27 - 2 . 3 5 8 0 92 3 ^ 5 ~ 2 . 5 6 3 7 -3.0434 142 5.03 5 1.3357 -0.4336 93 4 . 521 1 . 1 1 3 9 0 . 27 3 5 142 5 . 537 0 . 5 7 5 0 1 .7 1 7 1 rr ^ n o s~ 94 » O / V/' ~J . .LOGO - 3 . 9 0 2 2 14 4 4 . 7 5 1 3.4 237 -0.4343 95 4 . 212 8 . 3 8 2 8 -0 . 3 2 9 2 145 5 . 970 1 . 3 7 2 3 —1. 2 0 2 8 96 5 .70S -0 . 37 53 146 5.404 1 . 6 8 5 2 2 . 0 6 8 1 4 <• -7 •; 97 *-f . / J. J - 1 . 0 9 9 5 * £ 7 4 . 900 2 . 7 1 3 2 1 . 1 3 4 0 98 3 . 972 4 . 3 4 3 3 — 2. 0 5 6 7 143 5 . 7 0 3 2 . 07 3 3 1 . 0 1 3 0 99 4 . 220 4 . 3 7 4 1 - 1 . 5 3 7 1 149 5.003 8.117 4 0.0955 100 4 . 514 4 . 0 1 2 1 - 2 . 0 0 1 4 150 4.746 1.2567 1.3396 101 5 . 044 3 . 6 8 0 4 - 0 . 5 7 5 3 151 3 . 6 1 1 1 . 7 3 3 4 3 . 4 4 5 6 102 3 . 2 3 3 4 . 2 9 9 2 - 3 . 6 1 6 3 152 4 . 351 3 . 6 4 5 5 0 . 4 1 0 9 Cl *-» 103 3 . 2 6 7 7 - 0 . 0 6 2 2 1 52 5 . 6 6 4 1 . 5 7 2 3 1 . 8 0 8 6 10 4 4 . C71 4 . 3 0 01 -2 .1112 154 5 . 473 1 . 9 1 0 0 0 . 6 0 2 3 c i ^ ^ 105 . lt.'j 3 . 6 37 3 - 2 . 011 4 155 3 . 501 2.3152 2.3920 4 -1 O 10 5 . x G O 4 . ** 14 d - 1 . 7 9 2 9 156 5 . 2 3 2 C . 3 9 8 2 2 . 5 0 1 7 107 2 . 9 4 0 4 . 546 9 - 0 . 97~ 3 157 e 1 7 1 . 9 7 0 6 1 . 1 3 3 1 * n uUO 4 . 4 1 2 4 . 3054 - 1 . 7 1 4 5 150 5 . 521 0 . 7 3 5 4 2 . 2 4 0 9 C n *> 1 109 4 . 3 3 4 — . -* jl. u 7 - 1 . 6 3 1 0 159 J . Li J 4 0.3227 1.5993 A C ^ ^ 110 *4 . o 3 G 3 . 3 1 7 2 -1 .7 1 6 4 16 0 4 .7 3 3 0 . 9 1 6 1 2 . 0 3 7 4 11 1 4 . 7 S 7 4 . 1 5 2 0 - 1 . 4 0 6 9 151 4 . 1 3 3 1 . 3 0 4 2 1 . 9 5 7 9 112 3 . 4 3 3 4 . 6 7 7 0 - 1 . 0 2 2 3 162 5 .6 8 3 0 . 4 36 4 0 . 3 3 9 6 113 3 . 5 3 8 2 . 3 5 8 1 0 . 5694 163 S .2 2 3 0.4834 0.9431 114 3 .0 2 1 3 . 7 9 6 3 -1.5461 16 4 5 .6 3 5 0 . 4 3 3 3 1 . 1 3 7 0 * * ^ 4 2 5" 3 . 5 0 3 2 0 . 0 4 0 7 165 5 .828 0.3125 1 . 4 3 1 7 _ 'I ^ O ^ O 113 5 . 4 1 5 2 . 7 2 1 2 166 4 .957 0.4137 0 . 3 3 2 3 117 4 . 7 0 1 2 . 5 5 3 4 - 1 . 3 5 1 2 157 3 . 27 3 - 2 . 1 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 7 113 4 .6 1 9 3 . 1 5 5 6 0 . 1 8 3 5 150 5 . 602 0 . 5 2 3 0 1 . 1 9 5 2 ^ ~ 113 • G / Jj 3 . 0 4 3 3 - 0 . 3 9 4 1 169 1.7358 2.6024 * n * Cs Q rs —r 12 0 2 .7 5 1 4 . C 9 9 5 3 . 7 4 0 1 5 . 919 0 . 3333 'J • O / G / .? . r* /" (7 r> r; — 121 5 . 4 4 5 X . / i O O - 1 . 67 4 5 171 - 0 . 2 4 2 1 2 .1 5 1 4

5 . 531 0 . 3 2 3 4 - 3 . 4 5 6 3 5 . 3 37 -0.5975 2.1003

6 . 8 7 3 - 0 .2 3 3 3 - 0 . 6 8 1 5 f> 8 0 0 -1 . 7 ” 15 0 . 3 5 6 4

-i. ; . 313 2 . 4 7 2 4 - 2 . 1 6 1 9 17 - 5 . 5 2 5 1- • 'rt <• > —1 1 . 904 5 7 — c * p *■» ^ -» Cs * r\ * 125 6 . 437 0 . 2 7 9 8 - 3 . 4 4 3 5 L . \J O X 1. 3 3 C 6

12 6 5 . 9 6 3 2 . 6 1 0 7 - 1 . 9 3 2 3 * 7 r < > ..> . i. 0 . 3 3 3 3 - 0 . 1 0 9 9

127 1 . 4 3 5 4 .1 5 5 4 1 . 4 861 L / t 5 . 9 3 1 0 . 3 4 5 2 1 . 5 9 0 1 1 n g -1 -* <-> . 6 . 275 1 7 0 J (5 - 0 . 6 0 0 0 X / O 0 . 4 5 4 0 x . 4 0 1 C 1- -“S O /*> 129 5. 876 1 .7 0 7 2 1 . 0 7 31 17 7* 3 . *7 0 2/ 0 . 5 3 3 0 1 . 6 1 0 3 1 -> r* ** 130 6 . 340 X • j O u - 1 . 8901 X G G 7 . 7 4 2 -2 . 3114 2 .1794 r- <1 *-* /-> 131 6 . 5 0 0 1 . 3 9 4 5 - 0 . 4 0 3 1 181 . 1 > G 1 . 446 6 1 . 0 2 3 6 4 . 3 8 8 2 .7 7 0 3 1 . 494 0 132 5 .3 3 3 0.3000 1 .0944 * 7 ° 5 . 978 8 . 1 9 6 5 - 1 .1 1 4 7 L O G 6 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 3 1 7 0 . 3 1 5 5 -» n p r\ o 13 4 4 . 543 -J . C G G G - 2 . 1696 1 3 4 5 . 22 3 1 . 3152 1 . 4 3 7 3 i. w/ o 4 . 512 3 .5 0 57 -1 . 8931 105 5 .3 0 '’ - 0 . 7 5 1 1 2 .2 3 7 4 1 36 5 . 9 5 3 1 . 3 3 5 2 0 . 3347 18 5 4 . 3 5 4 1.4055 1.2093 -I -> *T LG/ 0.11'* 1 . 2 1 4 2 0 . 1 3 5 5 137 5 . 7 7 2 0.9891 0.1975 ~ 1 1 >7

215 ~ 1t t tV'.en cr 1 1 1 .ir.d L'ans l crr.ed uni t

U n it 77 i t ! U n it F it ; Un i t F it ; U n it F i t ; Uni t p it

1 0 . 90 39 0 . 97 77 0 . 97 114 0 . 57 151 0 . 37 2 0 . 86 "7 n ^ n * 40 1.00 / O 0 . 94 115 G • o -i 152 0 . 33 3 0 . 59 41 C .94 79 0 . 92 116 0.94 153 0 . 92 4 0.35 42 1.00 80 0 . 99 C .65 154 0 . 32 5 0 .93 43 0 .94 31 0 .93 113 0 . 37 155 0 . 32 G 0.33 44 0 .93 o G 0.93 119 0.91 156 0 . 93 0 .95 45 0 .99 33 0 .89 120 0 .34 157 0 . 36 3 0 .79 46 C . 96 8 4 C . 99 121 0 . 31 158 c . 9 3 -i <"> 9 0 . 99 47 C . 97 35 0 9 3 X 4* 0.09 159 0 . 87 10 0 . 37 43 0.94 3 6 1 . 00 123 2 . 93 160 0 . 35 n 11 0 . 97 43 0 . 99 c / 0.96 124 0.33 161 0 . S 6 rs 12 0 . 92 50 0.96 3 3 0 . 97 123 0.93 162 u • 31

13 0 .99 O J. 0 .93 39 C . 93 126 0.34 163 0 . 95

14 0 .93 52 0.93 90 0.98 127 0.82 164 0 . 35 15 C .36 5 3 0.94 91 0 .65 123 0.90 165 0 . 95 r\ 16 0 . 97 54 0 . 99 9 2 0.75 129 0 . 91 16 6 O . 63

17 0 . 96 55 0.95 93 0 . 62 130 0.91 167 0 . 99

1 3 0.99 56 0 . 97 94 0 . 94 131 0 .96 163 0 . 81

19 0.95 57 0 . 97 95 0 . S3 132 C . 36 169 0 . 52 20 0 . 97 5 3 0.93 96 0 . SS 133 C . 33 17 0 0 . 81 n ~s r\ rs rs 21 0.93 59 0 . 96 97 U • O o 134 G . G G 171 0 . 79

0.93 60 0 . 99 98 0.95 135 C .35 17 2 0 . 97 o n 0 .88 61 0 . 91 99 0 . 36 136 0.96 173 0 . 98 2 4 . 0 96 62 C . 99 1 0 0 0 .70 137 2 .92 174 0 . 83 25 C . 97 63 0 .98 101 0 .70 138 0.59 175 0 . 60 n 2 6 2 . 96 o 4 0 . 91 10 2 0.33 139 n o 7 17 6 u . 84 27 0 . 3 " 55 0.93 103 0.54 140 0.93 177 0 . 93 r rs * 23 0 . 98 6 6 0.91 0 4 0 . 77 141 0 . 36 178 0 . 9 5 ? o n n 3.99 57 1 . 00 .z ^ . O .j X X ^ . G 17 9 0 93 r rs -\ A ^ r\ *7 0 3 0 0.96 6 8 0 . 93 10 6 sJ . O.l X *“t 130 0 . 97 31 0 . 94 69 0 . 99 107 w , o J 144 : .32 131 0 . O ^ * n 22 0.30 70 0.98 103 G . 9 5 145 0.34 i O 6 0 . 36 It 1 0 .79 71 C . 35 109 0 . 93 146 0 . 92 13 3 rs 32 o J *-» 0.93 72 0.94 110 0.90 147 C . 36 134 w . 91 r, o o r\ 3 5 G 7 3 1 . 00 111 G . 30 14 3 ~ . 91 13 5 G • 95 7 6 0.91 7 4 0.95 .i. 1 2 0 . 54 149 0 . 37 136 0 . 70 r* t r 37 1 . 0 0 75 0 . 32 J_ X 0 . 47 150 137 0 . 30 "■* r> r 3 3 U . V o 76 0 .95

216 TJ a.a C (0 (Q SC □ SC CO o> .♦ • .♦ «o ■ % ■ « O DO q O O O od 217 ro Function 2 Function o> ► ► ► > >> ► ► 00 IN) 00 CD CD 00 o Functionl 7* a b 1

Canonical Varistcs Analysis

There were 97 units Scored on 3 variables

Jnits were grouped into 5 clusters

Summary of the new variates

As % of As % of Comp . Eigenv. V a n ance total Cumulative l. o t a 1

1 61 .13 3 . 505 30 .45 3 . 51 30 . 45 7 22.52 1 . 397 16.43 5 . 40 4 6.92 a 6 . 91 1 . 246 10.82 6 .65 57.75 A 1.73 1 .031 8 .95 7 .63 66.70 5 + 0 . 00 0 .958 3 . 3 2 8 .64 75 . 03

Raw v a r i a t e loadinos

(rows = original variables, cols = canon ical variates) o 1 £ I 3 4 5

1 0.26530 -0.9967 0.1323 1 .683 0 . 0725 0.65314 0.4032 0 . 467 8 -1 .045 -0 . 57 41 n -0 . 26723 -0.6153 0.2587 -0.728 -0.1039 0 . 6 ; 15 o - 0 . 37 3 0 -0 . 3658 -0.802 0.4648 r* _ 62 C A C o - 0 . 3 5 7 37 3.3 9 0 3 0 .0306 U . j 1 -0.2033 r* * r\ 6 2 . 2 6 8 2 C -2.6130 L • O O j l 2> 1 .803 0.4002 7 ** 4 ^ ^ A -0 .00442 0 . 4 3 41 0 . 7732 0 .131 _L • 4 dj -4

£ -0.04422 -0 .3342 0.8236 -0.431 “ 1 . Ht C» D

8 I- andavd i sed va ^ iate 7 cadi r.nr. 1 — — (rows - original variables r ubi o — canonical .* aviates)

1 *4A 5

« * 0.12062 -0 . -4 ^ ^ X 0.0323 0 .763 0 . 0 3 2 9 2 0.42513 0 .2625 0.304 o -C . 6 30 -0 . 37 3 8 3 -0.20 311 -0 .4795 0 . 2314 -3 . 567 -0.0803 r \ ^ ^ r» •7 4 0.56014 ”U . 315 3 -0.30 51 - 0 . 8 6 9 w . G ' / 5 -0.57 33 0 0 .0731 0 . 0 6 3 3 -0.443 -0 . 1791 ^ n * 6 0.40371 -0 . 4 8 6 2 0.1525 3.0712 /■s ~ -1 7 -0.0 0 30 3 o . 2373 0 . j jt.y O . L J 1 0 . 9760

3 -0.03941 - o . 2979 0.7340 — 0 . 411 -1 . 1126

218 Transformation of Variables

There were 97 units Scored on S variables

Scores were calculated for 3 new variables

Ne w Scores

4 "9 J 3 : 2 j

0 ^ 0 9 r 9 0.35185 -1 . 44324 0 . 270265 45 n. • L U 0 U 1 . 17151 -0.376203 1.73942 1 . 24413 -0 . 571399 46 -0 . 51641 0 . 4177 9 0.090537 0.12269 -1 . 90876 -1 .2 3 3 957 47 -0 .3 1 3 0 9 1.24432 -0.903010 4.36323 — 0.64136 -0.433392 4 3 -2 .0 4 2 0 6 -0 . 2713 0 -1.9 0 2 7 0 3 as a * as *s m 5 1.703 4 3 U • 4ak L J ** 0 .925991 49 0 . 3 S 3 31 2 . 29883 -1. 066475 6 0.73127 - 0 . 2S790 -0 .6 3 53 9 0 50 -0 . 22279 1. 7 C 4 2 2 0 .187265 *7 1.36332 — 0.4 4 6 2 9 - • 1 . 2 2 8 6 0 9 51 0 . 03597 i- • 4 -2 .155931 2.6749 2 0.9 4 5 57 .. . 6 3 4 9 4 3 32 - 0 . 3 0 8 6 5 2.54441 -0.726576 -S A *1 -f * 1 9 <* . 4 I / 4 L -0 .5 5 6 7 0 0 .487199 53 -2 . 3 55 37 1.9214 5 -0.1 1 4 8 0 1 * ^ * fs fS L VJ 2.95974 - Z . z n u o -0 .4 7 9 0 3 3 54 0 . 4 67 26 2 . 5 57 9 3 1.045036 r> -i *7 r\ -n 1 L -1.5 0 6 3 4 -0 .1 0 5700 5 5 0.37943 1.73994 -1.195361 1 o 3.33643 0.27 339 -0.31 05 91 56 -1 .77533 1.23547 1.175323 T 3 2 . 42790 -1.53 67 6 0 . 69571 4 57 - 0 .76576 1.4 7 6 61 1. 932037 14 3.4530 5 -2 .0 0 0 0 9 0.042945 5 3 -1 .0 3 5 3 5 2. . u 7 0 / 3 1 .033321 1 -» "h ^ 2.06247 -1.37 53 1 — > 1 . 0 .13 0 8 4 59 C . 2 u 1 > 0 .1 • r ^ Z w) 1 . 19 3611 1 o 2.6 0 8 47 -0.61033 -0.533443 6 0 -2.16506 1. 35523 2.026020 : 7 2.70043 - 1.49486 0 . 4 0 8 5 5 0 61 -2 .5 7 4 0 2 0 . 8 01 3 3 2 . 936891 Z 3 2.54043 - 0 . 25102 0 . 146021 6 2 0 .62744 *1 . 01320 1.308712 1 3 2 . 3442 5 0.493 6 0 2.5167"5 6 3 -1 .7 1 2 4 5 0 . 8 0 8 3 0 1.002125 2. . 2 3780 - 0 . 8 6 G 3 3 -0 .3 27152 5 4 .06985 1.31953 1.301651 21 1 . 4423 0 0 . 8 3 8 5 8 2 6 5 -1 . 5 6 5 8 ~ ~ . 4 0 712 2.887330 r\ -> 0 -* -i rv «o. fc- 2 «! 3 * 7 ~ 3.3 32 3 0 1 . 3 6 6 9 27 0 6 - 2 . 2 0 9 31 ‘J . U O J L U 1 . 40C531 -1 «-T 4 2 3 2.03259 -1.43335 >. . 1 *-» 0 21 2 8 7 -1 7 4 3 2 r 1 . 1 J / 1 O 4 j- . u 817 3 5 34 2 . ^ <£ o 3 3 - 0 . 37 0 0 4 u . 4 / u 1 ■» 3 6 3 — 1 . 323 3 2 - C . 5 3 910 0.606395 1 * ^ ^ ty 25 1 . 4 3329 0.00924 69 C o 0 -1 .2 470 2 0 . 000151 ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ 26 1 . 593 3 3 0.23103 -0 . 573924 7 0 ’ O . O j .J / £-j - 0 . 9 9 0 37 -0 .0 6 3 5 0 2 ~ -1 0. _* / 2 . 53058 - 1 . 24463 -0.533471 71 -0 .2 6 3 3 9 “ . V J lU x 0.373074 — ^ * * rs -> 2 3 — . 4 . 1 3 <■; 0.39510 0.6 4 3 0 5 3 / ^ J_ . 4 i U U . J -1.90 67 9 -0 .1 0 5 4 1 5 29 1.5 2736 -0.07 90 2 -0.035906 73 -1 .23849 0 .75500 -0 .359120 -r 1 * j . / *4 / o e - 0 .9 2 0 8 3 0.3 4 9 20 5 - 1. 522 3 5 0.12999 -1.132C43 -« -i * w. o«6 47 2.4 0 6 07 -1.33 15 99 7 5 -1 . 53717 -0 .1 5 0 36 0 . 316122 ' 2 . 1 O U O 6 . - . 1 O b O 7 -2.150952 7 0 -1 .4 07 35 — J . 1 V L !j O -0 . 213557 — — 3 3 - 1 . 3 4 3 3 3 1 .11250 - 1.712216 -2 .9 9 9 9 5 - 0 .73456 — 1 . 3 901 1 «i

_l Tt 1.583 5 4 0 . 3 3 9 5 5 -1 .3 4 56 3 3 7 9 - 1 r 13 6 5 - 3 . 32011 ~0 . 36^3 37 "I c 1 .16163 0.70617 — j . 0398 8 7 / *■* - 0 . 9 2 2 2 0 - 2 . 65 37 9 0.961213 1.06213 - 0 . 19033 -0.547009 30 -1 .4 3 5 1 4 - 0 .75660 -0.826637 37 1 . 23131 0.43348 2.190703 0 1 — 2 .5 4 2 j 3 — 0 . 3 7 0 3 9 -0 .15 0513 0 0 3 3 -3.55034 1.56290 W . O O O sJ 7* -2 .6 5 5 0 5 -0.47393 - 0 . 134SS2 ^ * r\ -* _ •'■n r* ^ rs *s ^ 33 - 1.216 9 3 • . • I ^ *1 0 . 6 *17 7 3 4 1.13660 -1.993042 40 0.79335 1.. 2 3 6 3 9 - •. . u C O 0 41 3 4 ” 1 . 2 < j o j -1 . 3 3 572 0 . 625294 rs c: ^ *■' 4 1 -0.74503 • .J w » , ., -0 .3 3 6 371 r r “ . . < woOO KJ O ' V' O 1.413546 - 0 . C 0 7 8 6 w . 0 3 0 2 1.753717 0 6 -1 . 41uo 7 O . U li6 J — 0.5 4^333 4 3 0.0 0 97 3 2 0 ^ ' 4 2 -0.029992 3 7 -1 .5 5 8 4 5 1 . 0 0 j 3 x, -0 .1 2 6 2 4 5 *> «? r «o c 4 4 rj . JuOu j 2.12761 -0.0 9 6 1 3 5 33 -1 .77346 -0 .0 3 36 6 -0 .692977

219 o n u: m S3 - 1 . 5 37 3 0 - 0 .6 7 754 - ~ .16 716 5 94 -0 . 3 67 55 0 .63507 30 - 4 . 3 6 5 5 3 -0 . 24671 - Q .6 9 5 4 5 0 5’ ~J -2 .3 4 0 0 3 -0 .3 2 3 3 3 - 91 - 0 . 2 4 04 2 -1 .34524 '-.J •* ~t 1 L 9 0 - 0 .3 0 4 5 2 •2.85924 - 92 - 1 . 7 9 3 6 4 - 0 .1 3 0 3 7 - 1 . 1 4 2 1 4 5 97 - 0 .6 2 3 2 7 - 1 .6 1 1 3 5 - 9.1 — . 36909 -1 . 40513 -0 .0: 5525

Fit- V)

n ii j -> U n i t. F i t ! Unit Fit : Unit Fit ; Uni t - . Uni t I (-*• II (-*• I II rf 1 i i I I II ii 1 II i i II ii !-'• 1 1 1 II i II i i i H II rf 1

1 0.24 21 0 . 4 6 *■* I 0.25 V.. 0 0 . 52 79 0 .41 0 . 23 22 0 .33 42 0 . 57 o i C . 8 6 80 0 . 47 * r> 3 0 .28 2 3 0 . 3 3 0 . 90 6 2 0 • G *.• 81 0 . 50 *i 0.55 24 0 .46 44 0.39 63 0 . 59 32 0.80 r \ t " 5 0 . 50 2 5 0 . 50 45 0 • ./ O 64 0.58 S3 0.86 6 0 .16 26 0 .44 46 0 .11 55 0.79 84 0 . 56 7 0.33 27 0.47 47 0.44 66 C . 39 8 5 0.76 0 0.59 2 3 0 .39 4 S 0.44 67 C . 7 3 36 0 . 26 ^ 5 r K 1 29 0 . 2 0 43 W . 3/ 63 0 . 51 3 / 0 .44 X G 0.74 30 0.50 3 0 2.70 6 3 3.52 88 0 . 67 rs — - 0 • 31 W . O L 7> 7 Z . 4 4 . . . x. X 39 0 . 62 - 12 0 . 57 -J X. C . 62 52 0.36 / X 0.13 90 0.74 13 w . 4 4 33 C .79 5 3 0.66 ~ ? 0.30 91 0.55 14 0.31 34 0.71 54 C ~ ^ 7 3 0 .54 92 0.61 15 0 . 58 35 0.54 55 0.36 74 0.43 93 0 . 56 16 0 . 59 36 56 0.79 75 0 . 50 94 0 .14 17 0.73 37 0.32 57 ^ o o / O 0.71 95 0 . 67 o c t o X G 0 .73 38 0 . 3 / 0.61 77 0 .74 36 0 .30 0 cr ^ ' 7 0.82 39

220 O' o> cn 0» n (Q (Q O DO + + □ O O O 221 Function 2 Function cn co Function 1 i d U X C X

'-driOiiiCaj. * ai'ld t' L . I Q J . / S I 5

ucTc W6 T < ■ C units Geared on 3 varidulcs j iii t 5 Wei" c Cj L" OUpdd iii to o cluste r s

oun.iiiarv of tne new varrates

- - _ S n o '0 U i r \ S % Of comp. nigenv. Variance total O UiTiU xdtlV e total

1 l.lS02S0e+03 56.403 72.22 56.4 72.22

2 2 .772550e+02 13 . 97 3 17 . 90 70 . 4 90.12 3 3.407080e+01 2 . 554 3 . 27 72.3 93.39

4 3 . 533160e + 00 1 .354 1.73 74 . 3 95.12 5 1.734130e-04 0 .353 1. 22 75.2 96 . 34 6+ 0 . 000000e + 00 0 .953 1 . 22 76 . 2 37 . 56

Raw var i at.a loadings

(rows - original variables, cols = canonical variates)

1 -0 .1011 -0.7 5 5 -0 . 26 44 2 . 0551 0 . C 4O4 0 . 370 a •4 A 2 0 . 9S79 -1.2 5 O 0.64 C0 -0 . 026X 0.06 -0.237 -5 3 0.3635 0 . 0 94 u<■< . 44 6 6 0 0 . 40 0 w/c -0 .29 -o9 -0.362 4 -0 . 0212 -0 . 1 Oa 51 C . C 526 -0.6 4 3 W • *J) J.A/0 0.122 r \ - s 0 .4 A c 5 0 .9603 C . X 6 1.54 0 * 0 . G4 5 J . 5 9 0 . 120 a 0 rs A rs A 6 -1 . 5935 — 1.2 67 -0.62 0u -1.5 591 - 0 . C 00 zj -3.509 7 -0 . 5145 -0 . 46 46 0 .61 35 0.2 X7 1 . 13 n/I -0.370 0 -0 . 5364 -0.6 3Oa 1 1 . 46 0Cl 0 . 036 4 -0 .53 UAO -0.117

1t and a r d i s e d variate 1 o a d -( n a s \ x x. ^ »V 0 Oil g m a x -✓ .11~ j. a L’ x co 0 • ~ 1 - — c d 11 c r* v .g a. ia? 4-t t^ / A A * i. * 5 6

a a a a A 1 -0 .^ J O -J - C . 2 3 3 3 - 0 . C 9 4 3 0 .7 0 3 0.0163 0 .1327 A >1 A A r* .4 •-» r 9 0 .6 6 6 3 -0.3130 v.; . ** J J. O — \ i . U X / O 3.04 3 3 -0.1935

j c .2336 0.3314 0 . 3339 'P. J . .j'I X Q-/ 1j. — ' J . 4L. C 4 1 - 0 .7665 /» A * rs, rs A 4 A ^ 7 0 u .U ». O O . vriO.I — u . b 0 c 3 '* / • £L, I s U • X vj / ^ 5 0 .6 3 41 0 . 0991 1 . U —i ■* 0.0276 U • 1 / ^ 0 0.0318 a *•> a r* a rs r ^ a A A *-f A A 0 “ 'w/ .2634 U •

222 i abl c i.

Transformation of Variables

herc- -.vcre 150 u n its 'cored n 3 variables

Scores were calculated for 3 new variables

i < e w o c o

"> i 2 -> i X 2 3

.L - 7 . 2 3 - 1 . 2 1 7 6 2 . 5 0 2 6 2 4 5 - 9 . 3 3 0 . 4 7 1 6 — 0 . _> •* 4 07 O - 5 . 9 4 2 . 0 2 2 9 2 . 3 3 7 3 0 4 6 -1 0 . 21 0 . 5 3 4 0 - 0 . 1 9 7 4 1

-6 .66 1 . 0 3 7 0 0.21159 47 -10 .13 0 . 4 1 9 8 - 0 . 9 5 8 6 0 -t * “ / . Co 1 . 3 7 0 3 - 1 . 0 5 3 4 0 O - 1 0 . 4 3 0 . 7 1 8 0 - 0 . 9 7 2 3 2 r - 1 0 . 4 0 0 . 1 3 2 5 — 0 . 6 7 2 0 1 4 9 - 1 0 . 07 0 . 4 1 0 8 - 0 . 5 0 2 3 5

- 5 . 9 2 - 0 . 0 1 9 1 2 . 0 5 4 5 1 5 0 - 1 0 . 4 3 0 .5373 -0.47157 * /-> -> ^ - S . 0 3 0 . 4 6 0 3 r. • o cj j u O 5 1 - 1 0 . 1 7 0 . 4 5 0 1 - 0 . 5 7 8 9 9 o - 7 . 3 4 0 . 3 1 1 3 0 . 5 0 1 3 5 52 - 9 . 9 3 0.7603 -0.71257 r*~j - 9 . 4 0 0 . 3 7 51 0 . 3 7 1 9 9 53 - 1 0 . 3 3 0 .8 3 5 9 — 0 . 6 1 4 5 3

10 - 5 . 3 6 - 0 . 9 3 3 3 2 . 3 5 3 4 5 5 4 - 1 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 0 5 3 - 0 . 3 3 5 4 5

11 - 3 . 95 0 . 2 2 6 9 1 . 4 5 8 9 9 5 5 - 1 1 .2 0 0 . 5 6 7 6 - 1 . 3 3 9 9 5 -1 ^ JL ^ - 9 . 3 1 0 . 0 9 3 8 0 . 3 8 3 0 7 56 - 1 0 . 7 0 0 . 42 S 5 - 1 . 1 5 2 4 1 1 3 - 8 . 7 2 0.4030 1.17727 5 7 -9.31 C.7077 - 1 . 3 9 2 3 6 x *5 - 9 . 2 4 0 . 3 6 5 1 0 . 5 5 9 9 6 58 - 9 . 7 3 0 . 5 3 8 6 - 1 . 6 0 9 3 0 n r- * ^ r> o - 1 5 ~ . J a -1 -1 r- ^ r- r G • O G G L 5 9 - 1 0 . 1 9 0 . 6 1 4 9 — 0 . 2 6 27 9 G . 5 6 1 -8 1 . 1 1 2 9 l . l 4 3 4 6 0 - 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 1 7 1 - 1 . 1 2 9 5 5 i < - 3 . 3 1 - 0 . 4 1 0 2 0 . 7 4 9 3 3 6 1 7 . 6 9 5 . 3 3 4 5 - 1 . 1 5 9 2 4 1 n X o -6 . 3 0 - 0 . 3 2 6 2 2 . 3 3 0 41 6 2 6 .00 3 . 0 0 9 0 - 1 . 3 5 4 9 9 n r\ - -> /i 1 9 -3 .62 -0.4938 1 . 2 3 S 5 5 6 3 6 . 5 6 O . U x / 4 — 0 . 8 8 . 5 5 <■> p. - 3 . 7 1 0 . 5 2 4 2 0 . 5 6 7 5 0 5 4 G . G _i_ j . o U b l - 1 . 3 3 3 1 4 31 4 *"7 * - 3 . 9 6 0 . 5 6 0 3 0 . 3 3 1 2 9 6 5 3 0 4 *4 0 . 0 6 6 8 4 5 2 - 7 . 0 5 - 1 . 4 1 9 5 2 . 0 3 1 1 1 66 7 . 6 6 3 . 1 1 7 2 - 0 .6 2 3 9 3

7 . 3 - 7 . 3 3 - 1 . 2 3 0 3 1 . 30571 67 7 . 6 2 5 . 9 6 3 9 - 0 . 6 1 5 7 7 ~ 4 - 9 . 9 0 0 . 2 2 5 2 0 . 3 3 2 3 0 O G 6 . 4 3 6 .0 67 3 0 . 1 2 1 2 3 o - 6 . 3 9 ■ 0 . 4 3 4 6 x . e 5 j> 5 4 6 3 6 . 3 C 5 . 3 3 1 7 1 . 1 6 6 9 4 o ^ o O - 5 . 9 3 0 . 3 9 4 9 2 . 3 0 6 3 7 / v> 7 . 2 5 6 . 2 5 6 7 0 . 1 3 2 3 3 ^ ^ 4 *- - -* -6 . 3 0 1 . 4 4 0 8 . 1 44 j o / X 7 . 5 0 5 . 3 6 51 - 0 . 2 3 2 9 9 — r— -> ~ • JU

2 9 -8 . 97 0 . 3 0 4 9 1 . 1 5 7 4 1 7 ^ 7 . 1 3 5 . 4 3 6 5 - 0 . 8 5 9 4 2

10 - 7 . 9 0 C . 1 1 5 5 1 . S 3 3 3 5 7 4 7 . 7 1 4 . 9 9 2 7 r 1 r» - 1 3 . 4 5 0 . 3 7 4 3 - 0 . 1 7 3 3 9 '-J . *4 0 4.3960 1.16496

3 2 - 7 . 67 1 . 0 5 3 5 0 . 0 9 2 57 / G 8 . 53 4.5731 - 0 . 0 9 0 5 2 3 ~ r- ^ r* ^ • 9 . 3 7 '■j . 4 c_, j ^ - 1 . 3 2 3 3 7 7 7 ’ 3 J • u V O c ~ G • O w O x X r*i 3 4 - 9 . 6 5 - 0 . 0 7 7 0 - 0 . 3 2 3 6 3 / G 6 . 8 3 o . e c 0 3 “ 1 . o 3 h x x -) c _ 0 ^ 'h O G • ' 0 . 3 6 4 5 -1 .1 1 4 2 5 9 7 . 9 5 5 . 4 2 3 5 - 0 . 2 0 6 8 5 <*- ^ o ^ «** c 7 p - 9 . 0 0 0 . 3 5 5 2 - 1 . 7 3 6 9 3 G G 7 . 7 3 1 5 0 . 0 2 5 1 4 o ^ r\ - 1 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 2 0 6 - i . 5^159 31 ■J • vj G 7 . 0 7 0 5 - 0 . 5 5 3 9 1 -> r* r-f ^ -• G - 3 . 7 4 n ^ 0 . 7 4 3 6 - 1 . 3 1 5 4 5 G 4^, / . / o, 3 . 3 0 1 9 - 0 . 3 4 37 3 3 3 - 1 0 . 3 C* “> 1 0 . 3 37 0 - 1 . 3 1 3 3 5 6 . 9 5 4 . 9 3 4 5 - 1 . 3 1 3 1 9 4 0 - 1 0 . 1 5 0 . 6 1 3 3 - 0 . 9 3 0 2 3 G *4 7 . i s 6 . 7 2 3 1 - 0 . 9 2 3 3 3 _ o ** •? r. ~ ^ T -7 - 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 7 1 3 3 5 . 31 j . o “ ("i L -1 . 12 37 0 4 2 o /- - x u .2 5 0 . 4 3 1 0 — r . Mi,5 JO G D O . X 6 . 3 4 2 9 0 .6 0 3 4 3 4 1 c t c% »-r ^ - 9 . 3 0 0 . 5 3 6 3 - 1 . 3 4 3 6 5 7 . 2 5 5 . 9 1 4 6 "•O .G / 1 1 44 r> o - 0 . 3 0 0 . 2 9 7 5 - 0 . 3 5 5 0 7 G G J • / X 9 . 2 7 0 3 - 1 . 7-7 7 5 4

223 S 9 7 . 9 3 5 . 6 1 5 0 -0 . 2-501 3 120 2 . 7 4 0 . G G / 3 - 0 . 7 5 7 9 2 9 0 7 . 7 6 4 . 5 3 0 3 0 . 0 3 1 5 9 * 2 5 . 9 1 — ^ . <.u00 2 . 6 5 4 6 5

9 1 3 . 01 -3 . 3 3 5 0 1 . 6 3 3 5 2 122 5 . 8 3 -2.3336 1.99024 r s <•> -1 0 7 c - -J . _» 6 . 6 3 - 4 . 0 4 6 0 - 3 . 3 9 7 9 2 X G J . 1 - 2 . 2 5 4 7 2 . 6 2 9 5 7 -1 '■■s 4 * ^17 0 3 5 . 4 3 - 2 . 4 2 2 0 0 . 5 6 9 21 x g H t m “ -J . VJ G / x. 2 . 46 2 9 5 -) ^ ^ " rs ~s 1— 9 4 ^ O • 4iO U J - 4 . 5 2 3 06 1 2 5 6 . 3 1 - 1 . 97 0 2 1 . 0 3 4 7 4 /I 7 O 9 5 ** • X x» - 5 . 1 3 2 0 — SJ • i u l U u 1 2 6 7 . 1 3 -1 .9543 1 .05901 _ r 7 7 ^ 7 *9 9 6 5 . 3 2 - 3 . 3 1 9 5 U • u g x. 1 2 / 5 . 3 1 - 1 . 5 5 3 3 1 . 3 4 7 6 8 -* 7 7 9 7 5 . 1 6 - 5 . 0 1 5 5 -I .2 3 27 3 1 4i O 6 . 4 2 - 2 . 4 1 7 7 1 . 6 66 4 6 * * 7 9 3 • ** X - 5 . 1 5 2 7 - 3 . 5 7 9 2 7 1 2 9 5 . 9 3 - 1 . 9 2 5 6 1 . 2 1 6 4 3

3 9 4 . 4 2 - 5 . 6 9 3 0 - 1 . 7 4 8 9 9 1 3 0 3 . 0 3 0 . 5 0 6 4 1 .21002 _ n 7 r* 7 7 ICC 5 . 3 4 -2.23031 131 6 . 5 3 - 2 . 0 2 9 5 1 . 5 1 3 2 7

101 5 . 7 0 - 4 . 3 8 3 1 - 0 . 7 0 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 .43 -2.67 57 3 . 2 3 3 0 2 _ <5 ^ *> "7 A 102 3 . 7 6 - 5 . 61 7 9 - 4 . 2 3 2 4 7 1 3 3 / . U o G • Xi G S O 1 .0 0 1 2 0

Jl VJ J) 4 . 0 5 - 4 . 5 4 3 9 0 . 0 5 7 6 9 1 3 4 6 .2 2 - 0 . 93 1 5 2 . 4 1 4 3 5

1 0 4 4 . 60 - 5 . 6 1 5 2 - 2 . 3 9 5 0 0 1 3 5 6 . 7 2 - 0 . 9 2 1 8 2 . 4 7 5 3 9

1 0 5 5 . 9 0 - 5 . 0 9 4 0 -2.30960 136 7 . 87 0 . 2 6 7 3 1 . 1 4 3 2 2

1 0 6 4 . 7 3 - 5 . 5 3 5 4 - 2 . 0 8 1 6 2 1 3 7 6 .11 - 2 . 7 5 3 3 2 . 1 9 3 9 3 * rs X o _ - r ~ o r X U O 4 . 7 0 -/ • J J -1.93531 139 7 .63 - 2 . 3 5 1 6 - 0 . 25 9 2 6

1 C 9 4 . 6 1 ~ w* . ' W J. — 1 4 0 6 . 67 -2.3500 1 . 31371 * * rs -4 * *4 x xG 5 . 5 2 — 4 . 3 6 4 3 - 1 . 3 4 3 5 6 1 4 1 6 . 8 7 X . O X 4 X 1 . 6 7 4 0 1 *1 -» f C O o T *7 7 3 • ✓'i <4j - 5 . 3 6 4 0 - 1 . 3 3 5 0 4 1 4 2 O . / - 2 . 1 6 7 3 1 . 3 9 3 3 4

1 1 2 3 . 6 6 - 5 . 6 8 8 9 - 1 . 4 7 7 0 0 1 4 3 7 . 2 9 0 . 3 6 0 0 2 . 4 3 9 4 1 7 ^ 9 O ^ 1 1 3 3 .74 -4 .5133 0 . 7 3 6 3 8 1 4 4 5 . 8 1 - 2 . 3 7 3 9 i . * * * _ c l l 4! 3 .0 *^ - 1 . 6 4 4 9 5 1 4 5 7 . 1 0 -1 .6046 1.23241 '•> * rs. r s r % m 1 1 5 4 . 07 — ^ . 3 7 _»o VJ . x J ^ O 4 1 4 5 ' • x# J) - 1 . 6 4 2 5 0 . 9 0 0 6 5 1 1 3 3 .0 0 - 4 . 2 4 4 2 -1.45190 147 5 . 33 -3.1934 1 . 7 1 6 5 3 * ** ^7 •4 * O XX/ 5 . 41 - 4 . 0 2 2 9 - 1 . 4 7 00 3 x h o 5 .92 -0.7233 2 . 61193

4 . 57 *4 • O J O O u . / 1 4 9 5 . o 0 -2.7343 1.55975 *4 •* r s r s m r* ^ ^ X u. J 5 . 1 1 ~ A.A497 - 0 . 3 5 9 7 4 1 5 0 6 . 9 3 - 2 . 4 2 7 2 U • ^1 4 U ^4

TL 1' *• 'etween o r i a i r. a 1 nnd tian a ^ o i * — e d units

II 1 -H 1 II 1 J-> II 1 II

IT,, 11 7i t. ! U n it ui t ; Unit F it ! Uni t Uni t 1 1 II 1 II II H* 1 II II ft- 1

O -4 o r s r* «i - 0.92 G X • VO •■9 X 0 .93 61 G H 31 0.99 r s o 4 o o p, C tL. G . O H x, ^ C.95 42 3 . 9 y 6 2 0 0 G x* 0.99 O -) r> ^ 0.65 o G .90 4 3 0.93 6 3 p 0 9 G J> 0.92 r> « 4 0.79 2 4 0 . 96 44 0.92 O H U • 0 5 O 1.00 r C .99 T ^ .93 45 0 .99 65 9 6 35 0.99 6 0.35 2 5 . 97 •9 O 0.95 6 6 9 3 36 1 .00 *4 7 0.95 Xi ' .91 47 n . ^ ' 6" X . 0 0 3 7 0 . 97 o o ~ s o * <-> r» rs r s rs o G . / G o . 9 8 -9 G 0.94 6 3 0 . 9 3 o G U • G O 9 0 .99 2 9 c .99 49 0 . 9 9 6 9 0 . 99 3 9 0 . 99 *? p T /-> r \ 10 0 . 97 . 9 6 a u 0.96 / u . 99 90 0 . 99 ^ *1 O - 11 0 .93 3 1 0 .94 51 G . Zl 1 39 j? 0 . 31 f; 'T - /> rs s Xi 0.93 32 . / -i 52 0.93 72 0 . 9 5 92 0 . G ^ o o I - > 0.99 G o .79 53 0 .94 73 -4X . 00 9 3 0 .80 o o •-» r \ •. «/ . J / 3 4 . 92 54 0.99 74 U . 97 94 0 . 96 1 5 0 . Q 6 C r' 55 0.95 75 p 37 95 C . 37 /> 15 0 . 97 36 . 87 a ig 0.97 76 9 6 9 6 0 . 90 o ^ * — — 7 0.96 . 9 9 57 0 .93 0 . 9 0 97 0 . 91 r rs 7» o rs ^ o -i. C 0.93 O 0 .95 5 3 0.92 . O 0 . 96 'J o 0.94 A. 9 0 . 95 3 9 3 . 97 59 0 . 96 7 9 94 99 0 .9 4 r c /-> -1 ^ ^ rs r 0 . 97 40 O ’G 0 . 99 o u • 9 9 X VJ J vj • G O

224 1 oi * -1 o 0 . 3 2 111 0 . 3 9 o . 9 r. 0 . 9 0 1 4 1 02 -i O 1 u . o o i- 0 . 6 5 122 0 . 9 4 J_; W • / -L 1 4 2 0 *1 1 0 3 0 . 7 1 L L «) 0 . 5 3 1 2 3 0 . 9 1 1 3 3 C . 9 0 1 4 3 c 1 0 4 0 . 90 1 1 4 0 . 7 6 1 2 4 0 . 9 4 1 3 4 0 . 37 1 4 4 c 1 05 0 . 9 3 1 1 5 0 . 3 5 1 2 5 0 . 9 1 1 3 5 0 . 96 1 4 5 0 1C6 0 . 90 1 1 5 0 . 9 3 i. o 0 . 93 1 3 6 0 . 9 9 1 4 6 c o 1 0 7 0 . 9 3 1 1 7 0 . 3 0 1 2 7 0 . 8 9 1 3 7 0 .8 9 1 4 7 1 0 3 ■inn 0 . 9 8 1 1 3 u . OO 1 2 3 0 . 95 J O 0 . 7 2 1 4 3 V

09 0 . 9 7 1 1 9 0 . 9 4 J cn o to oo cn cj u> 1 1 2 9 sJ . / / 1 3 9 0 . 91 1 4 9 - O O'* 11 C 0 .9 5 120 O . J ^ 1 3 0 0 .9 3 1 4 0 0 . 97 1 5 0 0

225

® n oo w u 3 (3 (a Q. ®‘ < ® cr 5 3 ® CO 3 *< x» c o ii ,2 5 o # tr o g o 9 3 S iS - § i 2 % ® ® c 8,P 8,P 2 c o « o a. ~ S o + □ 3 I f & i . ® tj 1 i i 5 I 0 0 o 00 CD oo Function 2 Function 226 CD 00 o tn rvj o in ro tn tn o in Function 1 SECTION 3: ASSEMBLY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DA I A.

Chapter 8: The Archaeological Information.

8.1 Introduction. In the previous section a model for identifying crop processing activities was introduced. In this section the model will be applied to archaeological plant samples recovered from two sites, Tell Brak and Tell Kerma, in North Syria. By identifying the processes which have given rise to these samples, it is hoped to then apply this information to the interpretation of the contexts from which they were recovered, and subsequently to the interpretation of the function of that context within the site as a whole. Such information may then assist the excavators in confirming or refuting theories pertaining to their own interpretations of context function. Finally, it should be noted that these two sites were chosen not only for the accessibility of the archaeological and archaeobotanical data, but also because they represent two highly contrasting settlement types; a large city mound and a small,

specialised site.

8.2 Tell Brak.

Tell Brak lies at the northern end of the Khabur basin, about 20 km. north east of Hassakeh. The tell is over 40 hectares across and reaches an impressive height of 45 metres (Oates 1982). The Khabur and the Jaghjagha rivers are the two nearest perennial water courses to Brak; although the Jaghjagha is about 3 km. from the site, there is evidence that the ancient course ran just South of the tell (Oates 1977) (See fig. 39). The size of Brak would imply that it was an important and

227 prosperous political ana economic centre Tor tne region Trom tne early fourth millennium onwards. Clues to the source of this prosperity lie in its position at the crossing of the Wadi Jaghjagha. This crossing is important because it links the Khabur basin with the northern plains of Mesopotamia via Jebel Sinjar and Jebel Jeribe, leading to Ashur and the Tigris valley to the South (Oates 1982). This route would have also linked eastern Anatolia, most importantly the ancient copper mines at Ergami Maden, with both the Khabur and northern Mesopotamia (Oates 1982). The site of Brak lies in an area which is now climatically marginal for cereal cultivation. Today, agriculture to the south of Hassakeh is only possible with irrigation, and rainfed agriculture does not truly become reliable until Chagar Bazar, some 95 km. to the North East (see fig. 40). The soils around Tell Brak are generally calcareous Mediterranean black and brown soils; the latter tends to become sticky when wet, and forms large cracks when it is dry. The Excavations: Tell Brak was first excavated by M.E.L. Mallowan in 1937. There, he uncovered a temple from the late Fourth millennium B.C. (the so-called Eye Temple), an administrative building dating to the Agade period (2300-2100 BC), and a number of private houses (Mallowan 1947). Work was interrupted by the Second World War and the excavations were not resumed until 1976. Prof. D. Oates is the current excavator (Oates 1982). The current excavation has opened up eleven new areas: FS, TW, ST, ER, CH, TP, SS, HH, AL, DH, and DS (see fig. 41). Area FS however is the only area which will be covered by this thesis. Area FS was selected for the following reasons: 1. It produced both the richest and most numerous plant samples. The only other area that was equally rich was area CH, for which

228 samples were not made available. Samples from earlier excavations were not available either. 2. It contained several possible storage rooms. 4. Excavation details and plans were made available for this area. It should be noted that area FS has been extended since the time that these samples were recovered, and new storage areas have since been uncovered. These new areas however are not covered by this study due to the lack of samples.

8.2a) Area FS: The earliest phase from which samples were available are the Late Agade buildings which have been dated to 2200 BC. However, the excavators admit that the criteria for dating the buildings associated with this phase are not very precise, as the pottery sequence for the Late Third Millennium is only now being put together. Nevertheless, confidence in the accuracy of this date is encouraged by the dating of the two succeeding building phases. The former provided a cylinder seal of the Gutian style, whilst the latter - and incidentally the final occupation level in this area of the site - belongs to the first half of the 20th Century B.C., about 1950 B.C. (Oates 1987).

8.2b) Phase 3. Late Aaade buildings. The main building of this phase is a rectangular enclosure whose dimensions are 7.4 metres in length and 5.7 metres in width internally. There are two doorways, both revealed, one at the end of the south eastern wall and the other at the northern end of the east wall. The external facade of the south wall was decorated with deep niches, whilst internally the only feature present was a rebated niche in the northern end of the west wall, approximately 1 metre above floor level. The question of whether this building was

229 rooiea or not was determined oy comparing it to otner examples ot Late Third Millennium buildings. All those that were roofed by unsupported beams were well under five metres in width. Since no post holes have been recovered inside the above mentioned building, and its width well exceeds five metres, then it is unlikely that it was roofed (Oates 1987) (See figs. 42a and b).

It is suggested by the excavator that the building was of a public nature, possibly a place of assembly for a large number of

people. Beyond that it is difficult to speculate on its function, partly due to the uniqueness of the structure (Oates 1987). To the South of the public building, possibly part of a larger complex, are two rooms which have produced some features which are of interest for the purposes of this study. The structure may have had its beginnings slightly earlier than the main recessed public building, but it certainly continues to coexist with it. The complex consisted of a room (room 1) with two doorways, one in the northern part of the east wall and the other in the eastern part of the south wall. A bench or podium was constructed against the east wall. All the walls, the floor and the bench had a fine plaster facing (see fig. 42a). The contents of this room included a large pot in the North West corner, a heap of sherds and burnt timber (possibly part of the roof) in the south west corner, and a small pot or jar. A complete bitumen impression of a wicker basket was also recovered (Oates, 1985, 1987). The southern door of room 1 lead to another room (room 2), which contained three very large storage jars. The jars were too big to have fitted through the door. The walls of the room were slightly thinner than those of room 1. The room had a door at the

western end of the south wall (see fig. 42a). The east wall lead to another space (room 3), the function and purpose of which is unknown. To the east of room 1 was a street with which other

230 structures were associated, umoriunateiy no Turiner imormanon is available from this area, nor is the relationship between this complex and the recessed public building clear. The excavators consider room 2 to be a storage room due to the presence of the very large jars, but its relationship with room 1 is left unexplained.

It is hoped that the examination of the plant remains from this area will throw light on the purpose and function of the various structures in this area, and the relationships, if any, that may exist between them. 8.2c) Phase 2. Phase 2A:

This phase is heralded by a rather modest building, on completely different lines from those of phase 3. The majority of plant samples from this phase were recovered from a couple of ovens and a few pits. The samples from these features have been used as part of two M.Sc. dissertations at the University of London Institute of Archaeology (Murray 1986, and Sperling 1991). The lack of information on this early building level, coupled with the paucity of plant samples and structures, has led to a decision against incorporating the material into this study. The confusion over the precise dating of certain structures (Murray 1986) is a further indicator that use of this material would be counterproductive. The phase 2 proper begins with a massive complex incorporating more than thirty rooms, which initially grew out of

the modest building described above. The most important structures in the complex are: Phase 2B: Initial occupation period:

a) Room 3 which was a walled courtyard with four baked bricks in the centre.

231 d ; ttoom id originally naa a dm ck pavemeni, d u i inis was laier replaced by a hard juss cement floor. c) Room 26 contained two floors through which a large pit was dug. d) Room 27: the earliest floor had a small pit dug into it, which was lined with stoneware sherds.

N.B. All the above mentioned features are generally contemporary with each other.

Unfortunately only one sample (from the pit in room 26) was available from this phase. This sample was used by K. Sperling as part of her M.Sc. project (Sperling 1991, unpublished).

Phase 2C: Maior alterations, and final occupation. At one point, a series of contemporary alterations were carried out to the building: a) Room 3 acquires a new floor with cobbling around a pit dug against the east wall. b) Room 6 has cobbles laid over the juss cement floor. c) Room 26 suffered a major fire but was repaired and had a new floor with a pot set in it. d) Room 24 had a bench constructed across the south wall, blocking the old doorway, with three large half jars set in it. In the north west corner was a brick and plaster basin ending in a jar base set into a cavity cut in the west wall. A gypsum floor was laid on the north side of the bench and had a basalt bowl set into it. Several pots filled with grain were also found in the room as well. e) Room 31 had a curious feature consisting of a basin and a shelf. N.B. The information on Phase 2 was compiled from unpublished

site notes and personal observations made at the site by myself.

The excavators refer to this building complex (the entire Phase 2) as elaborate private houses (Oates 1987). This explanation however is not entirely convincing for a number of

232 reasons which will be discussed later. It is therefore hoped that the plant remains recovered will perhaps be able to shed light on the function of these various structures within the two main phases (phases 2 and 3) and any relationship that may emerge between them.

There is also a later and final phase which has produced another complex, also referred to by the excavators as elaborate private houses (Oates 1987). This phase was initially excavated by Mallowan; unfortunately very little published or unpublished information about it is available, and therefore this phase will not be covered by this study. For details of site phases and sample sources, see tables 13 and 14.

8.3 Tell Kerma North. Tell Kerma lies in the Khabur Valley, near the east bank of the middle reaches of the Khabur river in north east Syria, just south of the rainfed farming areas of the upper Khabur plains. The average precipitation today is 200-250 mm per year, which is deemed to be too low for crop cultivation without irrigation. This is borne out by the fact that modern settlements are restricted to the river valley, an area only 1-2 km wide, and rely extensively on irrigated agriculture (Curvers and Schwartz 1990) (see fig 40). There are two mounds on the site, Kerma North and Kerma South, the former of which has been excavated. Today, the Khabur river runs to the west of the two mounds, about 200 metres west of Kerma North and 12 km south of Hassakeh. Channel conglomerates lining the foot of Kerma North however imply that during the third millennium B.C. the river probably ran along the north western side of Kerma North (Saghiyeh 1990). The site of Kerma North was divided by the excavator into

233 several areas: a) Area B100-600: In this area, a complex known as granary A was uncovered. It consisted of a large room 6 x 4 metres with several smaller rooms attached to it (see fig. 44). The complex appears to have been destroyed by fire and from the layout of the collapsed mudbrick, it appears that the roof may have been domed. A plastered bench about half a metre high in the main room B100 ran along the north wall W11, with three vessels set against it. Two other pots were sunk into the floor (layer 25) (see fig. 44). This room yielded very rich samples of charred plant material. Outside room B100, in what may be a courtyard (B200), was an oven set near the eastern wall W14 of granary A. Samples taken from this area were also rich in carbonised plant remains (Saghiyeh 1990). Adjacent to room B100 (wall 11) was a series of three rooms; B300-500. The exact purpose of these rooms is unknown, and no samples were recovered from them. It is probable that they were used for storage, considering the nature of the site. b^ Area C100-700:

Although there are a number of phases associated with this area, the only ones to be dealt with are those contemporary with Granary A (layer 25). From this phase, a rectangular room (C300) containing a plastered bench was uncovered. A number of pots were found leaning against the bench, whilst four others were sunk into

a ledge set against wall 26 in the southern end of the room. Due to similarities with Granary A, including its destruction by fire and the richness of the samples recovered, it has been called Granary B (Saghiyeh 1990). Adjacent to C300 was another room, C400 (see fig. 44b), from which samples were recovered.

Contemporary with the two granaries, and located to their south, was a semi-vaulted silo (C700), in which large quantities of

234 ashy soil were found. Similar silos have been found at the nearby sites of Atij and Raqqai (Saghiyeh 1990). c) Area F100-5001: Again, only the phases contemporary with Granary A are being considered. In this area, an occupation level built on an earlier possible fortification was uncovered. The occupation level yielded two pots and an oven (Saghiyeh 1990). d) Area A100-900: This area contains a number of specialised storage rooms, contemporary with granary A (Saghiyeh, pers. comm.,1991). However, samples were recovered from only two rooms; A100 and A200. A700 is either a restricted passage area or a very narrow store. The identity of A900 as a store room is more certain (Saghiyeh, pers. comm. 1991) During the 1990 excavation season, area A400 was extended to reveal a room (A400) with a large oven built against the southern wall. The western end of the room is partitioned by a low wall (a) (see fig. 44). Within the partitioned area (b), large quantities of carbonised grain were recovered by the excavator. Unfortunately the material was not available for examination, and therefore could not be included in this study. The presence of the oven and the large quantities of carbonised grain would appear to support the idea that area A400 had a specialised function. Two other new areas were uncovered in the 1990 season; areas K and H. Samples were recovered from both areas, but were not available for examination. In her conclusion, the excavator states: "From what we have

seen of the architecture, one could assume that Kerma was not a conventional village site. The buildings have a public character and no domestic installations were found. As an ancient headpoint on

235 the river, Kerma was equipped to play a economic/commercial role. The buildings have a capacity for storing tons of grain. These could be easily loaded onto boats sailing southwards, perhaps to Mari. The site could have been used as a military outpost for protecting trade routes as well as a redistribution centre for crops harvested in the rich rainfed northern areas" (Saghiyeh 1990). The theory that Kerma North had a specialised function is supported by the fact that the site is surrounded by thick walls on at least three sides, enclosing an area probably no more than 500 sq. metres. Such an installation would require a small number of people to defend it, and there is evidence of a small settlement in the depression area between the two mounds Kerma North and Kerma South (Saghiyeh 1990). No further evidence however is available on which phase the settlement is contemporary with, if any.

Downriver from Kerma are the nearby sites of Raqqai and Atij (2 and 4 km. distant respectively), both of which have levels contemporary with Kerma. At Raqqai these levels have produced evidence of specialised production areas, including grain silos and storage bins. At Atij the main part of the site was a complex of granaries and silos. Clay tokens, a tablet with numerical inscriptions, and a cylinder seal were also recovered, attesting administrative involvement (Curvers and Schwartz, 1990). Curvers and Schwartz believe that the specialised activities occurring at all three sites were being carried out for the benefit of an elite or elites based at one or more of the large centres outside the middle Khabur valley, such as Brak, Leylan, or even Mari. It is is hoped that the analysis of the plant remains from

Tell Kerma North by the methods discussed in the previous chapters will not only answer some of the issues raised by the excavator, especially those pertaining to the function of particular

236 structures, and to the site as a whole, but that it may possibly shed some light on its relationship with other sites in, or related to, this marginal hinterland. Radiocarbon dates taken from the site are calibrated at approximately 2900-2500 BC. The pottery recovered from this

phase equates roughly with that from level two at Tell al Raqqai, Leylan II and Brak Late Dynastic III. In Mesopotamian terms this is

most of the Early Dynastic period. A total of 22 samples were recovered from the following areas:

B100 total amount floated; 180 litres.

B200 52 litres. C300 98 litres. C400 8 litres. A100 16 litres. A200 8 litres. For details of sample sources, see table 15.

237 Phase Three CO W cr ©

Reavealed Doors Building Phase 3 I I sample no: Source: context No: Room No: Notes: Notes: 3.1 plastered floor 1106 precise location not knowr 3.2 south east side of plastered floor 1106

Southern Building phase 3 sample no: I Source: context No: Room No: Notes: Notes: I I 3.3 plaster coated floor 1067

CO floor around pot in northwest corner 1067 3.6 floor around bench 1067

CO floor against north wall 1067 I 3.8 floor around pot against east wall 1067 I I 3.9 contents of pot 1047 310 plaster coated floor 1067 I I 3.11 plaster coated floor 1067 I I 3.12 floor in southwest corner 1067 from amongst broken pots

I 3.13 floor in southwest corner 1067 from amongst broken pots 238

CO burnt grain from amongst broken vessels 1067

3.17 contents of large iar (1) 351 CO 0 0 CO contents of large jar (2) 351

I I 3.19 floor between large iars (1) and (2) 351 COCO

1 1 320 floor around broken larae jar (3) 351 CO Jar (3) was broken

Courtyard Phase 3 sample no: Source: context No: Room No: Notes: Notes: 1 1 3.22 floor in southeast comer of courtyard 352 Area marked as (5) on plan, fig

3.23 courtyard floor 355 oprecise r\3 location not known Major Alterations Phase 2 w cr CD

I sample no: Source: context No: Room No: Notes: I

2.8 Floor 1004 CO 2.9 sample from cobblinq around pit 1004

1044 COCO 210 ■o ro o o oo cn ro ro floor laid over pit 1020 I o o 00 ro CO sample taken from floor area around pot 26 I 2.14 contents of pot 1008 26 I 2.15 sample taken from floor around pots 1065 2 7 near north wall 1079 I 2.16 pot contents 2 7 from area of sample 2.15 I

ro 00 pot contents 2 7 from area of sample 2.15 I 1 2.19 pot contents 27 from area of sample 2.15 I from area of sample 2.15 1 220 pot contents 27 239 2.21 sample taken from brick and plaster basin 1046 27 cut into wall! 053 I I 2.22 sample taken from plaster bench 1054 27 sample collected from arround larqe iars I ro ro 00 sample taken from plaster bench 1 1054 27 sample collected from arround larqe iars I 2.24 pot contents 27 pots against west wall 1053 I ro 2.25 pot contents -v j pots aqainst west wall 1053 I I 2.26 pot contents I 27 pots aqainst west wall 1053 I 2.27 floor sample near west wall 1065 27 sample taken from arround pots I

2.28 floor sample 1085 00 00 1 1 2.29 floor sample from around basin o cn 00 brick basin and shelf: context 1057 I IA1.1 IC3.3 IB2.2 IB2.1 IB1.9 IB1.8 IB1.4 IB1.3 1.2 IB IB 1.1 I sample no: C3.2 B2.4 > > O O o CD CD 03 CD B1.5 ro CO CO ro ro CO *"v| b> O lo o room. Floor of room. Floor of l o o room. Floor of room. Floor of lo o room. Floor of room. ofFloor l o o room. ofFloor room. ofFloor W14. to up curved that layerGrev Floor Floor oven. around e c aant al 11. wall aaainstBench o tns f aa ir N29. iar larae ofContents lo o room. ofFloor Source: lo o room. Floor of room. ofFloor room. Floor of room. ofFloor room. ofFloor room. ofFloor o room. Floor of < CD 3 f o

room/courtvard. 5? 3 3 C Grid No: and1 2 ro 03 3

CL Kerma Phases CO ro CO CO CO ro o> cn CO CO A200 A100 A100 C400 C300 B200 I B200 B200 B10 B200 B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 03 o O o Area No:

COCO ro ro ro ro ro CO 00 CT> o 00 CO 00 o> CO CO o o o o cn o cn 03 cn ro CO CO o — — — _K r s I tres I tres I tres I tres I tres I Ires I tres I tres I tres | tres o CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CO CO CO CD CD CO CD CD CD 03 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CD Q.

240 Map of the Upper Khabur basin.

Figure 39: (Oates 1977).

241 cr o 3= ^

Z)

or cr m

o cr o

cr o o

o

o o iD UJ

O

tD O

Figure 40: Map of rainfall zones showing the critical 200 mm band (Baly and Tushingham 1971). PALACE MITANNI AND PALACE TEMPLE

Figure 41: Map of excavated areas at Tell Brak (Oates 1989).

243 5 ^ "

T e ll Brak

Figure 42a: Plan of area FS phase 3 (Oates 1987 p.179).

244 VAULTS

AREA FS 1985

LATE AGADE BUILDING

AXONOMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION

5 m .

Figure 42b: (Oates 1987 p.178).

Tell Brak

245 Qj. O

)(im wO VMQ-43W3A3V jo lTYrA bctxtfwo 03iv3t\3y jonvM

to rn

fouV'P/S i tfr& ifrzw b J:ft£m fifcW \SV-P'ih*/ ^kfsS W W X tffitA sB f^ %'^X/A v4 ^ x^ j hyxxX'"'xSx / i/'S, % '*$&< IfcfAd

■'' ;>-«.. 4;ii;'!

Figure 44 k (Saghiyeh 1991)

CENTRAL AND GRANARIES WESTERN

iii3 s /= #

, / ' ''''/.C .Z */* >Z£Ul_ A '4

F ig u r e d (Saghiyeh 1991) Chapter 9: Sampling Strategy.

9.1 Tell Brak.

The samples recovered from Tell Brak are part of a large sampling programme undertaken by Dr. Mike Charles in 1983 and 1984. The

1984 samples recovered were processed in the field using bucket flotation. The 1983 samples were floated at the Institute of

Archaeology laboratories, using a simple small scale flotation machine. The smallest mesh size used to recover float was 250mu.

All samples were allocated a unique number which was recorded, along with the context number of the feature from which they were recovered, the size of the sample in litres, and any notes or

comments concerning the context itself. 9.2 Tell Kerma North:

The initial samples from Tell Kerma were collected by the excavator over a number of years, and were processed by Joy McCorriston using bucket flotation. In total, McCorriston floated

some 200 litres of soil from a number of contexts, the unprocessed residues of which were retained by the excavator (Saghiyeh pers. comm). In 1989 I visited the site myself and established a sampling strategy. A grid was laid out for all contexts where such an exercise was feasible (i.e. mainly floors of rooms), and random

sampling was then undertaken.

Contexts that were particularly complex, of were of great importance, or both, were sampled more intensively (for example area B100). Self contained contexts such as hearths or other installations were sampled completely. Such a sampling strategy

proved versatile enough to cover most situations that were to

arise on the site. Fortunately, it was possible to establish fairly

accurately, on the basis of the grid system, the source of the

majority of the samples recovered in previous years.

249 All samples recovered by myself (some 200 litres in total) were bucket floated and sieved with the following mesh sizes:

4mm, 2mm, 1mm, 500mu and 250mu. The use of a 250mu mesh is desirable for the recovery of very small weed seeds and other plant remains. The sieves themselves were manufactured locally, using plastic mesh purchased in England from Lockertex. It was also decided to float more material from the remainder of the soil samples retained by the excavator, for further reference. The total volume of soil floated was 600 litres. All samples were allocated a unique number which was recorded along with the context number of the feature from which they were recovered, the size of the sample in litres, and any notes or comments concerning the context itself.

9.3 Analytical Methods.

The volume of the material or flot was first measured using calibrated cylinders, then subsampled at the Institute of Archaeology Human Environment Laboratories, using a riffle. Such a means of subsampling has been shown experimentally by van der Veen (1982) as the best method for generating random samples.

The samples were then resieved, using 4mm, 2mm, 1mm, 500mu

and 250mu Gallenkamp laboratory sieves, in order to aid the

sorting procedures. They were then examined using a Wild M5 microscope (6x10 and 12x10 magnification). Each subsample was then sorted to the point of diminishing returns, i.e. the point at which no new species were recorded. The plant material was identified primarily by comparison with the Near East seed

collection established by Hillman, which is housed at Institute of Archaeology. An attempt was made at identifying all plant remains to 250 species level. Where this was not possible the level was used. At the end of the species list for each site is a list of material which could only be identified at family level. It is worth noting that: 1. Where fragments were encountered, only apex ones were counted.

2. Rachis fragments were quantified by counting every rachis segment encountered.

Following the identification of the weed flora, it was necessary to assign each taxon (species and genus only) a weed seed category. The criteria used to determine which category a weed seed belongs to has been discussed in great detail in chapter 6. A complete list of all taxa, and their assigned categories where relevant, is provided on the following page. The weed taxa have been listed according to their categories first, then the nomenclature and taxonomic sequence laid out in The Flora of Turkey, Vol. 9 (Davis 1985). Cereals however are grouped separately at the top of the list, along with other cultigens. A full list of the major components found in each sample from both sites is laid out in tables 16 (Brak) and 17 (Kerma). Weed taxa are only listed according to their assigned category.

LIST OF SPECIES RECOVERED.

The weed seed flora are listed with their reassigned categories:

BRAK:

Possible Cultiaens:

Triticum monococcum. Triticum dicoccum. Triticum aestivum.

251 Triticum aestivocompactum. Triticum sp. Hordeum sativum. Hordeum sativum var. distichum Hordeum sp. Vic ia sp. Lens sp. Pis urn sp. Lathyrus sp. Weed Flora:

Rananculus arvensis (BFH). Bupleurum sp (BFH). Convulvulus sp. (arvensis)? (BFH). Galium aparine (BFH). Cephalaria syriaca (BFH). Aegilops speltoides (BFH). Aegilops tauschii (BFH). Aegilops sp. (BFH). Bromus sp. (BFH). Avena sativa (BFH). Lolium temulentum (BFH) Rananculus sp. (SFH). Brassica synapsis (SFH). Sinapis arvensis (SFH). Gypsophilia pilosa (SFH). Vaccaria pirmidata (SFH). Silene conoidea (SFH). Polygonum aviculare (SFH). Rumex sp. (SFH). Chenopodium rubrum (SFH).

Chenopodium album (SFH).

252 unenopoaium sp (ShH) Medicago lupulina (SFH). Medicago sp. (SFH). Veronica sp. (SFH). Coronilla scorpoides (SFH). Coronilla sp. (SFH). Crucianella sp. (SFH). Chrysanthemum sp. (SFH). Cirsium sp. (SFH).

Centaurea sp. (SFH). Anthemis cotula (SFH). Heliotropium sp. (Borginaceae) (SFH). Buglossoides arvensis (SFH). Galium c.f. (SFH). Ornithogalum (narbonese) (SFH). Ornithogalum sp. (SFH). Agropyron sp. (SFH) Phalaris sp. (SFH). Lolium rigidum et al (SFH) Vulpia sp. (SFH). Poa sp. (SFH). Trigonella radiata (BHH). Trigonella sp. (BHH). Carthamus sp (BHH). Scandix (iberica)? (BHH). Verbasceum sp. (BHH). Aegilops crassa (BHH). Henrardia type (pubescens)? (BHH). Eremopyrum sp. (BHH). Avena sp. (BHH). Poa bulbosa var. vivipora (BHH).

253 I ritoiium sp. (SHL).

Plantago lagopus (SHL). Plantago cf (SHL). Phalaris paradoxa (SHL). Anisantha (squarosa?) (SFL). Nardurus (SFL). Malva sylvestris (SHH). Malva sp. (SHH). Chichorium intybus (SHH). Chrysanthemum segetum (SHH).

Cruciferae Caryophilaceae. Labiate type. Leguminosae

Umbelliferae Compositae Boraginaceae. Gramineae. Cereal indt. indet. KERMA:

Possible Cultiaens: Triticum dicoccum. Triticum aestivum. Triticum aestivocompactum. Triticum sp. Hordeum sativum. Hordeum sativum var. distichum

Hordeum sp.

Vic ia sp.

254 Lens sp. Pis urn sp. Lathyrus sp. Weed Flora:

Convulvulus sp. (arvensis)? (BFH). Galium aparine (BFH). Cephalaria syriaca (BFH).

Aegilops speltoides (BFH). Aegilops sp. (BFH). Avena sativa (BFH). Lolium temulentum (BFH) Trifolium sp. (SHL) Plantago cf (SHL). Phalaris paradoxa (SHL). Trigonella sp. (BHH). Aegilops crassa (BHH). Avena sp. (BHH). Poa bulbosa var. vivipora (BHH). Rananculus sp. (SFH). Sinapis arvensis (SFH). Vaccaria pirmidata (SFH). Silene sp. (SFH). Rumex sp. (SFH). Chenopodium album (SFH). Chenopodium sp (SFH) Medicago sp. (SFH).

Coronilla scorpoides (SFH). Coronilla sp. (SFH).

Crucianella sp. (SFH). Chrysanthemum sp. (SFH). Cirsium sp. (SFH).

255 ueniaurea sp. (ShH).

Buglossoides arvensis (SFH). Galium c.f. (SFH). Torilis nodosa (SFH).

Ornithogalum sp. (SFH). Phalaris sp. (SFH).

Lolium rigidum et al (SFH)

Vulpia sp. (SFH). Poa sp. (SFH).

Malva sylvestris (SHH). Malva sp. (SHH). Chichorium intybus (SHH). Chrysanthemum segetum (SHH). Nardurus (SFL). Anisantha sp. (SFL). C ruciferae Caryophilaceae. Labiate type. Leguminosae Umbelliferae Compositeae Boraginaceae. Gramineae. Cereal indt. indt.

256 Table 16 Brak samples 3 3 CO o ro CO 00 o o o 0 0 o 3 |Flot Volume 120m l 325m l 650m l 5 00m l o 3

CO CD Brak Brak Brak Brak Brak Brak Brak Brak I CO CO CO CO CO CO CO I Area CO

-v j CO CO CO oo CO cn no CO CO CO CO I Sample No. CO 00 89 ■t*. ro cn o I Hord. SP. 4621 0 0 1269 72 cn CO |Trit. sp. ro ro o ro o cn o o o lLathyrus sp. o ro o o o o I I Vicia sp. o

cn o o o o o o I I Lens sp. o o 9 8

00 cn 05

I Culm nodes. CO 2 8 L 6 CO ro 'v l iRachis. 162 CO 2 3 4 3 257 o ro —L o CO o ro IBHH o ro cn 0 0 00 0 5 I bfh 2 8 00 ro o o o o o cn ISHH o 00 o CO ro ISHL o 3 8

n 2 c CO CO CO CO 69 o o o o ISFL o o ■^J iBrak -U o o 3

26 GO o CO o 00 GO o o o CO Brak 500ml

GO 47 o ro cn o 05 CO o o o cn CO Brak 850ml 3.12 39 68 22 29 05 o cn 00 o OS o GO i CO Brak 700ml 3.13

44 00 ■t* GO ro — o ■vj 06 cn i. GO o o o GO CO CO Brak 430ml Table Brak 16 samples 3.14 182 CO ro cn CD ro CO ro o o GO GO Brak o o o 3 1470 ro CO 23 GO o cn CT) 4*. O o o cn ro o *v| 00 cn 00 o O GO Brak 600ml

101 CO 72 29 00 2 9

ro ro o o o 8S6 oo CO 430ml Brak 3.19 22 73 CO 69

o o OS o o cn GO CO Brak N> cn o 3 2 0|32

258 78 I |450ml CD 05 3.22 161 58 36 -U ro ro oo o o o o 00 CO 300ml Brak

CO cn Ko o 00 CO 00 05 o CO o o o o CO CO 350ml Brak 73 25 ro o cn ro o o ro o o 00 ro Brak CO o o 3 102 44 33 39 CO 4 7 ro 00 cn o o 05 CO ro 350ml Brak al 1 Ba samples Brak 16 Table 89

2 2 ro 05 cn cn

69 ro 00 o o o cn o ro Brak ro 00 o 3 2.12 52 o cn 00 o CO 05 o o o o 00 ro Brak 170ml 2.13 cn o CO cn ro o cn CO o CO 00 ro 220ml Brak

ro 23 _ j. o o ro o o 05 cn o o o o ro rk I I Brak 250ml

ro _Jk o> ro ro

ro 00 CO ro 9Z o o cn CO cn ro

259 63 6 1 368 6 3 1 |Brak cn o o 3

ro CO o -t*. ■vi o 00 o CO o o o oo 05 ro Brak CO o o 3

ro ro o o 0 5 CO - s i cn o o o ro 05 00 ro Brak cn o 3

ro o ro o o o CO o o o o CO CO ro Brak l 200m 0 2 2 -t*. o Cn CO o CO o 00 ro o o o CO ro Brak 5ml 150m al 1 Ba samples Brak 16 Table 2.21

CO - 0 05 00 o 05 o o o CO ro 5ml 350m Brak

72 1 ro 00 CO o ro 00 CO 00 6 9 CO o o o 05 ro ro 0ml 300m Brak

ro

4 2 ro cn o cn CO ro 'v j 00 o 9 S o o o CO ro 0ml m 80 2 Brak

ro ro ro o o o o 00 cn o o o CO 00 -U ro Brak CO o o 3 25 .2 2 154 0| 2 o ro O o cn o o o o 05 ro

260 20 2 I I 2.26 1 iBrak 00 o 3

N> 69 o CO o 00 O CO o o o o ro Brak ro o 3 2.27

o CO O 05 O Ol o o o ro ro Brak l m 0 0 3 2.28 CO ro o 00 05 oo CO O o o o IV) •^i ro rk 1 1 Brak l 200m

ro 9l5 ro o -o o o o o o o o 00 CO ro a l 1 Ba samples Brak 16 Table

261 Table 17 Kerma samples

Flot Volume 4.5 litres 3.2 litres 2.0 litres 1.5 litres 2.8 litres 1.2 litres 1.5 litres 2.3 litres I I Site Kerma Kerma Kerma Kerma Kerma Kerma Kerma Kerma CD O o 03 O I I Area B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 B100 o

03 I I Sample No. B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B1.6 B1.7 bo 896 00 00 |Hord. sp. 3501 2832 2500 1139 CO 1741 ro cn CO 05 00 o |Trit. sp. .. 7 § 43 oo 58 o ro o iLathyrus sp. o o o O O o o o IVicia sp. o o ro o o o o 1 Lens sp. o CO ro ro 00 00 I Culm nodes. cn ro cn cn cn CO CO iRachis. 44 20 o ro CO o ro o IBHH o

ro 00 CO ro 00 ro 00 CO CO CO CO cn 00 •A ro IBFH CO HHSl 1 76 262 ■vl CO cn o ■vl 00 CO ro 00 C/D X r~ o CO CO ro ro | n cn o> - oo CO CO ro CO ISFH 350 32 203 ro ro o o o ro

ISFL o I I 1122 2 1 1 I |B1.9 I IKerma litres 11.1 B100 152 42 ro o CO 05 00 ro o o B2.0 B100 Kerma 0 ml. 700 143

ro CO o 00 ro ro ro —X o o CO ro B2.1 B200 Kerma 700ml 115 58 CO CO 00 ro CO ro CO ro CO ro cn 00 B2.2 Kerma CD litres 1.5 ro o o 138

45 ro ro o 4^ "vl 00 o ro o CO CO B2.3 B200 Kerma . litres 1.5 Table 17 Kerma samples 39 32 ro 0 5 ro CO CO ro 00 CO o o ro _ x B2.4 B200 Kerma 600ml.

CO O CO cn 00 CO o CO o o CO C3.1 C300 litres 5.3 Kerma 2463 CO O 05 05 CO cn ro ro CO "vl 00 ro cn o CO ro C300 litres 3.8 o Kerma CO fo 1428 310

ro cn -r. 05

063 05 ro CO 00 CO ro o o CO C3.3 I litres3.5 o Kerma CO o o 1783 CO ro ro 0 5 00 ro o oo CO cn cn 00 o

263 22 2 I 213 1 2 I 1255 5 2 1 I IC3.4 |Kerma . litres 1.6 O CO o o

— k . 7 5 CO ro ro CO 05 o 27 2 I ro ■vj C4.1 C400 Kerma 0ml. 600m 138 3 2 2 4 cn 1 2 ro ro CO ro o ro ro A1.1 A100 . litres 1.0

CO 3 05

72 0 0 3 2 ro -U o CO 0 0 CO ro -v l o o o A1.2 A100 Kerma •v j O O 3 8 2 4

CO o CO o ro o CO —L o o o ro 21 I A2.1 20 I A200 em 1 Kerma

CO samples Kerma 17 Table o o 3

05 CO CO ~Nl ro o CO o o o o o 4 *.

264 unaoier i u :_____s>tansncai Analysts ot Arcnaeoioaicai Kiani Samples.

10.1 Introduction. In this section the model developed in the previous chapter is applied to the archaeological plant remains recovered from Tell Brak and Tell Kerma. The results are then used not only to interpret the contexts from which the samples were derived, but also to shed light on some of the broader problems raised earlier concerning the sites as a whole.

10.2 Data Preparation.

The archaeological data from each site (see tables 18 and 19) was standardised in the same way as the modern samples previously (see Chapter 7). A major difference however occurs in step two; instead of carrying out a new canonical variates analysis (C.V.A.) on the data, the transformation matrix of a C.V.A. (which had been carried out on the modern samples) was attached to the archaeological data. The use of the transformation matrix (obtained by C.V.A. from the modern data) on the archaeological data means that when the transformation was carried out, coordinate points were

established on the orthagonal functions prepared for the modern data, in which predefined groups already exist. This means that the groups or clusters generated on the archaeological scattergrams will be based on the same criteria that initially produced the distribution on the modern scattergrams (from which the C.V.A. results were derived).

A modern scattergram may therefore be used to interpret an archaeological scattergram, provided that the archaeological one was generated using the same C.V.A. transformation matrix as its

265 modern counterpart. The modern C.V.A. transformation matrix or matrices for use on the archaeological data were those which produced the clearest distribution patterns when plotted for the modern data. Here, the best results were produced by the first C.V.A. carried out, which scored eight clusters on six variables. All the other C.V.A.s carried out, particularly those using eight variables, were attempts at improving on the first one; especially in terms of differentiating between the three problem clusters (frikkeh, and roasted and boiled grain). Unfortunately all these attempts failed in this last respect, albeit not at other levels of discrimination.

The results have been discussed previously (see Chapter 7). It was therefore decided that, for the archaeological material, the only transformation matrix to be used would be that produced by the first C.V.A. The clusters and variables are listed below:

10.2a: Clusters. 1 - Winnowing byproduct. 2 - Coarse sieve byproduct. 3 - Fine sieve byproduct. 4 - Fine sieve product. 5 - Burgul. 6 - Frikkeh. 7 - Roast grain. 8 - Coarse sieve product.

10.2b: Variables. 1 - BHH. 2 - BFH.

3 - SHH. 4 - SHL.

266 5 - oFH.

6 - SFL.

10.3 Results.

The statistical analyses carried out on the archaeological samples from the sites of Tell Brak and Tell Kerma were a success. The scattergrams show clear distributions, and marked distinctions between the majority of the clusters generated. Each point plotted on the scattergrams represents a sample identified by a number. Where the samples are grouped very closely together, a range of

numbers is used to identify the group. The numbers correspond to those assigned to the samples listed in tables 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19.

10.4 Discussion and Interpretation.

The interpretation of these newly formed clusters is carried out by directly comparing their distribution on the scattergrams with that of predefined clusters. It must be stressed that the modern and archaeological scattergrams must have been generated using the same transformation matrix for this comparison to be

successful. In order to facilitate the comparisons between the scattergrams, copies of the archaeological scattergrams were made on acetate sheets, which are presented as an overlay, above their modern counterparts. The problems concerning glume wheats outlined earlier, do not apply in this case, as the primary crops are all barley or free-threshing wheats, and the amounts of glume wheat products and byproducts recovered have been too small to be of any significance.

267 10.4a Brak Scattergram (fia. 45). (Samples scored on six variables). Six clusters have been identified in this scattergram by direct comparison with its modern counterpart (fig. 35).

Cluster 1.

This cluster represents winnowing byproducts. It includes samples 22 (2.10) and 26 (2.15). Cluster 2.

This cluster represents coarse sieve byproducts. It includes

samples 2 (3.1), 5 (3.6), 18 (3.22) and 21 (2.9). Cluster 3.

This cluster represents fine sieve byproducts. It includes samples 19 (3.23), 20 (2.8), 23 (2.12), 38 (2.28), and 39 (2.29). Cluster 4.

This cluster represents coarse sieve products (semi-clean grain). It includes samples 6 (3.7), 9 (3.10), 10 (3.11), 14 (3.17), 15 (3.18), 16 (3.19), 17 (3.20), and 34 (2.24). Cluster 5.

This cluster represents fine sieve products (semi-clean grain). It includes samples 4 (3.4), 7 (3.8), 8 (3.9), 11 (3.12), 12 (3.13), 13 (3.14), 24 (2.13), 25 (2.14), 27 (2.16), 28 (2.18), 30 (2.20), 31 (2.21), 32 (2.22), 33 (2.23), 37 (2.27), and 38 (2.28). Cluster 6.

This cluster may represent other products (frikkeh, boiled or roast grain), but it is difficult to be certain considering the great similarity in composition that exists between these and the fine sieve products in cluster 5. This cluster includes samples 1 (3.2), 3 (3.3), 29 (2.19), 35 (2.25), and 36 (2.26).

268 m.q-D t\erma scaiieraram (tiq. 4b).

(Samples scored on six variables). Six clusters have been identified in this scattergram by direct comparison with its modern counterpart (fig. 35).

Cluster 1'.

This cluster represents winnowing byproduct. It includes sample 11 (B2.1). Cluster 2.

This cluster represents coarse sieve byproduct. It includes samples 12 (B2.2) and 19 (C4.1). Cluster 3.

This cluster represents fine sieve byproduct. It includes samples 6 (B1.6), 14 (C2.4), and 22 (A2.1). Cluster 4.

This cluster represents coarse sieve products (semi-clean grain). It includes samples 1 (B1.1), 2 (B1.2), 15 (C3.1), 16 (C3.2), 17 (C3.3) and 18 (C3.4). Cluster 5.

This sample represents fine sieve product (clean grain). It includes samples 3 (B1.3), 4 (B1.4), 5 (B1.5), 7 (B1.7), 8 (B1.8), 9 (B1.9), 10 (B1.10), and 20 (A1.1). Cluster 6.

Thus cluster may represent other products (frikkeh, boiled or roast grain) but it is difficult to be certain considering the great similarity in composition that exists between these and the fine sieve products in cluster 5. It includes sample 21 (A1.2).

Sample 13 (B2.3) did not lie within any of the clusters described above. It was decided therefore to identify it by comparing its composition with that of samples which lie within the nearest

269 uiubier or ciusxers. un mis Dasis, ine sample was laentinea as coarse sieve byproduct. As the results and interpretations of the archaeological samples have been successful, they are next applied to the interpretation of the archaeological contexts from which the samples were derived. It was disappointing that the use of eight variables failed to eradicate the problem of differentiating between frikkeh, boiled or even roast grain, and did not even provide a more marked distinction between them and the other main products. This failure places a serious limitation on one of the primary aims of this thesis; the identification of stored crop products and byproducts. These potentially major products have thus been missed, and although they may yet be hope for the identification of frikkeh (discussed in the following chapter), there is none, so far, for either boiled or roast grain.

270 Table 18

BFK SHH SHL SFH SFL Modes Rachis

O 7 O 0 0 3 0 1 1 6 0 43 19 0 53 162 o 5 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 28 0 7 0 13 17 4 5 1 0 38 13 1 56 79 5 82 2 8 69 1 8 23 6 17 0 1 9 0 28 43 7 18 1 4 11 0 4 1 2 8 8 1 0 9 0 3 11 9 n 14 5 11 0 9 16 10 68 0 8 39 0 22 50 11 90 11 17 44 0 13 41 12 c 31 3 17 1 9 21 13 152 23 15 2 0 0 0 43 67 14 n o 1 0 1 1 2 4 72 1 29 O 15 *7 o 73 0 91 1 50 69 16 t: 69 16 41 0 37 56 17 1 0 36 58 13 2 78 161 18 6 13 3 53 0 0 3 19 1 2 25 5 73 0 ** 10 20

15 37 44 18 1 3 3 1 0 2 -L 7 48 62 69 14 51 39 22 8 15 1 52 0 6 13 23 O 11 6 5 3 0 3 5 24 C 23 0 2 1 0 0 16 25 14 12 23 68 12 41 76 26 3 8 0 7 14 0 19 63 27 21 1 13 9 0 5 17 28 7 7 0 0 2 c 0 29 c 19 0 3 ■J 0 o 8 30 18 1 6 7 1 6 14 31 69 3 19 18 0 31 83 32 O * 58 1 I • 5 0 Cj 65 33 *7 10 0 1 / 0 5 3 34 15 0 0 2 0 7 20 3 5 28 1 0 13 0 13 20 36 T 6 0 1 3 0 1 37 3 2 3 6 98 0 0 1 38 1 17 1 59 0 0 0

271 Table 19

BHH BFH 3HH SHL SFH SFL Nodes Rachis Sample 7 423 19 10 398 1 X ^ 55 1 9 •J 313 13 350 1 17 35 X O 293 11 28 65 0 44 3 4 C o 236 13 71 0 V-* 20 4 1 133 14 9 3 ° C 1 24 5 0 o 3 1.0 £La 243 e u 0 2 6 0 176 7 14 203 1 5 13 7 1 o 231 18 ^ X 22 C O 10 8 5 152 3 1 42 0 3 9 7 143 12 28 0 4 12 10 e o 17 13 32 O 13 115 S3 11 45 ^ -L S 17 o 4 138 20 1 12 32 39 22 15 19 1 123 168 13 0 3 3 •3 93 0 1 3 14 o L o 213 <4. ^ 192 1 12 57 18 ^ -) o 5 9 27 42 12 X 138 19 n 72 3 O 19 0 / X _L 20 0 3 2 0 13 0 1 13 21 -) 0 12 7 69 1 0 22

272 Tabla 20

TRANSFORMATION OF VARIABLES

Thera were 39 u nits Scored on G variables

Scores were calculated lor 3 new variables

New Scores

n , '"N 7 X x. ■j 1 C-X J

- r- rt r- -3.497 -0 . 3133 -0.51594 21 5 . 032 ~ u. . ^ O G O -2.33674 n '"i -» 30^': 5.C07 -0.4831 2 .68406 X» X# 5 . 436 a. . X. y X. u 0.22345 -3.663 -1 . 369 3 -0.93679 23 0 .631 4.5206 -0.33252 ** -1 .706 -2 .4430 -0.47125 24 0 . 592 -2.0344 0.33339 e 6 . 2C7 -1.6736 -1.69034 25 -1 .980 -0.9053 0.91642 6 -1 .147 0.10 26 0.6 3 0 3 2 26 3 .456 1.3729 0.80537 7 -2.193 -0.3606 0.31230 X / -1.255 -1.5619 1.22592 r» O -0.775 -0.4 4 53 0 . 9 7 o 4 4 X. O 1 .035 -2.1635 0 .96472 9 -1 . 062 1.4234 -1 . 6 6 073 29 -3.533 -0 .7331 -0.72193 ■1x O -0.624 0.6226 -0.33432 3 0 -1 .4 41 -2.0321 0.99633 -* + r> m 11 -1.491 — 0.7416 0 . 37266 31 0 .255 -L • Ol 04 1 .33354 12 -0 . 435 -1.1735 -0.35385 7 7 -0.155 -2 . 2 27 2 -0.09127 13 -0.325 -1.1741 -0 . 00439 3 3 — 0 . j U ** -3 . 6277 0.44305 -i ^ * r* o 14 -1.061 1.7019 0 . 391C7 34 -1.713 0.0395 X • JO r \ -r ^ 15 - 1 . 570 W ...» 4 - 0 . 32703 35 - 3 . 6 9 5 -1 . 9245 -1.27273 16 -0.370 0 .9301 1.33363 3 5 -3.191 0 . 2646 -0.93337 1? -1.363 0 .2467 -0.57 S 20 37 _ "> * ** -0 . 9132 1.37632 ] 3 6 . 020 - 1 .5631 -2.25519 3 3 2 . 450 5.4207 -0.525 3 3 1 9 1 . 515 4.6325 - 0 .57104 3 3 2 . 134 6.1256 - 1 . 14542 30 1.264 4.1012 -0.43433

F it '6 tween o r i a 5 n a 1 and t • a n s f c r r. e i u n its

ii ii

* J n i t Fit ! Unit Fit •j n i w Unit X t. Unit Fit rr II rr 1 1 1 II II i i i ii i r,i || i H* 1

- 0 . 69 9 0 .63 " 7 0.45 n ^65 33 a 7 7 2 C . so 10 0 .13 13 0.32 26 64 34 7 0 . 69 1 X 0 . 56 19 0 . 86 27 .7 63 35 0.59 4 0 .69 -1X XI 0 . 53 20 0.30 x,^ Oo n oO 3 6 0 . 37 c 1 -> '"N -J 0 . 30 X u 0 . 49 X, X C . / O 29 v.y . 69 37 0 .62 -n r\ 6 0 . 57 14 C . 94 Xj X. 2 . 30 30 * #55 J O 0 . 91 7 0.65 15 C .71 r> —f 31 7 5 39 0 .93 3 0.71 16 0 . 67 24 0.44 0 ./

273

» 30 < < ® O • > ■ ■ X □ ♦ ♦ O oO Function 2 Function ■ ■ ■ ■■ I ■■ M l I ro do a

Function 1 Fig. 4 5 scattergram (Brak) Function 2 274

Function 1 Table 2.1

TRANSFORMATION OF VARIABLES

There were 22 units Scored on 6 variables

Scores were calculated for 3 new variables

New Scores

n i 2 1 X 2 3

1 -1.461 0.9717 0.5566 12 4.429 -3.4362 -2.4799 2 -1.170 1.0585 0.9011 13 2.571 -1.9973 -2.0999 3 -1.017 -2.3931 -0.1258 14 2.444 5.6065 1.1557 4 -1.617 -1.5801 0.2108 15 -1.240 1.1564 0.5417 5 -1.584 -7.0847 -0.5197 16 -0.837 0.4948 0.9893 - 6 1.791 6.0223 1.0630 17 -1.226 1.5617 0.5235 7 -0.934 1.3193 1.5337 13 -0.853 0.6068 0.4747 3 -1.072 -2.9902 -0.5204 19 4.413 -2.2438 -3.4201 9 **, • c* / -1.4345 -0.3073 20 -0.927 -2.0715 0.1929 10 -2.2935 -0.0808 21 -2.857 0.0324 -0.3654 11 3.491 -0.3754 0.9468 22 1.175 4.0698 1.3244

Fi t between original, end transformed units

Unit Fit ! Unit . Fit ! Unit Fit ! Unit Fit ! Unit Fit

■i i 1 1 0 .92 6 0 .97 .1. X 0.74 i 0 . 34 19 0.81 n. i? ^ 2 0.78 7 0.39 12 Vj . U is C .39 20 0.81 n o 3 0 . 87 3 0.64 13 0 .70 17 ^ . y o 21 0.7 3 4 0 .80 9 0 .88 14 0.99 18 0.94 n n 0.96 5 0.68 10 0.76 01 «Q * O X □ Function 2 Function l> ■■■ B#l 1 B#l + •+ + + •+

Function 1 Function 2

O o i. 6 ctega (Kerma) scattergram 46 Fig. Fig. 46 scattergram (Kerma) 2 Function Function 276 fr°

O Function 1 I Chapter 11: Frikkeh.

11.1 Introduction. As previously mentioned, the term frikkeh is being used here to describe grain (wheat or barley) which has been harvested in a specifically unripe state with the intention of roasting it, and possibly grinding it into groats. It is an important crop processing stage because it is one of the very few in which the crop products and byproducts are intentionally exposed to fire, and is thus likely to generate quantities of charred remains. Furthermore, the processing is characteristically carried out within the settlement (usually in a courtyard or other specially designated area), which means that it

\ is more likely to be detectable by archaeologists (Hubbard and Al-Azm 1990).

Frikkeh in more recent times has been employed as a means of mitigating punitive taxation and other sources of social stress. By contrast, it may also be regarded simply as a luxury, as discussed previously. It has been shown in a previous chapter that the making of frikkeh is not a recent development, but may be traced back to as early as the second millennium B.C., and indeed, the reasons for its use given above may equally be found in prehistoric periods, where analogous conditions existed (Hubbard and Al-Azm 1990). The above discussion goes some way to explaining why frikkeh should be seen as such an important processing stage with historical antecedents. Yet no archaeological context, to date, has ever been identified as being associated with its processing, nor

has it ever been identified as a product or byproduct. The most likely reasons for this apparent omission are as follows: a). Archaeologists are generally unaware of the possible

277 existence of such specialised processing areas, and therefore tend to misinterpret them when excavated. b). These specialised products and byproducts, which ostensibly have very similar compositions to ripe products and byproducts, are easily overlooked since there is a lack of any established methodology with which archaeobotanists might identify them.

c). Most archaeologists are altogether unaware that such

products exist today, or that they existed in the past. Due to these oversights, a potentially important source of information, which would not only assist in the interpretation of

archaeological contexts, but might also shed light on the social and economic conditions that may have prevailed within a settlement, has been missed.

11.2Identification of Frikkeh. Currently, the means available for identifying carbonised unripe grain are restricted, and not totally reliable. Morphologically, it has been noted by Hubbard and Al-Azm that occasionally seeds - usually wheat or barley grains - are encountered with a bead of tarry matter at their distal end. When a well preserved wheat grain is involved, the hairs at the distal end of the caryopsis can be seen to be embedded in the exudate. This observation may suggest that the grain was not fully ripe (for further details see Hubbard and Al-Azm 1990).

Alternatively, if the weed flora within the composition of a given sample includes many unripe seeds, especially the sort which would normally be ripe at the time of harvest, then one possible explanation may be that the host crop was harvested early. It

should be stressed however that there are many more important factors that may affect the ripening time, such as climate, habitat,

278 and geography. Furthermore, most weed species ripen over a long period of time; commonly over a period of three or four months.

11.2a Infrared Spectroscopy. Recently, more positive results have been emerging from the use of

infrared spectroscopy (I.R.S.). Current research being carried out by McLaren, Evans and Hillman, has shown that, through I.R.S. analysis,

"it is possible to independently separate charred grains recovered from archaeological excavation to sub-species level" (McLaren et al. 1990 p.805). Techniques applies in this research involve the

examination of grain extracts taken using three universal solutions: hexane, chloroform, and propan-2-ol (propanol) (McLaren et al. 1990). When I.R.S. analysis was carried out on immature grains of the same species, it was found that the first two extracts produced similar spectra to their mature counterparts, while the third extract - using propanol - produced a very different spectrum to that of the mature one. McLaren interprets these findings in the following manner. The first two extracts use the less polar solvents which bring out the lipid contents preserved within the seed. The third extract, however, uses the more polar propanol, which brings out the free sugars, starches, amino acids, and proteins. During the maturation of a seed, the lipid contents tend to remain stable, whilst the proteins, amino acids and sugars will be highly mobile and therefore responsive to enzyme action. Once the seed is fully ripe and mature, then these too will stabilise.

McLaren believes that it is this mobility in the immature seeds which produces the difference in mature seed spectra from the propanol extracts.

The findings described above are very preliminary, and a

279 great aeai more researcn is needed Detore tms metnod may oe confidently applied to the identification of immature grain seeds from archaeological sites (McLaren pers. comm. 1991). It is worth noting that research is also being carried out using near infrared reflectance (N.I.R.) spectroscopy on the changes in maturing wheats. The research found peaks in four spectral regions which were present in immature wheats but not in mature wheats. The most noticeable peak, which gradually decreased with maturation, is probably associated with a non-starchy polysaccharide (Czuchajowska and Pomeranz 1989).

11.2b Kerma Samples. Whilst sorting two samples from Tell Kerma (B1.8 and B1.9), it was noted that they included a large number of Triticum aestivocom pact urn and Hordeum sp. grains, with tarry beads at their distal ends. Three Triticum grains from sample B1.8 were given to F.S. McLaren, along with some modern samples of frikkeh for comparison. An infrared spectroscopy analysis was carried out on the archaeological grains using the three solvents hexane, chloroform, and propanol. The first two extracts produced spectra similar to their modern counterparts, whilst the third yielded a different result. McLaren was therefore able to confirm, on the basis of her interpretations of modern equivalents (discussed above), that these grains were probably unripe (McLaren pers. comm. 1991).

11.2c Discussion.

There are two possible explanation of why this unripe grain was present in the samples. The first is that the grains may have been partially ripe because they originate from runt plants in a crop, and had therefore been slower to develop. The second (related)

280 explanation is tnat tne crop ripenea very unevenly; a Teature very common in archaic crop varieties. The third explanation is that the

grains represent frikkeh. The first explanation, at least, is most unlikely, since the

sample was taken from a fine sieve product, and any runt or tail grain would have been eliminated. This means that there is a

reasonable possibility that the sample contains frikkeh. Furthermore, if the tarry beads on the distal ends are definitely an indication of unripeness, then the barley grains are probably also frikkeh. Unfortunately it is not possible to determine via I.R.S. whether the unripe grain was also roasted, However, if this grain was intentionally harvested and processed whilst unripe, then it is most likely that it was roasted, since fire also forms part of the processing stage which helps release the grain from the straw.

281 unapier i z : interpreiaiion ot Arcnaeoioaicai uomexis.

12.1 Introduction: In previous sections, a model was constructed from the ethnographic evidence, and plant samples recovered from archaeological sites were interpreted by comparing them to this model. In this chapter it is hoped that the results and discussions outlined previously may now be used to interpret the contexts from which these samples were recovered, and that they may consequently shed some light on the site context relationships, or even on the purpose of the site as a whole.

12.2 Tell Brak: a^ Phase 3. This phase contained three main areas; the Southern building, the Revealed Doors Building (R.D.B.), and a courtyard between them (see fig. 42a). The Southern Building. The majority of the samples recovered from room 1 are fine sieve or coarse sieve products (clean and semi-clean grain). It would appear that the majority of the clean grain is concentrated along the western side of the room (samples 3.3, 3.4, 3.9, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14). The eastern side of the room contained the semi-clean grain (samples 3.6, 3.7, 3.10, 3.11). Sample 3.6 represents the only byproduct (coarse sieve) found in this room. It was recovered from around the bench set in the east wall. Further south in room 3, all the samples recovered from the very large jars and the floor around them produced coarse sieve products (samples 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, and 3.20). Since the samples from both rooms consist almost exclusively of clean and

semi-clean products, it seems likely that these rooms were used for storage.

282 i ne presence ot a coarse sieve Dyproauci near me Dencn may indicate that coarse sieving was undertaken in that area before the semi-clean grain was taken to room 3 for storage. It also offers a possible explanation as to why that side of the room is dominated by semi-clean grain. It should be noted that there is a door leading into the courtyard area, and also a door leading to room 3; both these doors are on the east side of the rooms, and so perhaps there was a regular traffic of semi-clean grain being carried in and out through that side of room 1. Another possibility is that the coarse sieve byproduct was being stored in room 1, but its location here would be inconvenient since it would obstruct access to room 3. In my opinion, the presence of this sample in room 1 is likely to be accidental. It was probably brought in by fortuitous means from a nearby location such as the courtyard. This suggestion is all the more feasible since courtyards are traditionally the site of sieving activities. The presence of large numbers of pottery sherds amongst the samples recovered from the south western side of room 1 make it tempting to suggest that grain was stored in them. Unfortunately little else may be proposed regarding the function and purpose of this building. All that may be said with any certainty is that coarse sieve and fine sieve products were being kept in these rooms, and that coarse sieving may have been carried out in room 1 around the bench. Alternatively, the coarse sieving byproduct may have been stored in this room.

Finally it should be noted that sample 3.3 from room 1 may be a product of frikkeh, boiling or roasting, as it falls within that

group on the scattergram (see fig. 45).

The Revealed Doors Building. Only two samples were recovered from this building (samples 3.1 and 3.2). The first (sample 3.1) is a

coarse sieve byproduct, whilst the second (sample 3.2) is a fine

283 sieve proauct; it snouia aiso oe notea tnat tms sampie may De a product of frikkeh boiling or roasting, as it falls within that group on the scattergram (see fig. 45). The excavators believe that the building had a public function, possibly as an open-air meeting hall since no evidence for roofing was found (see figs. 42a and 42b). Unfortunately the samples retrieved from this building are too small to support or refute any theories as to its precise function. The Courtyard. Two samples (3.22 and 3.23) were recovered from the courtyard area. The first (3.22) is a coarse sieve byproduct which was taken from the south east corner near the doorway into room 1 (see fig. 42a). This would imply that coarse sieving as an activity was either being carried out at that location, or that it was done elsewhere and the debris was swept out into that corner. The fact that the sample was located near the southern building where not only was coarse-sieved grain being stored, but also coarse-sieve byproducts were found, gives strength to the theory that the grain being sieved was probably destined for those store-rooms. It is not possible however to confirm whether the sieving took place out of doors or inside room 1. I would provisionally suggest that sieving was probably undertaken outdoors near the doorway, and that the debris was swept into the corner. The coarse sieve byproduct material found in room 1, as previously mentioned, probably arrived there either by accident, or for some other unknown reason, from the outside. This idea is supported by the fact that sieving traditionally takes place out of doors in the courtyards.

The second sample (3.23) is a fine sieve byproduct; unfortunately however the precise area from which it was recovered is unknown. As a result, it is not possible to claim a definite link between this sample and any fine sieving activity being carried out in the courtyard, or to the fine sieve products

284 found in room 1. Summary of Phase 3: This phase represents the final Akkadian occupation in area FS. It is dominated by a formal building of a public or administrative nature. This building, which probably lacked a roof, is characterised by a deeply recessed facade. To the south of it, separated by a large courtyard, lay the smaller Southern Building. The whole area may have been enclosed by walls (see figs. 42a and 42b), forming some sort of complex. The administrative nature of this complex is reinforced by the fact that earlier levels in the same area have produced an equally substantial building, well-finished, and reported to be of public or administrative appearance (Oates 1989). Unfortunately it is not possible to confirm the theory that the complex had an administrative function simply on the basis of the plant remains recovered from this area in phase 3. Although it is likely that at least part of the southern building was being used as a storage area for semi clean grain, it may be argued that the presence of three large storage jars and a quantity of grain does not constitute a major public granary. Furthermore, the remains recovered from this building, both material and archaeobotanical, are not too dissimilar in nature from the remains which one might expect to find in a private house. Nevertheless, it is not possible to ignore the fact that the building is part of a complex which also includes a large public building.

In the face of so much conflicting evidence, a firm statement regarding the role of this building within what may well be a public context, can not be made. Nevertheless, although its wider placement and function is problematic, it can not be disputed that the southern building was used, in part at least, as a grain storage area. It may be that this was the home of a dignitary, or of

285 one or more members of the support staff which would doubtless have been employed for the maintenance of the complex, and that small scale storage for personal use occurred here. Alternatively, further small scale storage installations might have come to light had the excavation been conducted over a more extensive area, and

may have clarified the function of this area.

b) Phase 2:

This phase consisted of a massive complex incorporating more than thirty rooms (see fig. 43). Unfortunately, samples were available from just four rooms, and of these samples, only those which originated from the period of major alterations and the final occupation were used. Room 3: Three samples were recovered from this room (samples 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10). Sample 2.8 was recovered from the floor of the

room, and represents a fine sieve byproduct. Sample 2.10 was recovered from a pit dug through the floor, and represents a winnowing byproduct. Sample 2.9 was recovered from the cobbling around the pit, and represents a coarse sieve byproduct. The excavators' suggestion that this room may have been a small open courtyard is supported by the fact that all three samples are crop processing byproducts. It is therefore likely that this courtyard was used for coarse and fine sieving, with the pit possibly being used as a rubbish tip. Room 26. Three samples were recovered from this room (samples 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15). Sample 2.14 was taken from the contents of a pot, and represents a fine sieve product. Sample 2.13 was recovered from the floor around the pot, and it too represents a

fine sieve product. Sample 2.12 was recovered from the floor of the room, and represents a fine sieve byproduct. The contents of these samples would suggest that a quantity of semi-clean grain

286 was fine-sieved in the room and then placed in the vessel, me tact that this was done indoors, and the presence of just a single vessel, suggests that the sieving was done on a small scale for personal use, rather than being a component of major bulk

processing. Room 27. Twelve samples were recovered from this room. Samples 2.16, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.25, and 2.26 were all recovered from vessels and represent fine sieve products. Sample 2.24 was also recovered from a pot but it represents a coarse sieve product.

Samples 2.22 and 2.23 were recovered from the plaster bench around the three large vessels; these two samples represent a fine sieve product. Sample 2.21 was recovered from a plaster-coated basin, and sample 2.27 was recovered from the floor near the west

wall; these samples too both represent a fine sieve product. Sample 2.15 was recovered from the floor around some vessels near wall 1079, and represents a winnowing byproduct. With the exception of two samples, the majority of the material recovered from this room is fine sieve product or clean grain. The presence of a few large jars and a number of smaller pots would indicate that this room was used for grain (barley) storage. The presence of the courtyard (room 3) adjacent to this room makes it tempting to link the processing carried out there with the stored grain being kept here. The winnowing byproduct found amongst some of the pots is probably rubbish, and its deposition here is likely to have occurred fortuitously. Room 31. Two samples were recovered from this room (2.28 and 2.29). Both samples are from the floor of the room and represent a fine sieve byproduct. The most likely explanation is that a similar

activity to that described for room 26 was also being carried out here. It would be unwise to suggest that there is a firm link between the fine sieve byproduct (material found in this room) and

287 tne grain stored in room 2/. Summary of Phase 2. According to the excavators, this massive complex, which incorporates more than thirty rooms, is a group of elaborate private houses (Oates, 1987). Unfortunately, not only has little else been said or published about this complex, but samples were recovered from just four rooms. With such a paucity of written

information and archaeobotanical data, it has proved very difficult to make any firm interpretations about the purpose or function of this complex.

On the basis of the archaeobotanical material that has been examined from these four rooms, the following comments and

suggestions can be made. Room 27 is probably a grain store containing clean prime grain (barley). The presence of numerous smaller vessels filled with grain may again imply that rations were being kept or prepared here for distribution. The courtyard (room 3) was used as a processing area (coarse and fine sieving). Winnowed grain (barley) was probably brought into the courtyard and sieved before being taken into storage in room 27. This idea is supported by the fact that courtyards are traditionally used for processing activities, and justifies the presence of a grain store adjacent to it. It is also worth noting that the store room 27 and courtyard 3 were constructed approximately over the earlier Southern Building, at least part of which included a grain store and had a courtyard attached to it. It is possible therefore that some functional continuity may have prevailed.

It is difficult to determine the function of rooms 26 and 31 due to the lack of an overall picture of the complex as a whole. All

that may be said is that the two rooms were used for fine sieving an amount of grain, which in one case might have then been stored

288 in a small pot. The presence of so many rooms however, and the possibility of some form of functional continuity, make it possible to speculate that perhaps this complex also had an administrative or public function. It may be that some of the rooms (for example 26 and 31) were living quarters where the inhabitants carried out a certain amount of small-scale processing and cleaning for personal consumption. The grain would have been supplied from the store room (room 27). Other rooms may have been used for administrative purposes, or else they too were further living quarters. As a whole therefore, this mass of rooms could conceivably have formed one large administrative complex. Alternatively, the whole area may just have consisted of private dwellings, or rooms sharing communal courtyards and store rooms (this is a traditional feature of Near Eastern life, and one which may still be seen today). Unfortunately, it is not possible to further clarify any of the suggestions or issues raised above without further information, both archaeobotanical and archaeological, concerning the contents of other rooms; without such data, the function of these other rooms and of the complex as a whole, can not be determined with any certainty.

12.3 Summary and Conclusions on the Plant Remains Recovered from Tell Brak.

Two phases were examined from areas FS at Tell Brak. The first phase (3) consisted of a public building and the Southern Building,

in which at least one room was used as a grain store. The precise function of the Southern Building as a whole could not be determined. The two buildings may have been enclosed together as a complex. The second phase (2) consisted of a 30-room complex

289 wmcn may nave naa an administrative tunction. Alternatively, tne complex may simply be a group of elaborate private houses with private store rooms, as suggested by the excavators. Barley appears to be the primary crop which was processed and stored in the rooms and complexes described above. Several issues need to be raised concerning this barley:

i. Was the crop being produced and stored for human consumption or for other purposes, such as animal fodder or seed corn? ii. Was any part of the crop being processed as frikkeh, or as a roast or boiled product? iii. Were any byproducts being stored, and if so for what purpose? The answer to the first question is likely to be that the crop was intended for human consumption. Stores of animal fodder tend to include large quantities of byproducts such as chaff and straw. No such stores were found in either phase. It can not be ruled out however that an amount of the grain, especially the coarse sieve products, may have been used to feed animals. Similarly, it is possible that some of the grain was also being stored as seed corn for sowing. The second question may be answered with the help of the statistical analysis carried out on this material; although there is a group on the scattergram which has been tentatively accepted as possibly representing frikkeh, burgul and roast barley, it has not been possible to find a truly reliable means of identifying these products. The possibility of identifying frikkeh using chemical analysis is a promising development for future work, but is currently still under investigation. It is therefore not possible to

determine whether any of these products were found on this site.

Although it is possible that some of the byproducts recovered were being stored, it has not been possible to positively confirm this. It is more likely that they represent processing

290 activities such as sieving.

12.4 Tell Kerma.

Samples were recovered from the following areas; B100-600, C100-700, and A100-900. a) Area B100-B600. In this area, also known as granary A, two rooms (B100 and B200) were extensively sampled with the aid of grids, and large quantities of grain were recovered (see fig. 44). Room B100. Samples B1.1 and B1.2 were recovered from grid squares 9 and 8 respectively. These were located at the southern end of room B100, against wall 15. Both samples were very rich, and consisted of coarse sieve products or semi-clean grain. Sample B1.6, recovered from grid square 6, represents a fine sieve byproduct. The other samples represent a fine sieve product or clean grain (barley). Of these, B1.3 and B1.5 were recovered from squares 5 and 4 respectively; sample B1.4 was recovered from jar N29; samples B1.7, B1.8, and B1.9, were recovered from squares 1, 2, and 3 respectively; and finally, sample B1.10 was recovered from the bench running across wall 11.

The excavator was justified in calling this complex which centred around room B100 a granary, since in some places the charred grain was almost a foot deep. A detailed examination of the contents of the room not only confirms this fact, but more importantly shows that there were a number of products being stored here.

At the southern end of the room, a large amount of semi-clean grain (barley) was being stored. Traditionally, grain

crops may be stored semi-clean for future transport, or until further processing is necessary, either piecemeal or in bulk. The northern end of the room contained clean grain (mostly

291 barley). The presence of a number of vessels of a variety or sizes may suggest that these were in fact measuring jars, used to ensure that rations were of a standardised size. Unfortunately this suggestion can not be confirmed, due to the lack of accurate measurements of their capacity. The contents of samples B1.8 and B1.9 are also significant; although they represent clean grain, these samples contained a mixture of wheat and barley grains, many of which had a tarry bead at the distal end. A morphological and chemical analysis of some of these grains (the wheat grain) seems to indicate that they were harvested in an unripe state, processed, and then placed in storage. This issue has been discussed in great depth previously. The samples contain a relatively even mixture of wheat and barley; however, we can not tell whether they were intentionally mixed, or whether the mixing occurred during deposition. As the samples were recovered from the floor near and around some pottery, it seems plausible to suggest that they may originally have been stored separately in different vessels. The only byproduct recovered from room B100 was sample B1.6, which represents a fine sieve byproduct. Although it is unusual for sieving to be carried out indoors (and especially unusual in this case since there is a courtyard adjacent), the spatial distribution of the samples found within would seem to indicate the sieving may indeed have been carried out indoors in this instance. The coarse sieve products stored at the southern end of the room would have been sieved in the centre of the room, then deposited and/or measured out at the northern end. Furthermore, the relatively large size (1.2 litres) of sample B1.6 makes it slightly more difficult to attribute the presence of a fine sieve product within this "granary’' to fortuitous or coincidental means alone; nevertheless, it can not be ruled out as an option.

292 Alternatively it is possible that the fine sieve byproduct was being stored there intentionally as animal fodder or for some other

unknown purposes. Room B200. This was a large open courtyard, with an oven built against wall 14. Unfortunately, during the 1989 excavation season,

only a small part of the courtyard was uncovered, and therefore sampling was restricted to a limited area (see fig. 44). Sample B2.1 was recovered from within the oven itself, and represents a

winnowing byproduct. Sample B2.2 was recovered from the floor

around the oven and grid square 2, and sample B2.3 was recovered from grid square 3; both represent a coarse sieve byproduct. Sample B2.4 was recovered from grid square 4; it represents a fine sieve byproduct. All the samples recovered from the floor of this room were sieving byproducts, which implies that this area of the room at least was used for crop processing. This fact further serves to support the identification of this area as a courtyard, since - as mentioned previously - sieving is traditionally undertaken out of doors in courtyards. In this case, the courtyard is conveniently placed near the grain store (B100). The presence of a winnowing byproduct within the oven is probably due to the fact that chaff and straw are often used for kindling, or as fuel when incorporated in dung cakes. (For further details on the use of dung as fuel, and the interpretation of carbonised remains from such fuel, see Miller (1984).

b) Area C100-0700.

Two rooms were sampled in this area; C300 and C400 (see fig. 44a). A grid was laid down in room C300 to facilitate the sampling process.

Room C300. This room is also known as granary B, not only because

large quantities of grain were recovered from it, but also because

293 it contained similar features to those found in room B100 (granary A). The four samples recovered, C3.1, C3.2, C3.3, and C3.4, all represent a coarse sieve product or semi-clean grain.

As mentioned previously, grain is often stored in a semi-clean state if destined for transportation, or until such time as further processing is necessary. The presence of four vessels found on the bench running along wall 26 (see fig. 44a) may suggest again that measuring of grain, possibly for rations, was being carried out. Room C400. Only one sample, C4.1, was recovered from this room; it represents a coarse sieve byproduct. The presence of this byproduct in a room which is adjacent to a store room filled with a coarse sieve product is highly suggestive that at least some coarse sieving of the grain stored in room C300 was carried out there. On the other hand, since sieving is traditionally performed outdoors in courtyards, the presence of a coarse sieve byproduct in room C400 may just be coincidental. Alternatively it is possible that the byproduct was being stored there intentionally. Coarse sieve byproducts are often used as fuel when mixed with dung, and are also used as fodder for animals or as temper for mudbrick.

c) Area A100-A900.

In this area two rooms, A100 and A400 were sampled (see fig.44). Room A100. Two samples (A1.1 and A1.2) were recovered from this room. Both of these represent a fine sieve product. Sample A1.2, which was recovered from the corner between walls 5 and 2, contained barley grains with tarry beads at their distal ends. It has been suggested previously that such grains were probably harvested in an unripe state, processed, and then placed in storage. Room A200. Only one sample, A2.1, was recovered from this room, and represents a fine sieve byproduct. The function of this room is

294 unclear since it presents the same dilemma faced with room C400. The question of whether the room was used for fine sieving crop products prior to storage in room A100, or whether the fine sieve product arrived by fortuitous means, remains open to interpretation.

12.5 Summary and Conclusions on the Plant Remains Recovered from Tell Kerma.

Tell Kerma North is an important site since it provides us with a rare glimpse of what appears to be a purpose-built storage complex with specialised areas for storing and processing grain, covering the whole site. Although the site has several occupation phases, all the contexts sampled are part of the same phase, and are therefore contemporary. Analysis of the plant remains recovered from rooms B100, C300, and A100 strongly suggests that they were used for crop storage, in particular rooms B100 and C300, where the quantities of carbonised plant remains yielded were very large; in some cases deposits were up to a foot deep. Associated with room B100 was a courtyard, B200, which yielded crop processing byproducts and an oven. The presence of a courtyard adjacent to one of the main storerooms strongly suggests that at least some of the grain being stored in room B100 was being prepared there. Two other samples, both sieve byproducts, were also recovered from two other rooms, A200 and C400. Unfortunately it has not been possible to define with any certainty the functions of these rooms, or to determine how their contents arrived there. An interesting feature of this site is the total lack of any living quarters or houses. The site appears to have had a

295 completely utilitarian function, being composed ot store rooms and a number of processing areas. More recently during the 1990 excavation season, further rooms filled with grain were uncovered, in some case again almost a foot deep. Although the material has

not been analysed yet, it is very likely that these rooms are grain stores similar to those already examined. It is worth noting that

room A400 was partitioned by a low wall with large quantities of grain on one side and an oven on the other. The presence of ovens on a site whose function appears to be entirely utilitarian needs to be

explained, since it is unlikely that they were used for domestic cooking.

It has been previously noted that certain processing activities such as burgul making and grain roasting, including frikkeh, require fire installations. Furthermore, the fact that what may be processed unripe grain (frikkeh) was recovered from the site and that roast grain/barley was a standard commodity commonly mentioned in texts as rations or in storage, would strongly support the theory that these ovens were primarily used for grain roasting activities of the sort mentioned above. It may therefore be possible that the specialised function of room A400 was grain roasting. It must be said however that it is slightly surprising to find ovens installed within and around what is ostensibly a large grain storage complex, since the risks of fire, and hence disaster, are greatly increased. In fact, it may be possible that just such an accident did occur, resulting in the whole site being razed to the ground.

The fact that the site is surrounded by a thick wall and the buildings have a public character (Saghiyeh, 1990), along with the

evidence outlined above, together strongly support the theory that Kerma North had a specialised function. It has previously been

296 suggested that one of the purposes of the site was to act as a redistribution centre for crops harvested in the richer rainfed areas further north. Although it is not possible to confirm or refute such a theory, it should be noted that a certain amount of the crops being kept here must have been locally grown since evidence for processing was found on the site. In conclusion, Kerma, along with other nearby sites, probably acted as a collection point for locally grown or imported harvests which were destined for further transport, possibly by river, to larger centres such as Brak, Leylan, or Mari. The fact that such installations would have needed to be supported by a labour force and possibly even required military personnel for protection, would mean that a certain amount of the crops stored at this site must have been processed and issued as rations or pay. This in turn may explain why fine sieving and grain roasting may have been carried out at Kerma.

12.6 Further Comments and Recommendations for Future Research. Until now, efforts have been concentrated on the application of the model to archaeological plant remains from the sites of Tell Brak and Tell Kerma. It would now seem appropriate to introduce the model to a wider perspective. The results achieved so far have enabled the identification of contexts, and made possible suggestions as to their purpose and function. Both the model and results have not only highlighted certain activities (such as frikkeh production, and the roasting and boiling of grain), but in some cases, have also facilitated their interpretation. These activities have hitherto received scant attention, probably as a result of the problems in identifying them archaeologically. It is hoped that increased awareness of the importance of these activities, coupled with the recent and ongoing

297 advances in the application of I.R.S. (infrared spectroscopy) and N.I.R. (near-infrared reflectance), will lead other researchers to devote more attention to the differentiation between various stored products.

One of the aims of this thesis was to identify the storage of byproducts used as fodder for livestock, and for other purposes.

Unfortunately, it is likely that the majority of the byproducts recovered from the various contexts on both sites were associated with crop processing activities, such as sieving, rather than with the storage of these byproducts. Furthermore, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify with any certainty those crop products, in storage, which are intended for animal consumption, since they are indistinguishable from the material set aside for humans. Nevertheless, the inability to find or identify the evidence for storage of animal feed does not necessarily mean that there were no such storage facilities on the site, but that there are no clear indicators that storage was carried out in the rooms and areas which were examined. Having established the value of the model in interpreting archaeological contexts, and highlighted the problems and issues associated with it, it is recommended that this model, or one of similar design, be applied to other sites in North Syria and elsewhere, in order to assist in locating, identifying, and interpreting contexts which are directly or indirectly associated with storage. I.R.S. analysis should be used to attempt to identify the processing and storage of unripe grain. Unfortunately there are no proven or reliable means of identifying the storage and processing of roast or boiled ripe grain, or for distinguishing it from normal ripe grain. There are however other indicators which may give us clues as to their possible existence as activities, or

298 may indicate that they were stored on a site: 1) The modern scattergram (fig. 35) has shown burgul, frikkeh, and roast grain as a distinct cluster. However, the very close similarity in composition between them and normal fine sieve products prevents us from considering this evidence as entirely reliable.

2) The presence of specialised fire installations associated with grain stores would indicate that at least one of the functions of these installations may have been grain roasting. 3) Textual and other evidence refers to the distribution of roast barley rations etc. Finally it should be noted that the value of such work lies not only in providing answers to specific questions, but more importantly in increasing the awareness, of both archaeologists and archaeobotanists, of the different products and byproducts and the purposes for which they are processed and stored; this in turn will help produce a more accurate recognition and interpretation of such contexts when they arise. Until such work is carried out, knowledge of crop storage processes will remain incomplete.

299 Chapter 13: General Summary and Conclusion.

This thesis is divided into three sections. The purpose of the first section was to establish an ethnographic account of traditional crop processing activities from different regions of Syria. Wherever possible, examples of similar activities from other parts of the Near East were also provided. Emphasis was placed on those crop processing activities which are directly or indirectly related to storage. An attempt was then made to establish the antiquity of these activities, and to demonstrate their continuity through history. This was possible because the processes and techniques involved in crop processing have remained remarkably constant during the past six millennia, only changing with the arrival of modern machinery in this century. In the second section, a model was constructed using plant samples collected from the areas where the ethnographic studies were conducted. The weed seeds found within the composition of the various products and byproducts were classified according to certain characteristics which affect their behaviour. A canonical variates analysis was then carried out on these weed seeds, and the results were plotted on scattergrams. The results showed that it was possible to distinguish between winnowing byproducts, coarse sieve byproducts, fine sieve products and fine sieve byproducts. It was not possible however to distinguish between the special products; burgul, frikkeh, and roast

barley, due to the close similarities in their compositions. Nor should the distinction between them and fine sieve products be accepted as reliable, also due to the close similarity in composition.

In the third section, archaeological plant remains recovered from two sites in north east Syria (Tell Brak and Tell Kerma), were

300 examined. The weeds seeds found within the various samples were classified according to the characteristics established in section two. A canonical variates analysis was then carried out on them, using a transformation matrix from a previous C.V.A. run on the modern samples. The results were then plotted on a scattergram. By comparing the scattergram derived from the modern results with that derived from the archaeological results, it was possible to identify the various products and byproducts from which the archaeological samples derived. These identifications were then used to interpret the contexts from which the samples were recovered. The problems and future recommendations that resulted from this project have been discussed elsewhere. Whilst in no way suggesting that this research has provided all the answers, it is hoped that it will, at least, form a valid contribution, both by providing a framework for appropriate methodology, and by raising issues which have long deserved more consideration.

301 Appendix 1.

ETHNO-AGRICULTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE NEAR EAST.

This questionnaire is based on those used in Turkey 1969-1978, by G.C. Hillman, and is reproduced here with his kind permission. For explanations of the archaeological relevance of some of the questions posed, see Hillman 1972,1973, 1981, 1984a and 1984b. Inevitably this questionnaire must be used flexibly, and is intended more as a guide than as a rigid system of 'interrogation':

it is always preferable to encourage the farmer to give full descriptions in spontaneous narrative form from which relevant details can then be extracted. Specific topics which have been omitted can than be raised separately later on. (A rigid 'question and answer' approach would clearly exhaust the patience of the farmer within a few minutes, and, for one enjoying the customary

hospitality of the farming community, is entirely inappropriate).

Plans and Maps: Where a village is to be studied in depth, it is necessary to have or draw:

a) detailed topographic map of the village's agricultural catchment. b) cadastral maps of village lands. c) a village plan - giving locations of gardens and irrigation streams as well as house outlines, yards, middens and all other 'activity areas' of archaeological importance.

A. THE CROPS GROWN.

a. on field scale. 1) which crops (including every variety recognised by the

villagers)? village names? names given in neighbouring areas?

302 2) cultivated in village since when? 3) which crops are sown to provide - (i) grain for human consumption? (ii) grain for animal consumption? for which animals? (iii) green matter for fodder? (i.e. cut while still green). For which animals?

4) what areas of each (approximately)? 5) what ares of each prior to modern fertilizers, modern irrigation, etc. (approximately.)?

6) which of the crops are generally irrigated? 7) which of the crops are generally manured? 8) what manures are used in the village? 9) since when? 10) were there any other field crops grown in the village in earlier days which are no longer grown? which? 11) what rotation and following systems are used? Note details of each system in use in village. 12) what systems were used in the 'old days'? 13) Yields: (i) Amount of seed grown per unit area (or per named field [thereafter to be measured])? (ii) Yield ratio (units harvested for each unit sown)? This must be recorded with respect to either extreme of soil fertility and intensity of irrigation (and at stated points of the rotation systems) - with and without fertilizer in each case. * (iii) Absolute yield per unit area or per named field? This will generally be stated in volumetric units, and relative to stated conditions of soil, rainfall, etc. (iv) Units of weight and volume used in village. (v) Are the same units used in neighbouring areas and in

303 me marKei towns r it noi, wncii is me umerernjer

* If all farmers now use chemical fertilizer, it will be necessary to question the older men about yields obtained in the days before these fertilizers were used - both with and without organic manures.

** Assess metric values of the local measures (in litres or kilos).

b) on garden scale; as per questions a) 1-9 above, and the following: 10) which ones are generally grown together in the same garden, and which are grown separately? Why?

(In this section, a plan of representative gardens is needed - giving details of layout, irrigation systems, numbers of plants of each type, etc.)

B. CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING OF EACH OF THE FIELD CROPS. For each of the major field crops, the following sequence of questions must be applied. For convenience, having asked any one question in respect of the most major crop (e.g. durum wheat), it is worth immediately asking if the same answer applies to related crops (e.g. bread wheat, the barleys and rye); i.e. the details for these other crops can be noted as merely being the same as (or

differing in a particular respect from) the principal crop. This strategy clearly reduces the time required and correspondingly

improves the chances of completing the questionnaire with the

farmer concerned.

304 In every case, it is necessary to ask if the methods and tools described were 'always' the ones used in this village, or were things different in times of their grandfathers? (This question is hereafter included only in question 1 as a reminder, but it must be included in all subsequent questions as well).

It should be added that this questionnaire is designed primarily for cereal and pulse cultivation.

It is assumed throughout that the questioner will note not only the local names of the tools and their component parts, but also the local names of the operations themselves and of the ways of doing each job. (For examples of the typical extend of regional variation in this regard, see Dalman [1931-] and Kosay [1956 and 1957]). It is also assumed that information will be recorded in each case on the source (and place of manufacture - if known) of all items of equipment.

1. TILLING.

a) Implements used? (ards, hoes, spades, etc.) - names

- components of each, where made? - woods used (obtained from where?) b) How many times per year is any one field tilled? c) When (what seasons)?

d) Reasons for extra ploughings (i.e. ploughings additional to that preceding sowing)? (Weed control? Control of water loss? To open up soil for penetration by rain?)

e) Is this the system that was 'always' used in the village or were

different methods used in the days of their grandfathers?

305 If ards or ploughs are used: f) What draft animals are used? g) At each ploughing, how many times is the land cross-ploughed? h) Who does the ploughing (gender, minimum age, etc.) i) Has this always been the case, or was it different in the past? j) How long does it take to get oxen out to the furthest fields? k) Does this time factor limit the intensity of use of the farthest fields? (i.e. are they used less because of the time taken to read them with oxen, etc.)

2. HARROWING. a) What implements? b) Names of components? c) Which draft animals (if any)? d) Methods of harnessing? e) When undertaken? (immediately after ploughing, or is there a delay?)

3. CLOD-BREAKING. a) Implements? b) When undertaken? c) Why? d) Who does it?

4. SOWING.

a) When? - pre-ploughing?

post-ploughing, pre-harrowing?

post first harrowing, but followed by a second

harrowing? etc. b) Other time determinants? e.g. weather (especially time of

306 arrival of autumn and spring rains). c) What methods? - broadcast? trickling (by hand) into hoed runnels? dibbling (with stick)? with sowing ard? modern seed drill? d) Source of seed (own, from other families within village, or from market?) e) Are there problems with loss of seed to birds, rodents, or insects (especially if the rains arrive later than anticipated at the time of sowing)?

5. BIRD SCARING (c.f. question e) above) a) Do they use bird-scarers after sowing? (children, or artificial devices?) b) What implements are used ? (clappers, drums, etc.) c) When?

6. IRRIGATION.

a) Which fields? b) How often? (frequency of irrigation generally varies in different parts of the village territory). c) When are the channels dug? d) What implements are used to dig (i) major channels? (ii) minor channels? e) Who does the work of channel-digging? f) Did they ever used water lifting wheels in the days before pumps?

g) If not, then from how far upstream did they have to lead off the major irrigation channels?

h) Has the availability of pumps increased the area under

307 irrigation? i) What effect have they had on crop yield? j) What effect have they had on the range of crops grown? k) What effect have they had on the relative importance of the different crops in the village economy?

(The last 3 questions reinforce some of the questions in section Aa).

7. WEEDING OF CROPS.

a) Are the crops weeded? b) At what stage of growth or season of year? c) How frequently at each stage? (e.g. everyday?) d) For how many hours on each occasion and at what times? e) Who does it? f) Which weeds are the greatest nuisance or most abundant? g) What do they do with the uprooted weeds? If used as fodder, then for which animals? h) Which weeds are the most useful as fodder?

8. GUARDING THE CROPS. a) Which crops are specially guarded? b) Why? (against sheep, cattle, humans? etc.) c) Who does the guarding? d) Do they stay on guard all night? e) Do they build shelters for themselves?

9. CULLING OF GREEN (IMMATURE) CEREALS FOR FODDER.

(i) Cereals sown specifically to provide green fodder, a) What proportion of the total area planted to a given cereal is sown specifically to provide green fodder?

308 D) is it sown at a airrerent time to tnat sown to proviae grainr c) Is any of it cut and dried for later consumption (e.g. in winter especially in highland Anatolia), or is it all grazed direct? d) If grazed direct, is the rate of grazing controlled (to avoid bloat, e.g.), or are the animals given 'free rein'? e) At what season is it grazed (or cut?) f) If grazed, how long per day are the animals kept in the crop? g) Have these systems always been practised in the village, or are they relatively new?

(ii) Partial culling of green cereals to provide fodder. a) Of those cereals sown to provide grain, is any ever cut green for fodder? b) What proportion is culled? c) Is this proportion increased in years of drought, when the 'natural' grazing is poor? d) What is the maximum they are prepared to in this way? e) What animals are fed with it? f) When (i.e. at what season) do they start culling it in this way? g) What time of day do they gather it? (Is it related to cow milking times?

h) How is it carried back? Equipment? j) Who does this work?

10. CROPS HARVESTED GREEN.

(i) Legume crops grown specifically for green pods or unripe (green) seeds:

a) Are the legume crops ever grown specifically for: A) green pods?

309 b) green (soft) seeds. b) How far do they let them ripen before harvesting them? c) How long is the season over which sequential ripening occurs?

When does it start? d) How often do they harvest any one crop, and at what time of day? e) How much is gathered on any one occasion? f) Is it all for home consumption, or is it traded around the village

or in the nearest market? g) Is any of the harvest dried for later consumption? h) How is it eaten?

i) Who does the harvesting?

(ii) Legume crops grown primarily as pulses (i.e. for the ripe, hard grain) but also culled as immature seeds or pods: a) Are any of the sown for grain also culled while still green? b) How much of the crop is culled in this way? c) Is it eaten as pods or as seeds? (There's not much option except in the fleshy-husked beans). d) Onwards. As q. 1 above.

(Hereafter, we return to cereals and pulses). 11. HARVESTING. a) What harvesting methods are used for the crop in question? Reaping (i.e. cutting), uprooting or plucking of ears? b) Do they wear any special clothing to protect them from long hours in the full sun?

c) When do they bring in the harvest: calendric date, and timing relative to precise stage of crop maturity? d) If not harvesting for frikke, etc., (and if not already answered in

310 c): ao tney ever narvest tne crop in tne sngmiy unripe state to avoid grain loss? e) If so, is it left to dry or mature in the field? f) At what time of day do they harvest? g) Why? (Wind constraint? Need of dew to avoid grain-shedding? etc.) h) How do the harvesters travel to the furthest fields? (How did they prior to modern transport, if they have any?) i) How long does it take by traditional means? j) Do the harvesters sleep out when harvesting the furthest fields?

If so, who brings food and drink out to them? When? k) Do they build shelters for resting in?

(i) If crop is harvested by reaping: a) What tools are used? Sickles, scythes? Types? Names? Where made? b) When sickle-harvesting, do they cut either; just below ears, or low on the straw? c) Do they wear any protective clothing specifically for reaping? (e.g. armguards, spats, etc.)

A. With low cutting: d) Do they use harvesting claws? Names of each type (+ photos), where made, information on other types used in area, etc.

e) What do they feel are the advantages of using claws? f) How many stalks do they cut through with each stroke?

g) Who does the sickle harvesting?

h) Do they tie the harvested plant into sheaves? i) Who does the sheaving? The harvester himself?

311 j) h o w are tne sneaves tiear k) Are the sheaves immediately gathered up? I) By whom? m) In stooks, heaps or what? (Names, conformation).

(ii) If crop is harvested by uprooting: a) Why do they uproot the crop instead of reaping it? [Encourage a

detailed reply here]. b) Do they uproot the crop by hand or by special sickle. c) If by sickle, get name(s), photos, etc. d) What are the advantages of either method? e) Either way, do they work in squatting position or by stooping? f) Roughly how many stalks do they uproot in each handful? g) Do they attempt to knock earth and stones off the roots straight away? How? Are stones which get brought in on the roots a problem in causing contamination of the grain? h) Who does the uprooting? i) Do they tie the uprooted plants into sheaves? (Names), j) If so, then who ties the sheaves? k) How are the harvested plants (or sheaves) gathered up? With a pitch-fork?

I) Are they stacked in heaps? If so, what form?

12. GLEANING.

a) Do poor families have gleaning rights? b) How close can each class of gleaner follow behind the harvesters?

(e.g. are poor relatives of the farmer given 'first pickings' ahead of

members of other families?)

c) Who makes up the majority of gleaners? (Widows and orphans?)

312 a) uo tne rarmers leave any or tne crop unnarvestea tor gleaners or other poor families?

13. FIELD STORAGE. a) Is the crop generally left in the field for a while? b) For how long? c) Why? To dry/ripen it? To fit in other, more urgent work? d) In what sort of heaps are they left? (Names). e) How do they ensure adequate protection against wind, rain, browsing stock, and birds? (Are the roots left pointing outwards? Are the heaps weighed down with stones? etc. etc.).

14. TRANSPORT OF HARVESTED CROP TO THRESHING YARDS. a) What system of transport is involved; (i) For short distances. (ii) For longer hauls. b) What equipment is used in each case? Where was it made? c) Is the use of wheeled transport limited by terrain, nature of tracks, etc? d) What tools are used in loading the harvest? (e.g. pitch forks, etc.)

Sources? Woods used etc. e) Who helps with the job of transporting, and in what capacity? f) At what time of day is the transporting done? Why? g) Is much grain lost during transport? (see ICARDA (1981) for

examples of measured grain losses during transport).

14. THRESHING YARD PREPARATION AND ACCESS.

a) Location of yards? b) Manner of their initial construction?

c) Are they resurfaced every year?

313 d) When? e) By whom? f) How many families use each yard? g) Which families? h) Sequence of right of access to the different yards (by the different families)?

16. THRESHING. a) What methods are used - (i) for large-scale threshing? (tribulum? sledge? trampling?) (ii) for small-scale threshing? e.g. by poor families with either

very little to thresh or no animals for bulk threshing?

(Special beaters? sticks?) b) Details of each class of equipment, and where animals are used, details of any muzzles, protective metal shoes (nailed to hooves for duration of threshing in some villages), etc. c) How is harvested crop spread or laid out on yards? - with forks? (2-pronged, 3-pronged?) - with central heap of crop awaiting threshing? (name?) - how deep is it spread? (name of spread/carpet). d) How long a period of threshing before more harvested crop can be added?

e) How many times do they add more harvest? f) How thick is the threshed carpet by then? g) Is it turned over between each new addition? h) With a coarse rake or with forks? (names?) i) (Do they have to go round the edges during threshing to fork material back into the circle?) j) With threshing involving animals, how long can they work

314 without a break? k) How often are they watered during threshing? I) When do they thresh? - timing related to harvest? (e.g. do they delay threshing while they complete other pressing work?) - calendric timing? - time of day preferred? Why? m) Do they have problems with wind? Do they lose much because of it? n) Who helps with the threshing? Who does what?

17. HEAPING THE THRESHINGS. a) How are the threshing scraped together? b) Details of implements (including any brushes), plants/woods used in their manufacture, etc. c) Where are the heaps made?

18. FIRST ROUND OF WINNOWING. a) Where do they do it? b) If its not at (or near) the threshing areas, then how are the threshings transported? c) When do they do it? - straight after threshing, or is it delayed? - time of day? d) What winds are needed? Direction? Strength? e) Who does it? f) What implements are used for each of the winnowings? - If they have ceased to use forks, when did they stop? g) How many times do they rewinnow the threshings/grain in this first round of winnowing? h) In what direction do they winnow relative to;

315 (i) tne prevailing wind direction (ii) the orientation of the heap of threshings awaiting winnowing. [Note: a sketch-plan will be needed here]. i) Where (relative to the original heap of threshings), do the various winnowed fractions accumulate? [sketch plan] j) How often do they rake or brush together the different heaps or

accumulations of each fraction? k) Who does this 'tidying up'? I) What implements are used? (generally some sort of brush). If brushes, then what plans are used to make them? m) When is this tidying up done? e.g. does one of the daughters work at this throughout the winnowing? n) What is the name given to each fraction and what is its composition? (Take samples of each). o) How is each fraction gathered up? p) Implements used for gathering each fraction? q) Are any fractions taken into storage at this point? r) What mode of transport is used for each? s) Are the grain heaps brushed or fanned to get rid of chaff or straw that has landed on them? t) How often and at which stage of operation? u) By whom?

19. RE-THRESHING OF THE CHOPPED STRAW? a) Is one or other of the straw fractions re-threshed? Which ones? b) Why?

- To release the last few grains retained in some ears? - To break the straw into shorter lengths to make it better

316 as fodder? c) Methods of threshing? d) How thorough is this re-threshing relative to the first threshings? e) Is the straw added in batches as before? f) Is it regularly turned over, as before? g) When is this re-threshing done? - straight after the first winnowing, or later on?

- time of day preferred? Why? h) Who does it? i) Is it gathered together exactly as before (see step 16)?

20. SECOND ROUND OF WINNOWING. (Only applied if there is re-threshing - as above). a) Where do they do it? b) When do they do it? - straight after the threshing? - time of day preferred? c) What sort of wind is preferred? - Direction? - Strength?

d) Who does it? e) Implements used? f) - u) [Exactly as above in step 17 f) - u)] v) It is particularly important to find out how many different fractions are produced in the course if the second winnowing, and the names (and composition) of these fractions. Take samples of each.

w) Are any of the fractions amalgamated with those generated in the first round of winnowing?

317 21. STRAW AND CHAFF STORAGE. a) Which straw/chaff sections are stored separately? b) Where? c) Construction of storage facilities? (drawings, plans, photos, etc) d) What is each fraction used for? (if any one of them is used for temper, find out precisely what sorts of plaster or mud brick it is used in; e.g. sometimes the temper used in mud plaster on the rooves is different to that used on, say, the inside walls).

22. EXTRA THRESHING OF GRAIN. a) Is the winnowed grain ever re-threshed? (e.g. to break up the heavier pieces of straw that fall in the same heaps on the ground).

23. EXTRA WINNOWING OF GRAIN. a) Are the grain heaps ever re-winnnowed subsequent to the first round of winnowing (or extra threshing)? b) When is this undertaken (relative to other operations)? c) What implements are used? d) By whom? e) Is the waste fraction from this winnowing retained? f) If so - what is its name? - is it amalgamated with other by-products? - what is it used for? g) Are the grain heaps brushed/fanned again? h) When?

i) By whom?

24. FIRST SIEVE-CLEANING OF GRAIN (COARSE-SIEVING).

318 a) Do they next clean the grain with a coarse sieve which allows the grains to pass through but which retains the coarsest contaminants? (If not, then describe the alternative operations). b) What is the name given to this grade of sieve, who makes them, and from what material are the strands made? c) What is the name given to the coarsest contaminants? d) What are they used for? e) Is this coarse-sieving done at the threshing yards? f) By whom? g) At the end of the operation, are the coarse contaminants swept together and taken into storage? h) What equipment is used (in g). i) Type and location of storage facilities used for coarse contaminants?

25. SECOND SIEVE-CLEANING (FINE SIEVING^ OF GRAIN - FIRST ROUND. a) Is the grain cleaned with a fine sieve which retains the grains and allows all fine contaminants (especially the smaller weeds seeds) to pass? (If not, then describe the alternative operations). b) What is the name given to this grade of sieve, who makes them, and what material is used for the strands? c) What name is given to the fine contaminants? d) Are they used to feed domestic fowl or other animals? e) How many times is the grain fine-sieved at this stage? f) Is this the first round of fine-sieving undertaken at the threshing yards? Do they do it on mats? Who does the work?

g) Is the grain given an extra 'winnowing' at this point - by

allowing it to drop from the sieve held at head height (with a cross-wind blowing)?

319 h) When the sieving is finished, are the fine contaminants swept together and taken into storage? Equipment used? i) Nature and location of storage facilities used for these fine contaminants? In particular, are they stored in the same room as

the prime (semi-clean) grain? j) Is the grain; (i) immediately transported to bulk stores at this point, or

(ii) processed further, or (iii) left in heaps at the threshing yard while other work is done? k) Are heaps given a special name, and are they marked in some way with the farmer's code or insignia?

26. TRANSPORT OF SEMI-CLEAN GRAIN TO BULK STORAGE.

(Or to domestic yards for further processing). a) What equipment is used and how is the grain loaded? b) Who is responsible for the grain transport?

27. BULK STORAGE OF SEMI-CLEAN GRAIN. a) Is the grain bulk stored at this point, or is some or all of it immediately processed further? (If the latter, what is involved?) b) Nature and location of storage facilities used for this semi-clean grain?

28. FURTHER CLEANING OF GRAIN. Prior to preparation as specific classes of food, the grain is generally given additional cleanings, a) Further Fine-Sieving.

(This operation often incorporates both chob-removal and a further winnowing).

i) Is the grain which is about to be prepared as bulgur,

320 frikke or flour now given a further sieving < By whom < [if not, then give details of alternative sequence of operations]. ii) Do they scoop off the lighter contaminants (chob) which come to the surface as a result of the agitation during sieving, or do they use some sort of winnowing basket to eliminate this fraction? iii) What is this waste fraction called? Is the name different from that applied to the denser contaminants which fall through the sieve at this stage? iv) Is either class of these contaminants kept for feeding fowl, etc.? If so, is it added to waste from earlier stages of cleaning? v) Do they give the grain an extra winnowing at this point -

by tipping the grain from the sieve held at head height? If so, then is the grain dropped onto mats? b) Grain Washing. Is the grain washed at this stage? (If the grain is washed at some other point in the processing sequence, record reasons for this difference in the order of operations). i) Where do they wash it? Equipment used? ii) Do they merely flush the grain, or do they pour it into vats of water?

iii) Purpose of grain washing? Are they able to eliminate

bunted (diseased) grains? Do they also eliminate the seeds of wild oats by washing? [Note: this is possible only if they pour the grain into water rather than merely flushing it]. iv) What do they do with eliminated fractions? v) Where do they redry the grain? How long does it take? vi) Is the grain put (back) into bulk storage at this point?

If not, then what do they do with it? c) Hand Sorting.

321 i) is that grain which is about to be prepared (as buigur, frikke, flour, etc.) now hand-sorted? If so, then for which end products? ii) Where do they do this work? What surfaces do they use? (Dough tables?) Who does the work?

iii) Are the cleanings retained? If so, are they added to the equivalent cleanings from earlier stages of cleaning? Are they given a special name? d) Further Cleaning? Is the grain submitted to any additional cleaning operations? If so,

record full details.

29. FRIKKE PRODUCTION (From 'dough-ripe' grain). Record full details of all stages of production, time taken to complete each stage, amounts of grain processed, and the equipment used. Also, get the farmer to describe the stage of grain ripeness at which it is harvested for frikke.

30. PREPARATION OF 'MILK-RIPE' GRAIN (FROM EARS STILL DISTINCTLY GREENV

In addition to (or perhaps in place of) the grain prepared as frikke, do they also prepare grain as food when it has reached only the 'milk-ripe' stage? [In most villages which prepare this product, it is used to provide only small snacks - generally during work out in the fields]. Again, record full details of each stage of preparation.

31. BURGUL7BULGUR PRODUCTION.

Again, record full details of each stage of preparation, equipment used, amounts processed, time taken, and location and timing of

322 work.

32. ROASTED GRAIN. i) Is the ripe grain ever roasted? On what occasions? ii) Equipment used? What sort of fire? iii) What do they add to the grain? (e.g. is it mixed with seeds of pulses, Pistacia or Cannabis?)

33. GRINDING OF FLOUR (for bread, etc.). Gather full details, as before. In particular record the different types of bread preferred in the village, and not precisely which types (or mixtures) of grain are used for each type. Also note degree of leavening and degree of aeration ('rising') in each case. Do they ever make barley bread?

34. USES OF BARLEY.

If barley is (or was recently) used for human consumption, then note the products prepared, and, in particular, the methods and equipment used to dehusk the barley grains, and the methods used to then winnow out the husks. What do they do with the eliminated husks?

323 Appendix 2.

DESCRIPTION OF AN ARP TYPE PLOUGH FOUND IN THE ALAWITE MOUNTAINS.

There follows a detailed description of the component parts of this plough type (see fig. 4), and the Arabic words which are used to describe them:

1. The handle which the user holds in his hand when ploughing is called "kabdah" in Arabic. The "kabdah" also includes the extension that connects the lower part of the plough to the handle.

2. The ploughshare, or the part that actually digs the ground, is called in Arabic "sikkeh".

3. The shoe of the plough, or the part that actually connects the "sikkeh" and the "kabdah" is called in Arabic "seif". The "kabdah" is attached to the "seif" by a pair of braces called "asac", while the "sikkeh" simply fits over the "seif" since it is hollow.

4. The part that connects the plough to the yoke is made of two segments joined by a pair of braces called "asac". The first one, which is attached to the "seif", is called "berk". It is attached to the "seif" by a mortice and tenon joint, reinforced by a metal brace. The second, which connects the "berk" to the yoke, is called "wassleh".

5. On the "wassleh" there is a hole, through which a small stick (about 10cm long) fits. This little piece of wood is used to hook the "wassleh" onto the yoke. It is called "katreeb" in Arabic. 324 Comparison with ploughs from the South of Syria (Seeden, 1983), and from the Palestinian Hills west if the Jordan (Turkowski, 1969), reveals a major difference in construction. It appears that with the ploughs from these areas, the connection between the

"berk" and the shoe of the ard is on the side, using a piece of rope or a metal brace, as opposed to a mortice and tenon joint. It is possible that this second type represents an earlier form of the plough.

325 A p p e n q ix 3.

TRANSPORT OF CROPS IN THE ALAWITE MOUNTAINS USING A

"SHAHER".

In this region the crops are transported from the fields to the threshing yards using a "shaher", which consists of a special wooden frame resembling a step ladder with three or four rungs on

either side. This device is manufactured in the village itself (fig. 15). Similar examples of this "shaher " come from Palestine (see Turkowski, 1969).

The draft animals are supplied with a special saddle on which the "shaher" sits. The saddle is made of two parts: a large, heavily padded frame strapped in place, resting across the animals' back, and a smaller support that sits on top of the first one. This serves to raise the "shaher" further above the ground. When the crops are ready to be transported, quantities up to about 150 kilos in weight are loaded on to both sides of the 'shaher', using the "mighmara", and are strapped on tightly by a rope with a wooden "v" at the end of it (fig. 14). This wooden "v" is used to fasten the rope after it has been strapped around the crop, by hooking it onto the side of the shaher. Once both sides have been loaded and made fast, one end of the "shaher" is lifted and held over

the head, while the draft animal, usually a mule, is persuaded to stand underneath it. The upheld end of the "shaher" is lowered down over the back of the mule, then pulled down so that the "shaher" is straddling the animal. It is them made fast using ropes made of hair.

326 Appendix 4.

FURTHER NOTES ON "FRIKKEH" AND THE TURKISH "FIRIG".

According to Hillman, in Anatolia there is a distinction between earlier and later harvests of green wheat. The early one occurs when the crop is very milk ripe, and is called "firig". It is consumed as a snack, and is prepared and eaten in the field during breaks between weeding sessions. Only free threshing wheats are used, such as T. durum and T. aestivum (Hillman 1985). I have not seen or encountered any references to "firig" in either Syria or Jordan during the course of my field work, but from the description given by Hillman (1985), the preparation appears to be identical to that of "frikkeh". Because the Turkish name "firig" is so close to the Arabic word "frikkeh", which means to rub, I am inclined to consider that the name "firig" is almost certainly derived from the Arabic term. Furthermore I feel that the name frikkeh is probably used to refer to the harvest of green wheat in general, and that no distinction is made between earlier and later stages of maturity, in the same way that the Hebrew word "karmel" does (Hillman 1985; Avitsur 1977). The great similarity between the two processes also supports this argument. Avitsurs' description of "karmel" production does not distinguish between stages of maturity, but deals only with bulk and quantity. He also refers to the Arabic word for "karmel", which is "frikkeh". Perhaps people in Anatolia find it necessary to distinguish between the two stages of ripeness; however I would not be surprised to discover that the later stage is also called "firig". Unfortunately Hillman has not been able to record this process, and I have no references for it.

327 BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Adams, R. McC. 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Flood Plains of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Al-Azm, A.N. 1985. An Ethno-aaricultural Study in the Village of El-Findara in the Alawite Mountains. Unpublished report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of B.A. of the University of London.

Al-Azm, A.N. 1986. An Ethno-Aaricultural Study of Certain Sieving Systems at the Village of El-Findara in the Alawite Mountains. Unpublished Report Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.Sc. in Bioarchaeology, University College London Institute of Archaeology.

Avitsur, S. 1966. Implements for Harvesting and Similar Purposes in the Traditional Agriculture of Eretz (as cited by Hillman 1984).

Avitsur, S. 1977. The Way to Bread. The Example of the Land of Israel. In: Tools and Tillage. 2:4, 228-241.

Baly, D., and Tushingham, A.D. 1971. Atlas of the Biblical World. New York: World Publishing Company.

Barnard, G., and Kristoferson, L. 1985. Agricultural Residues as Fuel in the Third World. London (Energy Information Programme

Technical Report 4).

328 Bible: The English translations cited here are \) The Holv Bible: The Authorised (Kina James) version, and ii) New International Version. 1979, London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Brigden, R. 1983. Agricultural Hand Tools. Shire Albums 100.

Aylesbury: Shire Publications.

Brigden, R. 1984. Ploughs and Ploughing. Shire Albums 125.

Aylesbury: Shire Publications.

B.S.A.G. (Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture) IV: 1988. Irrigation and Cultivation in Mesopotamia Part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

C.A.D. See under Oppenheim, A.L., 1964.

Charles, M.P. 1990. Agriculture in Lowland Mesopotamia during the late Uruk-Earlv Dvnastic Period. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London.

Civil, M. (in press) The Farmers Instructions: Critical Edition of the Sumerian Text. Chicago: University of Chicago Oriental Institute Sumerian Project.

Curvers, H.H., and Schwartz, G.M. 1990. Excavations at Tell al-Raqa'i: A Small Rural Site of Early Urban Northern Mesopotamia. In: American Journal of Archaeology. 94,1: 3-23.

Czuchajowska, Z., and Pomeranz, Y. 1990. Changes in Maturing Wheat as Determined by Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. In: Cereal Chemistry. 66 (5): 432-435.

329 Dailey, S. 1984. Mari and Karana: two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman.

Dalman, G. 1933. Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina. Zweita Reihe: 1964. 7 Vols. Hildesheim: Geord Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Davis, P.H. 1985. Flora of Turkey and The East Aegean Islands. Vol. 9. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Delougaz, P. 1940. The Oval Temple at Khafaieh. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Delougaz, P., Hill, H., and Lloyd, S. 1967. Private Houses and Graves in the Divala Region. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diamond, G.P. 1975. A Study of Microscopic Wear Patterns and Chipped Stone Artefacts from the and Early Bronze Aae Levels of Knossos. 3 Vols. Ph.D. thesis, University of London Institute of Archaeology.

Doran, J, and Hodson, F.R. 1975. Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dunand, M. 1954. Fouilles de Bvblos. Tome 2. 1933-1938. Paris: Maisonneuve.

Duncan, R.J., Hodson, F.R., Orton, C.R., Tyers, P.A., and Vekaria, A. 1988 Data analysis for archaeologists: The Institute of

Archaeology programs. London: University of London Institute of Archaeology.

330 Ellison, R. 1982. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, 3000-600 B.C. In: Tools and Tillage. Vol. 4:3; 173-184.

Forder, A. 1923. Petra: Perea. Phoenicia. London: Marshall

Brothers.

Frankfort, H. 1939. Cylinder Seals: a Documentary essav on the arts and religion of the ancient Near East. London: Macmillan.

Fukai, S., Horuiche, K, and Matsutan, T. 1974. Telul-eth Thalathat: the excavations of Tell V. the fourth season (19651. Vol. III. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo. al-Gailani-Werr, L., et al. 1982. Catalogue of Cylinder Seals from Tell Suleimeh Himrin. In: Sumer. Vol. 38: 68-88.

Gates, M.H. 1984. The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari. In: Biblical Archaeology. Vol.47, No. 2: 70-87.

Gelb, I.J. 1955. Old Akkadian Inscriptions on the Chicago Natural History Museum. Texts of Legal and Business Interest. Chicago: Natural History Museum (Chicago, Field Museum of Natural History Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 44, No. 2).

Geller, M. 1989. Personal Communication.

Gordon, E.l. 1959. Sumerian Proverbs. Glimpses of Evervdav Life in

Ancient Mesopotamia. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Museum.

331 Harris, D.R. 1984. Ethnohistorical evidence for the exploitation of wild grasses and forbs: Its scope and archaeological implications. In: van Zeist, W., and Casparie, W.A., Plants and Ancient Man. Studies in Palaeoethnobotanv: 71-75. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Hartley, D. 1931 (Ed.). Thomas Tusser: 1557 Floruit. His Good Points of Husbandry. London: Country Life.

Hayes, W.C. 1968. The Scepter of Egypt. A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Part 1: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom. (3rd ed.) New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Heltzer, M. 1982. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Uoarit: roval service-svstem. taxes, roval economy, armv. and administration. Weisbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Hillman, G.C. 1973. Crop husbandry and food production: modern models for the interpretation of plant remains. In: Anatolian Studies 23; 241-4.

Hillman, G.C. 1981. Reconstruction of crop husbandry practices from the charred remains of crops. In: Mercer, R. (Ed.), Farming Practices in British Prehistory. 123-162. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hillman, G.C. 1982. Crop husbandry at the Medieval farmstead of Cefn Graeanog: reconstruction from charred remains of plants. In:

Kelly, R.S. The excavations of a Medieval farmstead at Cefn Graeanog, Clynnog, Gwynedd. Bulletin Board of Celtic Studies 29; 901-907.

332 Hillman, G.C. 1983. Crop processing at 3rd century A.D.

Wilderspool. In: Hinchcliffe, J., and Williams, J.H. (eds.) Excavations at Wildersoool 1966-1968. Cheshire County Council.

Hillman, G.C. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: The application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: van Zeist, W., and Casparie, W.A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man. Studies in palaeoethnobotanv 1-42. (Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium of the International Working Group for Palaeoethnobotany, Groningen, 1983). Rotterdam: Balkema.

Hillman, G.C. 1984b. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic Cereals in Recent Times: the operations, products and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts. In: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture (B.S.A.GT I. 114-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hillman, G.C. 1985. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: Part II, the free-threshing cereals. In: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture (B.S.A.G.1 Vol. II: 1-31.

Hillman, G.C. (No date). Study of plant remains recovered from Iron Age Gordion. Unpublished study.

Hillman, G. C. 1991. Personal Communication.

Hubbard, R.N.L.B., and Al-Azm, A.N. 1990. Quantifying Preservation and Distortion in Carbonized Seeds: and Investigating the History of Frike Production. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 17, No.1: 103-106.

333 I.C.A.R.D.A. 1980. (International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas) Farming Systems Research Program. Post-harvest processing of winter crops in N.W. Svria. I.C.A.R.D.A. Discussion Document No. 4. Aleppo. (As cited by Hillman, 1984).

Jones, G.E.M. 1983. The Use of Ethnographic and Ecological Models in the Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains. Unpublished

Ph.D thesis, Darwin College, Cambridge University.

Jones, G.E.M. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: Ethnographic models from Greece. In: van Zeist, W. and Casparie, W.A. (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man. Studies in Palaeoethnobotanv.

43-61. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Kang, S.T. 1973. Sumerian Economic Texts from the Umma Archive.

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Kendall, M, and Stuart, A. 1976. The Advanced Theory of Statistics. (Vol. 3^ London: Charles Griffin and Co. Ltd.

King, L.J. 1966. Weeds of the World: Bioloov and Control. London: Leonard Hill.

Korber-Grohne, U. 1967. Geobotanische Untersuchunoen auf der Feddersen Wierde. Steiner Verlag, for-Niedersachisches Landesinstitut fur Marchen-und Wurtenforschung, 2 Vols.

Kosay, H.Z. 1951. Anadolu 'nun Ethnoorafva ve Folklorina Pair Malzeme: I Alaca Huvuk. Das Dorf Alaca Huvuk: Materialien zur

Ethnooraphie und Volksunde von Anatolien. In Turkish and German.

334 Ankara: Turk larin Kurumu Basimevi.

Kosay, H.Z. 1956. Researches on the material culture of the Turkish people; I. Farming. In Turkish. Turk Ethnoarafva Deraisi I. 7-55 (as cited by Hillman, 1984).

Lerche, G. 1971. Observations on harvesting with sickles in Iran. In: Tools and Tillage I; 35-49.

Littauer, M.A., and Crouwel, J.H. 1990. Ceremonial Threshing in the Ancient Near East. I: Archaeological Evidence. In: Iraq 1990; 15-19.

Lucas, A.T. 1951. Making Wooden Sieves. In: Journal of the Roval Society of Ireland 81; 146-155.

Lutz, H.F. 1917. Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa. Yale: Yale

University Press.

Lyell, C. 1830. Principles in Geology. Cited in: The Evolving Earth: a Textbook in Physical Geology. 2nd. Edition. London: Collier Macmillan International Editions.

Macqueen, J.G., 1986. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Minor. London: Thames and Hudson.

Maekawa, K. 1984. Cereal Cultivation in the Ur III Period. In: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture (B.S.A.G.1 Vol. 1: 73-96.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mallowan, M. 1947. Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar. In: Iraq

SL 76-259.

335 Maps of Svria. 1960. Published by D Survey, War Office and Air M inistry.

Martin, H.P. 1986. Fara. a Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian Citv of Shurrupak. Birmingham: Chris Martin

Associates.

Matthiae, P. 1977. Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered. (Translated from the Italian by C. Holme). London: Hodder and Stoughton. McEwan, G. J. P. 1982. Late Babylonian Texts in the Ontario Museum.. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. (Royal Ontario Museum Cuneiform Texts, vol II).

McLaren, F.S., Evans, J., and Hillman, G.C. 1990. Identification of Charred Seeds from Epipalaeolithic Sites of S.W. Asia. In: Archaeometry *90. 797-806. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

McLaren, F. S. 1991. Personal Communication.

Miller, N.F. 1984. The Interpretation of some Carbonized Cereal Remains as Remnants of Dung Cake Fuel. In: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture (B.S.A.G.1 Vol. 1: 45-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moorey, P.R.S. 1971. The Loftus Hoard of Old Babylonian Tools from Tell Sifr in Iraq. In: Irao 33; 61-86.

Moorey, P.R.S. 1978. Kish Excavations 1923-1933. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

336 Mostyn, T. (exec, ed.), and Houram, A. (advisory ed.) 1988. Cambridge Encyclopedia of the and North Africa.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, M.A. 1988. Plant Remains from Tell Brak. Svria. Unpublished dissertation report in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M.Sc., University of London Institute of Archaeology.

Nesbitt, M. (in prep.)

Oates, D, and Oates, J. 1976. Early irrigation agriculture in Mesopotamia. In: G. de G. Sieveking (ed.), Problems in economic and social archaeology. 109-135. London: Duckworth.

Oates, D. 1982. Tell Brak. In: J. Curtis (ed.) Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. 62-71. London: Britsh School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Oates, D. 1985. Excavations at Tell Brak 1983-1984. In: Iraq 47: 159-172.

Oates, D. 1987. Excavations at Tell Brak 1985-1986. In: Irao 49: 175-191.

Oates, D., and Oates, J. 1989. Akkadian Buildings at Tell Brak. In: Iraq 51: 193-211.

Oates, D., Davidson, T.E., Kamilli, D., and McKerrell, H. 1977.

Seafaring Merchants of Ur? In: Antiquity 51, 221-34.

337 uppenneim, a .l . 1948. uuneitorm laoiets or tne wiiperrorce Eames Collection in the New York Public Library: Tablets of the Time of the Third Dvnastv of Ur. American Oriental Series, No. 32.

New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.

Oppenheim, A.L. (editor in charge) 1964. The Assyrian Dictionary

(C.A.D.L Chicago, Illinois: Oriental Institute.

Parrot, A. 1955. Les Fouilles de Mari. Dixieme Campaigne 1954.

In: Syria. 32; 185-211.

Pettinato, G. 1981. The Archives of Ebla: an Empire Inscribed in Clav: with an afterword by M. Dahood. New York: Garden City.

Pfeiffer, R.H. 1935. Nuzi and the Hurrians. The Excavations at Nuzi (Kirkuk. IraoL and their Contribution to out Knowledge of the History of the Hurrians. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.

Postgate, J.N. 1984. Processing of cereals in Cuneiform record. In: Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Vol. I: 103-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Powell, M.A. 1984. Sumerian Cereal Crops. In: Bulletin on

Sumerian Agriculture (B.S.A.G.1 Vol. 1: 48-72.

Rasmussen, H. 1971. Grain Harvest and Threshing in Calabria. In: Tools and Tillage 1, 93-104, as cited by Hillman (1984).

Safar, F., and Lloyd, S. 1945. Tell Hassuna. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4; 255-289.

338 Saghiyeh, M. 1990. The Lebanese University Recent Excavations at Tell Kerma: A Salvage Operation on the Middle Khabur. N.E. Syria. In press.

Saghiyeh, M. 1991. Personal Communication.

Salonen, A. 1968. Aaricultura Mespotamica: Nach Sumerisch-Akkadischen Quellen. Helsinki: Suomalainen

Tiedehatemia Toimituksia.

Seeden, H., and Kadour, M., 1983. Busra 1980: Reports of an archaeological and ethnographic campaign. In: Damszener Mitteilunaen I. 111-139.

Shennan, S. 1988. Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Speiser, E.A., and Tobler, A.J. 1950. Excavations at Teoe Gawra. Vol. 2. levels IX-XX. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sperling, K. 1991. An Analysis of Plant Remains from a Brinze Aoe Settlement: Tell Brak. Northern Syria. Unpublished M.Sc. report, University College London Institute of Archaeology.

Stahl, A.B. 1984. Hominid dietary selection before fire. In: Current Anthropology 25: 151-168.

Steensburg, A. 1964. A bronze Age ard type from Hama in Syria

intended for rope traction. In: Bervtus 15; 111-139.

Steensburg, A. 1977. Stone shares of ploughing implements from

339 the bronze age of Syria. A contribution to the early history of the ard plough. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 47; 6. Copenhagen:

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters: Munksgaard.

Steinkeller, P. 1990. Ceremonial Threshing in the Ancient Near East. II. Threshing Implements in Ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform Sources. In: Iraq 1990; 19-23.

Turkowski, L. 1969. Peasant agriculture in the Judaean Hills. In: Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 21-23 and 101-112. van der Veen, M., and Fieller, N. 1982. Sampling seeds. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 9 No.3, 287-298.

Walker, C.B.F., Hawkins, J.D., and Dailey, S. 1976. The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell Al-Rimah. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Walters, S.D. 1970. Water for Larsa: an Old Babylonian Archive Dealing with Irrigation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Watelin, L.C., and Langdon, S. 1934. Excavations at Kish. Volume IV. Paris: Geuthner.

Weiss, H. (ed.) 1985. Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Svria. Washington D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Travelling Exhibition Service.

White, K.D. 1967. Agricultural Implements of the Roman World.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

340 White, K.D. 1970. Roman Farming. London: Thames and Hudson. (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life Series).

Williams, D. 1971. Agricultural Technology. In: Maden Teknik Arastirma Enstitusu (M.E.T.U.^ activities. Keban Project. (Publication Series I, No.4; 54-55).

Wilson, C.T. 1906. Peasant Life in the Holvland. London: John

Murray.

Wiseman, D.J. 1952. The new stela of Assur-nasirpal II. In: Iraq 14: 24-44.

Woolley, C.L. 1923. Excavations at Ur of the Chaldees. In: The Antiquaries Journal Vol. Ill: 311-332. London: Society of Antiquaries.

Woolley, C.L. 1926. The Excavations at Ur, 1925-1926. In: The Antiquaries Journal Vol. VI: 365-401.

Woolley, C.L. 1934. The Excavations at Ur 1933-34. In: The

Antiquaries Journal Vol. XIV: 355-378.

Woolley, C.L. 1955. Alaiakh. Tell Atchana. London: Society of Antiquaries.

Woolley, Sir C.L. 1974. Ur Excavations Vol. IV. The Buildings of the Third Dvnastv. The Trustees of the Two Museums.

Woolley, Sir C.L., revised and updated by Moorey, P.R.S. 1982. Ur of the Chaldees: the final account: Excavations at Ur. London: Herbert

341 Press.

Wright, G.R.H. 1985. Ancient buildings in South Svria and Palestine. Leiden: Brill.

Wulf, H.E. 1966. The traditional crafts of Persia. Their development, technology, and influence on Eastern and Western civilization. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusets Institute of

Technology.

Yoffee, N. 1977. The Economic Role of the Crown in the Old Babylonian Period. (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 5) Malibu, California:

Undena Publications.

342