The Palaeoethnobotany of Tell Tayinat, Turkey

Home , Aegilops, Alalakh, Carchemish, Prehistory of Anatolia, Tell Afis, Tell Qarqur

Urban Subsistence in the Bronze and Iron Ages: The Palaeoethnobotany of Tell Tayinat, Turkey

by Mairi Margaret Capper B.Sc., University of Toronto, 2007

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

in the Department of Archaeology Faculty of Environment

 Mairi Margaret Capper 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012

All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada , this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately.

Approval

Name: Mairi M. Capper Degree: Master of Arts (Archaeology ) Title of Thesis: Urban Subsistence in the Bronze and Iron Ages: The Paleoethnobotany of Tell Tayinat, Turkey

Examining Committee: Chair: Dongya Yang, Associate Professor, Archaeology

A. Catherine D’Andrea Senior Supervisor Professor, Archaeology

David Burley Supervisor Professor, Archaeology

Timothy Harrison Supervisor Professor, Anthropology, University of Toronto

Jennifer Ramsay External Examiner Assistant Professor, Anthropology, College at Brockport

Date Defended/Approved: 20 August 2012

ii Partial Copyright Licence

iii

Abstract

This thesis examines macrobotanical remains recovered from Early Bronze Age and Iron Age (approximately 3300-600 BCE) deposits at Tell Tayinat in southern Turkey. Tell Tayinat was a large, urban centre which was situated in a region with favourable environmental conditions and higher rainfall compared to many other well-studied areas of the Near East.

The most significant crop species present at Tell Tayinat are wheat (emmer and free- threshing), barley, bitter vetch, grape and olive. Non-crop plant remains mainly consist of weedy taxa, likely the byproducts of dung fuel use or grain processing. Chaff remains were generally few, indicating that primary crop processing likely occurred elsewhere. Although the ratio of free-threshing wheat to emmer wheat increased through time, the overall wheat-to-barley ratio indicates that the favourable environment of the Amuq Plain allowed wheat to be grown in higher proportions than at other sites with less annual rainfall.

Keywords : Archaeobotany; Bronze Age; Iron Age; Near East

Acknowledgements

Many people contributed enormously to my thesis, and I would not be at the end of this process without the assistance, advice, support and encouragement of so many. I’m sure I have missed many people who have had a meaningful role in my thesis – please accept my apologies, and my heartfelt thanks for your contributions.

The reason I chose to do what I did in grad school is because I worked for two weeks in the summer of 2007 with Cathy D’Andrea, helping with the float. I sorted my first sample that summer, and the next year applied to SFU. Since then I have sorted hundreds of samples under her patient tutelage. She has read many drafts and has helped so much, despite my crazy schedule.

Timothy Harrison, director of the Tayinat Archaeological Project, took a chance on an unknown undergrad back in 2005, letting me come for the field season to help with GIS and dig. I distinctly remember taking him aside at the end of the summer to say thank you for the experience I had that year, and actually choking up when trying to get it out - how embarrassing. He has been a strong supporter of my inclusion in the project and my pursuit of graduate studies from day one, and I thank him. Tayinat forever holds a fond place in my heart.

David Burley provided valuable feedback on my thesis and during committee meetings over the last four years. Both for teaching me theory and for your contributions to my thesis, thank you.

To my external examiner, Jennifer Ramsay, thank you for your keen eye and detailed editorial comments - they proved invaluable in terms of polishing my thesis.

The project team at Tell Tayinat had a large part to play in how much Turkey came to feel like a home away from home. Thanks are due especially to Stephen Batiuk, site supervisor and the reason I got to be involved at the site in the first place. It all started with a short email: “I may have a fieldwork opportunity for you.” David Lipovitch, both a good friend and a valuable colleague – and much better with Microsoft Access than me

– thank you for all of your help with my database. Lynn Welton, James Osborne, Heather Snow, Julie Unruh, Fiona Haughey, Olya Ianovskaia, Jen Osborne, Emily Hammer, Amanda Lanham, Liz Wartenkin, Adam Aja, Radovan Kabatiar and many others – Tayinat was the awesome experience it was because of my work with all of you.

To many current and past members of the Department of Archaeology here at SFU, I have received a helping hand from many, including but not limited to Dana Lepofsky, Sarah Walshaw, Shannon Wood, Peter Locher, Naoko Endo, and our dedicated office staff (Chris Papaianni, Merrill Farmer, and Laura Neilson). Anna Shoemaker and Chelsey Armstrong both helped me in sorting several of my samples – thank you!

Thank you to Emel Oybak Dönmez of Hacettepe University for her insight and comments regarding the remains at Tell Atchana.

I spent one very fond month at the British Institute at Ankara in order to do research for my thesis. Their comfortable accommodations, kind and caring director and staff, archaeobotanical reference collection and library all contributed to a productive and happy stay. The twice-daily tea breaks with the staff and fellow students were welcome time spent with wonderful people. I would love to go back and visit someday.

The United States Department of Agriculture has contributed immensely to both my thesis and to SFU for the several hundred samples of seeds that I ordered for comparative purposes. They have gone to good use, and remain here at SFU for future students to find equally as useful. Their germplasm program proved invaluable to me.

The wonderful staff of SFU’s Interlibrary Loan office! I could not have completed my thesis without your quick and helpful work. I have probably ordered well over 100 interlibrary loans over the last four years, and not once have you failed to find even the most obscure text. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, and I am very grateful for your contributions to my research.

Few people understand quite what you go through in this process more than your fellow grad students. Not only did I find my fiancé in grad school, but many close and dear

friends as well. Thank you to Pam Wadge, Annique-Elise Goode, Kristina Hannis, Sandie Dielissen, Heather Kendell, Alana Peters and many others for Thesis Therapy, Thursdays at the pub, and general sanity for the last four years.

A huge thank you must go to my family. To my Dad, Mom, and sisters – I know I moved far away and I know I swore up and down I wouldn’t quit writing monthly letters. I think I’ve written one in the last 12 months. Thank you for putting up with my lack of communication, forgetting of anniversaries and birthdays, and better-late-than-never phone calls and letters.

Darryl, you are support and kindness when it is needed most, and you have put up with so many weekends when I couldn’t be home and helped so much with the kids when I had too much to do. You are my calm in the middle of the storm, and I love you for it.

To Gabriel and Jacob – you have grown into little men as this thesis has grown in page count, and I don’t think you are old enough yet to realize that the joy you bring to my life has helped so much to counterbalance the bad and frustrating days. I am so grateful to you, and I love you very much.

vii

Table of Contents

Approval ...... ii Abstract ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v Table of Contents ...... viii List of Tables ...... xi List of Figures...... xii

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Research Objectives ...... 2 Introduction to the Site and its Surrounds ...... 3 A History of Research in the Amuq Plain ...... 7 Summary ...... 10

Chapter 2: The Environmental, Archaeological and Palaeoethnobotanical Context of Tell Tayinat ...... 12 Introduction ...... 12 Environmental Context ...... 12 Modern Climate ...... 13 Issues in the Reconstruction of Ancient Environment ...... 14 The Ghab Pollen Diagrams ...... 14 Palaeoenvironmental Data of the mid-Holocene Northeastern Mediterranean ...... 16 The Archaeological and Historical Setting ...... 19 Amuq E-G: The Rise of Urbanism: approx. 5800-3400 BCE ...... 19 Amuq H-J: The Early Bronze Age: approx. 3300-2200 BCE ...... 20 The Transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age: approx. 2200 BCE ...... 22 Amuq K-M: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200-1200 BCE) ...... 24 The Transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age (circa 1200 BCE) ...... 25 Amuq N: The Iron Age I (1200-950 BCE) ...... 26 Amuq O: The Iron Age II (950-738 BCE) ...... 28 Amuq O: The Iron Age III (738-550 BCE) ...... 30 The Palaeoethnobotanical Setting ...... 31 The Development of Flotation ...... 31 General Characteristics of Development of Palaeoethnobotany ...... 32 Agricultural Changes and Choices through Time ...... 34 The Neolithic Transition and Early Farming ...... 34 The Chalcolithic ...... 35 The Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critical Survey of Past and Present Research ...... 36 Dominant Crops of the Bronze and Iron Ages ...... 37 Summary ...... 39

Chapter 3: Methods and Sampling ...... 40 Introduction ...... 40

viii

Taphonomic Issues in the Preservation of Macrobotanical Remains ...... 40 Methods ...... 42 Site Sampling and Recovery ...... 42 Sampling to Redundancy: Collector’s Curves ...... 45 Methods for Objective 1 ...... 46 Methods for Objective 2 ...... 47 Methods for Objective 3 ...... 47 Summary ...... 49

Chapter 4: Results: Inventory of Identified Taxa ...... 51 Introduction ...... 51 Inventory of Identified Taxa: Domesticated Plant Species ...... 53 Inventory of Identified Taxa: Forage or Fodder Plants ...... 66 Inventory of Identified Taxa: Wild and Weedy Plant Species ...... 69 Inventory of Macroremains: Unidentified Types ...... 89 Summary ...... 90

Chapter 5: Results and Analysis ...... 91 Introduction ...... 91 Results ...... 91 Sampling to Redundancy ...... 91 Sampling Topsoil ...... 93 The Early Bronze Age ...... 96 The Iron Age I ...... 98 The Iron Age III: Field 5 ...... 98 The Iron Age III Temple (Building XVI) ...... 100 Analysis ...... 100 Density of Seeds through Time...... 101 Relative Use of Cereals Through Time ...... 104 Ubiquity ...... 109 Non-Cereal Domesticates...... 110 Fodder Plants and Fabaceae ...... 113 Wild/Weedy Species ...... 114 A Contextual Comparison: Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I Pits ...... 117 Midden-Surface Contexts ...... 120 Vessel contents ...... 120 Building XVI ...... 121 Summary ...... 125

Chapter 6: Discussion and Concluding Remarks ...... 126 Introduction ...... 126 Discussion ...... 126 Research Objectives ...... 127 Objective 1 ...... 127 Objective 2 ...... 128 Objective 3 ...... 129 Major Conclusions ...... 130 Future Research ...... 131

Contributions ...... 131

References ...... 133

Appendices ...... 169 Appendix A Sample Contexts, Volumes, and Charcoal Quantities ...... 170 Appendix B Macrobotanical Raw Data ...... 175 Appendix C Hand-Picked Macroremains ...... 216 Appendix D Chronologically and Geographically Proximal Sites: Approximate Locations and Published Sources ...... 217 Appendix E Flotation Sample Numbers Analyzed ...... 219

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Research design and methods ...... 43

Table 4.1 Summary of raw counts of macroremains by period ...... 52

Table 4.2 Sorted sediment volume and number of samples by period ...... 52

Table 5.1 Summary of topsoil sample information ...... 95

Table 5.2 Types of samples analyzed from the Early Bronze Age ...... 96

Table 5.3 Types of samples analyzed from the Iron Age I ...... 98

Table 5.4 Field 5 sample distribution ...... 99

Table 5.5 Density calculations by time period ...... 102

Table 5.6 Ratios of wild/weedy plant seeds vs. charcoal ...... 104

Table 5.7 Early Bronze Age and Iron Age sites with barley as the dominant crop ...... 107

Table 5.8 Highest overall wild/weedy plant ubiquities ...... 115

Table 5.9 Charcoal density through time ...... 117

Table 5.10 Loci of pit features from the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I ...... 118

Table 5.11 Number of domesticated seeds per litre of floated soil: Pits ...... 118

Table 5.12 Numbers of the most common weeds by pit grouping ...... 119

Table 5.13 Macrobotanical summary of Building XVI ...... 124

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Map of southern Turkey ...... 3

Figure 1.2 Map of the northeast Mediterranean ...... 5

Figure 1.3 Satellite image showing Tell Tayinat’s lower town ...... 6

Figure 1.4 Fields of excavation at Tell Tayinat ...... 9

Figure 2.1 Ancient trade routes through the Amuq Plain ...... 21

Figure 3.1 Mechanical flotation system at Tell Tayinat ...... 44

Figure 4.1 Linum usitatissimum ...... 53

Figure 4.2 Vitis vinifera (charred) ...... 55

Figure 4.3 Vitis vinifera (mineralized) ...... 55

Figure 4.4 Cicer arietinum ...... 57

Figure 4.5 Lens culinaris ...... 58

Figure 4.6 Amygdalus communis ...... 59

Figure 4.7 Olea europaea ...... 60

Figure 4.8 Ficus carica ...... 61

Figure 4.9 Triticum dicoccum ...... 63

Figure 4.10 Triticum aestivum/durum ...... 64

Figure 4.11 Hordeum vulgare ...... 65

Figure 4.12 Vicia ervilia ...... 67

Figure 4.13 cf. Carex sp...... 85

Figure 4.14 ? Solanaceae-type...... 89

Figure 4.15 cf. Apiaceae-type ...... 89

Figure 5.1 Early Bronze Age collection curve ...... 92

Figure 5.2 Iron Age I collection curve ...... 93

Figure 5.3 Iron Age III collection curve ...... 93

xii

Figure 5.4 Fields of excavation at Tell Tayinat ...... 94

Figure 5.5 Field 1 top plan ...... 97

Figure 5.6 Field 5 Iron Age III Courtyard House top plan ...... 99

Figure 5.7 Seeds per litre of excavated soil by time period ...... 102

Figure 5.8 Seeds per gram of charcoal by time period ...... 103

Figure 5.9 Decrease in seeds/charcoal (g) through time ...... 104

Figure 5.10 Percent representation of cereals through time at Tell Tayinat ...... 105

Figure 5.11 Ubiquity of chaff remains by period ...... 109

Figure 5.12 Ubiquity of cereals by period ...... 110

Figure 5.13 Ubiquity of grape and olive remains by period ...... 112

Figure 5.14 Proportions of plant remains by pit grouping ...... 119

Figure 5.15 Comparison of Early Bronze Age vessel contents vs. overall ...... 121

Figure 5.16 Plan of Building XVI ...... 123

xiii

Chapter 1.

Introduction

Palaeoethnobotany has played a critical role in the reconstruction of ancient environment and subsistence since the development of flotation in the 1960s. Its most widespread contributions thus far have been towards understanding the Neolithic adoption of agriculture in various parts of the Old World (e.g., Zohary and Hopf 2000). In the Near East, this has led to a comparative lack of information on later proto-historical and historical periods, and the agricultural regimes that accompanied them (Riehl 2009:93).

The study of the palaeoethnobotany of these later time periods in the Near East is critical to understanding the role that agriculture played following the rise of urbanism at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (circa 3300-2200 BCE 1). In the third and second millennia BCE, the Near East witnessed an economic and cultural fluorescence, as well as a substantial population increase. Agriculturally, grain became a marketable trade commodity (Fortin and Cooper 1994; Fortin et al. 1994; Routledge 1998), and other prestige crops, such as grape and olive, were widely grown as well (Mazar 1990:118; Zohary and Hopf 2000:149-151).

1 Chronology used here is a synthesis of information from several sources (Ehrlich 1992; Yener et al 2000; Harrison 2001b, 2007). For the early (up to Early Bronze Age) chronology, Ehrlich’s Syrian chronology is used because of the geographical and cultural proximity of the Amuq Plain to Syria.

Following the urbanization of the Early Bronze Age, a period of ruralisation and decentralization took place in the early Middle Bronze Age (circa 2200-1600 BCE) prior to a return to city life and the growth of large regional empires, including the Hittite and Akkadian empires, during the later Middle and Late Bronze Ages (circa 2900-1200 BCE). This was followed by a possible “collapse” of empires such as the Hittites (Weiss et al. 1993) at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

The Iron Age I (1200-900 BCE), which followed this disturbance, has a general paucity of archaeological remains across the region and has been referred to as a ‘Dark Age’ (Weiss 1982:182). There are, however, recent indications of state-level organization and cultural continuity from the Bronze into the early Iron Age in the Amuq Plain, which is located in the Hatay province in the south of Turkey (Harrison 2007:60- 61; see Figure 1.1). This fact makes the study of the Amuq Plain crucial to understanding the nature of political and economic changes at the end of both the Early and Late Bronze Ages. It also may provide insight into the early development of Neo- Hittite states, which emerge in southern Turkey and northwest Syria during the Iron Age I and II (circa 1200-600 BCE, see Chapter 2).

The site of Tell Tayinat was the largest and most important site in the Amuq Plain during the Iron Age I, II and III, as well as being extensively occupied in the Early Bronze Age. Its palaeoethnobotanical remains provide a window to the impacts on subsistence of the above-mentioned larger historical changes. The site provides a strong historical background on which to interpret botanical remains. Studying the macrobotanical remains of Early Bronze and Iron Age contexts at Tell Tayinat may permit a deeper understanding of how changes at a political or regional level affected day-to-day subsistence, or alternatively could reveal that agricultural production remained relatively constant despite regional change.

Research Objectives

In order to better study these possibilities, the following three research objectives have been formulated in order to direct the analysis of the archaeobotanical material recovered from Tell Tayinat during the 2008 and 2009 excavation seasons:

1. to determine which plant taxa were present at Tell Tayinat in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and the potential cultural significance of the various taxa; 2. to identify crop plants, weeds, and other types of plants and investigate context-related variation in macro-botanical remains over the site; and 3. to determine whether or not there are significant changes in crop proportions through time.

The methods used to accomplish these objectives are described in Chapter 3.

Figure 1.1 Map of southern Turkey (courtesy of S. Batiuk)

NOTE: The inset shows the location of the Amuq Plain (see Figure 1.2)

Introduction to the Site and its Surrounds

Tell Tayinat is located in the south of the Amuq Plain, which is a large, well- watered expanse of agricultural land bordered by hills and mountains (Figure 1.2). The plain, historically speaking, is strategically positioned between the Anatolian highlands, the Mediterranean Sea, the Orontes River Valley, the Levant, and Mesopotamia

(Harrison 2001a:135; Yakar 1985:307). The three rivers that cross the plain, as well as high annual rainfall, afford the plain a “highly fertile environment capable of intensive agricultural production” (Harrison 2001b:136) with relatively constant and intense human occupation through time. The Plain is one of the largest and most productive expanses of arable land in southern Turkey (Yener et al . 2000:163). In addition to its vast agricultural wealth, the three rivers and the previously extant Lake of Antioch provided aquatic resources such as fish and waterfowl, and the Amanus mountains nearby are rich in minerals and timber (Yener 2010:1). The Lake of Antioch likely grew progressively beginning in the 2nd millennium BCE. It was permanently drained in the 1960s (Yener et al. 2000:174).

The site of Tell Tayinat today is visible as a large (ca. 20 ha), low mound just north of the modern Antakya-Reyhanlı highway (Welton et al. 2011:152). This visible portion is the upper mound, which is approximately 400m east to west by 500m north to south. An extensive lower town, mainly to the north, east and southeast of the upper mound, existed in antiquity but is now covered in alluvium resulting from the historical flooding of the Orontes River (Harrison 2001a:137; Welton et al. 2011:152; Figure 1.3). The total area of the upper and lower mounds in antiquity was approximately 35ha (Harrison 2001a:137).

Figure 1.2 Map of the northeast Mediterranean, including the Amuq Plain (circle) and Tell Tayinat. (Map courtesy of S. Batiuk).

Euphrates River

Orontes River

Figure 1.3 Satellite image showing the angular outline of Tell Tayinat’s lower town (light grey area within red circle) (courtesy of S. Batiuk)

Relic channels of the Orontes

Tell Atchana (Figure 1.3), ancient Alalakh, is Tell Tayinat’s largest archaeological neighbor, and is located just to the southeast. It was inhabited in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and it would appear that Tell Tayinat was abandoned while Tell Atchana was inhabited, and vice versa, though the reason for this is not yet clear (Yener 2010:1). The entire plain is dotted with mounds large and small, and two exhaustive survey projects, as well as several epigraphical studies, have contributed to an extensive understanding of settlement organization in the plain through time (Braidwood 1937; Wiseman 1953; Magness-Gardiner 1994; Yener et al. 2000).

A History of Research in the Amuq Plain

The Amuq Plain (also referred to as the Plain of Antioch) has a long but interrupted history of archaeological research. Despite its dense occupation in antiquity and its economic and agricultural importance, it remained poorly known archaeologically, when compared to neighboring areas, until well into the 1980s (Yakar 1985:323).

The first modern archaeological investigations in the region were directed by Robert Braidwood, who led the Syrian-Hittite Expedition beginning in 1931 under the auspices of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Breasted 1933; Braidwood 1937; McEwan 1937). The expedition involved the large-scale survey of the Amuq Plain and had the goal of establishing a regional chronological sequence (Braidwood 1937; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). The project was actively achieving these aims until it was interrupted in 1938 by rioting between local Turkish and Arab populations, and the temporary declaration of a French- and Turkish-supervised “Republic of Hatay”. In 1939 a local referendum narrowly voted to leave Syria in favor of the creation of the Turkish province of Hatay, a decision still contested by Syria today (Zürcher 2004:202-203). The Oriental Institute’s excavations were never resumed.

Braidwood’s investigations led to the development of a regional chronological sequence that remains heavily referenced today. Known as the Amuq sequence, it begins with late Neolithic Phase A (approximately 6000 BCE), and runs alphabetically until it ends with the Islamic period (Phase V, with settlement trailing off in the 14th century CE) (Braidwood 1937; Verstraete and Wilkinson 2000:191; Yener et al. 2000:163-164). In addition to their survey work, excavations were carried out at six sites – Tell Tayinat, Tell Atchana/Alalakh, Tell al-Judeidah, Çatal Höyük 2, Tulail al-Sharqi and Tell Tayinat al-Saghir (a site nearby Tell Tayinat, visible in Figure 1.3 as the small site equidistant between Tell Tayinat and Tell Atchana). There were also more minor

2 This Çatal Höyük is a different site from the more famous Neolithic site of the same name which is located in central Turkey (Konya province). Any reference to Çatal Höyük in this thesis, unless otherwise indicated, is referring to the Amuq Plain site.

soundings at the sites of Tell Dhahab and Tell Kurdu. At Tell Tayinat, they uncovered monumental architecture dating to the Iron Age II/Amuq Phase O, as well as substantial Early Bronze Age remains (Amuq Phases H/I/J) in small, deeper soundings (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:13-14). At no point in their excavations did they reach the bottom of the anthropogenic deposits.

Braidwood enlisted the services of Hans Helbaek, a prominent Danish palaeoethnobotanist (see Chapter 2), to aid in the analysis from the excavations. In the published report of Amuq Phases A-J (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960), Helbaek contributed a short appendix describing the cereal impressions found in Phase A pottery. Although he tantalizingly mentions that “[n]o carbonized remains of plants were recovered in levels older than those of Phase G” (Helbaek 1960:540), there is no description of those that were found. Unfortunately, no information has been published related to the carbonized remains that were presumably recovered dating to Phase G and later from these early excavations.

In the mid-1990s, archaeological investigations resumed in the region with the Amuq Valley Regional Project, an intensive survey aimed at elaborating upon Braidwood’s earlier work (Batiuk 2007; Casana 2008; Yener et al. 1996, 2000). Excavations have resumed both at Tell Tayinat and nearby Tell Atchana/Alalakh. The latter was originally excavated in the 1930s and 1940s by Sir Leonard Woolley (Woolley 1953, 1955). Smaller-scale work has also resumed at Tell Kurdu, first by the Amuq Valley Regional Project and currently by the Tell Kurdu Project (see Özbal et al. 2004).

The renewed excavations at Tell Atchana are adding to the wealth of information uncovered by Woolley. In addition to the archaeological investigations, there has been a significant amount of research completed on the tablets uncovered at Alalakh, which date to the Middle Bronze Age (Hess 1988; Giacumakis 1970; Oliva 2000, 2005; Wiseman 1953, 1954, 1958, 1959a, 1959b). Some of these will be reviewed in Chapter 5.

The renewed excavations at Tell Tayinat (Harrison 2007, 2009) have delved into the earlier Iron Age and the Early Bronze Age, as well as further excavation of the Iron

Age I, II and III (see Figure 1.4). Each Field refers to a group of squares, or 10 x 10m excavation units.

Figure 1.4 Fields of excavation at Tell Tayinat, with previous excavation areas shown

The “Survey Data” indicate potsherd frequency, which diminishes outside of the light- grey angular area of the lower town visible in this satellite image, which is present to the north, east, and southeast of the mound. (Courtesy of S. Batiuk)

Excavation has focused on the west-central area of the upper mound (Fields 1 and 2) in order to stratigraphically interconnect current findings with the previous

Braidwood excavations, shown as the West Central Area on Figure 1.4 (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Haines 1971). Additional areas of excavation include a sounding in the southwest part of the mound (Field 3), an investigation of the western defenses of the tell (Field 4), as well as the beginnings of a step trench on the eastern edge of the mound (Field 5). The richest archaeobotanical remains to date are being recovered from Field 1, which is located in the southern part of the west-central area. Its 2008 and 2009 excavations yielded remains from the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I. Field 2, located to the north and east of Field 1, has produced fewer archaeobotanical remains, and mainly dates to the Iron Age III. In addition to archaeobotanical work, investigations into textile production, metal, petrography, geomorphology and zooarchaeological remains are being undertaken, allowing for a more holistic picture of the site than was possible in the 1930s.

Other scholarship related to the Amuq includes the excavation of a Chalcolithic- age cave site (O’Brien 1933) and a description of a bronze plaque found in the 1930s Tell Tayinat excavations (Kantor 1933). A doctoral dissertation by Gustavus Swift Jr. (1958) examined the pottery dated to Amuq Phases K through O recovered by the Oriental Institute’s excavations. A small Early Bronze Age-dated site named Tell Tabara el-Akrad, and nearby Tell Esh Sheikh, just east of Atchana, were also excavated as part of Woolley’s work (Hood 1951).

The current excavations at Tell Tayinat and Tell Atchana are actively contributing to the corpus of information available on the Bronze and Iron Ages of the Amuq Plain. It is within this framework of renewed excavation and study that the palaeoethnobotanical research presented here finds itself. Contributing knowledge of the archaeobotany of the area to this larger framework of modern excavation will add to a holistic interpretation and understanding of the lifeways of the Bronze and Iron Age populations of this important region.

Summary

This chapter has provided a brief history of excavation and survey in the area surrounding the site of Tell Tayinat. The current excavations are contributing avenues of

study which had not yet been developed when Tell Tayinat was excavated in the 1930s. Metallurgical, ceramic, zooarchaeological, geophysical and palaeoethnobotanical approaches are all contributing to a holistic picture of Tell Tayinat during its periods of occupation. The archaeobotanical research questions presented here will allow for some of the agricultural choices of the inhabitants of Tell Tayinat to be brought to light, and will show continuities and/or changes in the archaeobotanical record through time.

Chapter 2:

The Environmental, Archaeological and Palaeoethnobotanical Context of Tell Tayinat

Introduction

In order to contextualize the plant remains recovered from Tell Tayinat, this chapter presents a critical review of the palaeoenvironmental and archaeological research undertaken in the region surrounding the site. The history of palaeoethnobotanical research and findings in southern Turkey and northwestern Syria will also be summarized, as much of this work contributes to the findings and interpretations presented in Chapters 4, 5 and 6.

Environmental Context

The complexity of the Middle Eastern climate means that even modern environmental phenomena are not entirely understood (Wigley and Farmer 1982:4). This in turn makes the reconstruction of past environmental situations still more difficult, leading to a multitude of opinions that arise from the available palaeoclimatic data. Despite this, certain generalizations can be made. One fact that is undisputed in the literature is that there are significant regional differences in climate throughout the Holocene in the Near and Middle East (Riehl et al. 2009:155).

Much of the research to date has focused on the late glacial-early Holocene climatic transition (e.g., Miller 1991; Hillman et al. 2001; Munro 2003; Willcox et al. 2009), because of the beginning(s) of agriculture and the early Neolithic period. This work will not be included here, as it is not directly relevant to the time periods discussed in the results. This review will focus mainly on the climate from the mid-3rd millennium

BCE through to the 1st millennium BCE, or the span of occupation at Tell Tayinat. The correlation between climatic events and historically attested changes will be analyzed, keeping in mind that the time resolution of climatic histories is not specific enough that any direct, causal connections can be drawn between climatic change and human societal change at this time (Roberts et al. 2011:158).

Most research into ancient climate and vegetation has taken place relatively recently. Even as late as 1970, well into the era of speculation as to the origins of food production, Niklewski and van Zeist lamented the “scarcity” of information on past climate variability, and “unjustified speculation” regarding what little information existed at the time (1970: 737). Research has progressed significantly in the interceding decades.

Modern Climate

The modern climate of Turkey involves three climate zones. Tell Tayinat and much of the province of Hatay belong to the Mediterranean subhumid and Mediterranean humid environmental zones, implying a mean annual rainfall varying from between 570-1100mm and 700-1200mm, respectively, decreasing slightly as one moves inland from the Mediterranean Sea (Akman and Ketenoğlu 1986:126-127). For an indepth explanation of the characteristics of the Mediterranean zone, see Breckle (2002:255-262).

According to Zohary (1973:Map 5) the Amuq Plain receives anywhere between 600 and 1200mm of rain per year. Species such as Prosopis farcta and Zizyphus lotus are typical of the southern Mediterranean climate, and indicate hot and dry summer conditions, with a wet and mild winter (Zohary 1973:31,83). In terms of reconstructed natural vegetation in the region of Tell Tayinat, the entire Amuq Plain falls under the Eu- Mediterranean vegetation type, with steppe to the east and south. Some cold-resistant woodland is also represented in the mountains to the west and north of the Plain (van Zeist and Bottema 1991:24).

Issues in the Reconstruction of Ancient Environment

Palaeo-vegetation maps are created using information obtained through studies of modern pollen precipitation and associated plant cover. An understanding of how the two interrelate can be extrapolated to the palaeopalynological information obtained from coring (van Zeist and Bottema 1991: 33). The scarcity of pollen-bearing sediments in the Near East hampers efforts to accurately reconstruct past environments (van Zeist and Bottema 1982:277). The generation of palaeo-vegetation maps in areas without pollen diagrams is liable to be very inaccurate due to markedly differing local trends seen in existing pollen diagrams across the Near East (van Zeist and Bottema 1982:287), reflecting strong regional contrasts and differences in environment (Smith 2007:170).

Equally problematic is the dating of the few pollen spectra that do exist. Insufficient amounts of organic material and/or contamination with older or younger carbon-containing material can lead to inaccurate dates. This can only be corrected if the core contains a sufficient number of dates and if there are no hiatuses in sedimentation. The sedimentation rate must also be assumed to be constant. Without these preconditions, date correction is difficult if not impossible (Cappers et al. 1998:160-161). Dating via correlation to other pollen diagrams can be equally difficult due to regional variability in pollen spectra (Cappers et al. 1998:161).

A third and final issue with pollen diagrams stems not from the results themselves but their interpretations. Several authors (e.g., Behre 1990:225; Roberts et al. 2004:344; Peltenburg 2007:248) have voiced concerns about distinguishing cultural or human impact from environmental or climatic changes in pollen charts, particularly in the Near East. This warning extends beyond the interpretation of pollen diagrams, with McGhee (1981:164) stating that the archaeological signature of an environmental event could, in some cases, be interpreted as a political, social, or economic event, or some combination of all four phenomena.

The Ghab Pollen Diagrams

The Ghab Valley in northwestern Syria has yielded the most proximal pollen data to Tell Tayinat. The only other nearby core, from the Huleh Basin in northern Israel, is not discussed here because its sediments date prior to approximately 7000 BCE

(Baruch and Bottema 1991), and therefore not to the period of interest to this thesis. An attempt at an Amuq Plain pollen diagram was made by Henk Woldring in the now-dry Lake of Antioch, adjacent to Tell Tayinat, however the pollen and diatom preservation was “poor” (Wilkinson 2000:174).

The initial report on the first Ghab core and associated pollen diagram (Ghab I) was published by J. Niklewski and W. van Zeist (1970). Though admitted by the authors to be preliminary and in need of further cores with which to test their tentative hypotheses, they believed the time period beginning at approximately 8000 BCE to be slightly moister and more forested, and the period beginning approximately 8000 BCE as slightly less forested. They also noted changes at approximately 3000 BCE that are consistent with human impact on the vegetation (Niklewski and van Zeist 1970:751). They mention, however, that the 3000 BCE date is earlier than anticipated for the nature of the changes seen. The dating was done not with organic material, but rather with shells due to a general paucity of organic material in the samples (Niklewski and van Zeist 1970:743). Shells are recognized today as having a ‘reservoir effect’, which can lead to artificially early dates (see below).

A decade later, Ghab II and Ghab III were published (van Zeist and Woldring 1980). The purpose of these additional cores was to help clarify the Holocene pollen diagram for the region. Although more Holocene material was recovered, a complete diagram for the Holocene was not achieved (van Zeist and Woldring 1980:114). The dating of a single section of Ghab III by organic fraction and by shell led to two dates: 1610±240 BCE and 2510±40 BCE (p116).

In a recent paper, Meadows (2005) attempted to correlate the Ghab pollen diagram to the Younger Dryas event (ca. 9000-8000 BCE), and found that a large correction (over 4000 years) was necessary to take into account reservoir effect. Rossignol-Strick (1993) agreed with Meadows’ conclusions regarding the need for a correction of several thousand years. Yasuda et al. (2000:129), however, claim this correction is not necessary, connecting a peak in Chenopodiaceae pollen with the Younger Dryas, and in turn connecting that section of the diagram to C-14 dates obtained from the core. Riehl et al . (2009:155) dismissed Yasuda et al .’s findings due to the “anomalously old” dates obtained. Riehl also mentions in a later publication

(2010a:125) that the “14C-data are too few and somewhat controversial” for Ghab, making it unhelpful in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction.

Meadows (2005:635) made an additional argument, pointing out that the accumulation of sediments at Ghab likely would have been intermittent, as the lake there was not consistently present throughout the Holocene, making dating of the deposits by interpolation of zone boundaries untenable. Cappers et al. (1998:168,169) also call into question the correlation of the Ghab I pollen diagram and its approximately 8000 BCE date to the more securely dated pollen diagrams of Lake Huleh and Eski Acigöl, though they consider the circa 2000 BCE date in Ghab III to be more reliable than the dates obtained from the other cores.

Clearly, difficulties and disagreement still plague the interpretation of the Ghab material. Due to the intense debate surrounding the Ghab findings, it cannot serve as a relatively strong source of regional data, and other studies and palaeoenvironmental reconstructions must be used in order to obtain a picture of the environmental changes that occurred alongside habitation at Tell Tayinat.

Palaeoenvironmental Data of the mid-Holocene Northeastern Mediterranean

When taken together, the various work done with different lines of palaeoenvironmental evidence allows for the identification of several trends through time in the northeastern Mediterranean area.

Starting with the last glacial maximum at approximately 13000 BCE, global temperatures rose steadily, peaking at approximately 3000 BCE (Moore 1998:131). At approximately 2000 BCE, a vegetation distribution approximating today’s mosaic of forest and steppe was established, though forest composition has likely fluctuated since then (van Zeist and Bottema 1982:289; van Zeist and Bottema 1991:125). In the 2 nd millennium BCE, we see the first definite indications of human interference with the environment in pollen cores (van Zeist and Bottema 1991:144), though it is probable that human interference with the environment began long before this. Agriculturally productive areas, such as the Amuq Plain, would have seen early and relatively intense

exploitation. The change from a natural to a more agriculturally constructed environment in the Plain would likely have occurred prior to the occupation of Tell Tayinat.

When discussing the 3rd to the 1st millennia BCE, there are several environmental changes which seem to correlate to important changes in human society and culture, though whether there is a causal relationship involved is uncertain (Rosen 1998:237; 2007:81). Kuzucuoglu (2003:272) emphasizes the complex interrelationship between population and climate, and the fact that neither can be seen as a wholly independent variable when it comes to cultural change. McGhee (1981:162-163) equally warns against seeing a causal link between climate and sociocultural changes, as this ignores “the complexity of human cultural response” to environmental changes. Rosen (1998:238; 2007:8) agrees that human adaptation needs to be as heavily considered as environmental conditions.

There are two relatively major climatic episodes which will be discussed. They represent two instances of Rapid Climate Change events, or RCCs (Mayewski et al. 2004; Rohling et al . 2009). RCCs have cycled throughout the Holocene, and there are two which occur during the period of occupation at Tell Tayinat.

Setting the stage for these major environmental shifts was a period of increased moisture availability in the 3 rd millennium BCE. Some authors (e.g., Yasuda 1991; Rosen 1998:235, Robinson et al. 2006) have commented on the “mid-Holocene wet event” (Robinson et al. 2006:1537), which provided optimal climate from the end of the Chalcolithic and throughout the the Early Bronze Age. This climate allowed early civilizations, as well as large centres such as Tell Tayinat, to flourish.

The Early Bronze Age ended at approximately the same time as the ‘4.2ka BP event’ (Weiss et al. 1993; Dalfes et al. 1997; Cullen et al. 2000; Wick et al. 2003; Mayewski et al . 2004). This event was a relatively sudden onset of increased aridity across the Near East and around the world (see Riehl et al. 2009:161; Lemcke and Sturm 1997:673 for references beyond the Near East). The effects of this episode of aridification in the Near East have been noted at numerous, widespread locations and with the use of an assortment of methods. Examples include the Dead Sea (Frumkin et al . 1991, 1999; Migowski 2006), western Syria at Ebla (Fiorentino et al . 2008), northern

Syria at Tell ‘Atij (Blackburn and Fortin 1994) and Umm el-Marra (Schwartz and Miller 2007), Lake Van in eastern Turkey (Wick et al . 2003), southeastern Turkey at Kazane Höyük (Rosen 1997) and Titris Höyük (Algaze et al . 1995:32-37), northeastern Syria at Tell Leilan (Courty and Weiss 1997), the Upper Euphrates at Göbekli Tepe (Pustovoytov et al. 2007), Lake Zeribar in Iran (Stevens et al. 2001), southern Mesopotamia (Cullen et al . 2000), and the Indus Valley (Possehl 1997). Speleothem evidence from Soreq Cave, Israel also points to a wet stage from approximately 2600-2100 BCE followed by “a very dry spell” lasting several hundred years (Bar-Matthews et al . 1998:211).

The social and cultural changes that occurred at this time have been noted archaeologically (e.g., Rosen 1995; see Archaeological Setting, below) as well as archaeobotanically (e.g., Riehl 2009). In the Amuq Plain, the end of the Early Bronze Age sees the abandonment of Tell Tayinat in favour of nearby neighbour Tell Atchana, as noted in Chapter 1. Due to the proximity of the sites, it is clear that the move was not an attempt to escape one environmental situation for another. It is possible that the Orontes River, which has shifted course several times, moved closer to Tell Atchana, resulting in the population moving to follow this freshwater source. Alternatively, perhaps there was some social or cultural upheaval that led to the founding of a new city.

A second upheaval, perhaps even more severe, socioculturally, than the 4.2 ka BP event, occurred during a less severe RCC event that began at approximately 1500 BCE and lasted nearly 1000 years (Rohling et al . 2009). It was not as sudden as the 4.2ka BP event, but it did encompass the end of the Late Bronze Age, which occurred at approximately 1200 BCE (Weiss 1982; Roberts et al . 2011). The idea of a climatic episode occurring at the end of the Late Bronze Age was first suggested by Carpenter (1966) in relation to changes seen in Greece and the Aegean at that time.

In terms of palaeoclimatic data, the evidence for one or more aridification events during this 1000-year window of time is widespread. In southern and southeastern Anatolia, there is evidence that relatively infrequent “desiccation episodes” became more frequent leading up to the end of the Late Bronze Age (Kuzucuoglu 2003:271). At Lake Van, there is a recession in lake level at approximately 1000 BCE (Landmann and Reimer 1996). A similar aridification event is observed in the area of the Dead Sea (Migowski 2006). Finally, and closest to Tell Tayinat, a relatively abrupt climatic drying

has been noted in alluvial deposits near Gibala-Tell Tweini on the Syrian coast (Kaniewski et al . 2010). The archaeological evidence of the sociocultural changes which occur parallel to this event is discussed below. Textual evidence from Mesopotamia infers a more favourable climate after 900 BCE (Neumann and Parpola 1987:177).

The Archaeological and Historical Setting

This section will provide a summary of the archaeological findings from the Bronze and Iron Ages in southern Turkey and northwestern Syria, as well as a brief introduction to the period preceding the Bronze Age. This historical and archaeological information allows for the interpretation of the plant remains from Tell Tayinat within the framework of historical developments and cultural changes through time. For each time period, information specific to the Amuq Plain, as well as broader regional descriptions, will be given.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the first major archaeological survey of the Amuq Plain was conducted by a team led by Robert Braidwood (1937). This work resulted in the Amuq Sequence, a chronology still heavily referenced today (e.g., Ehrlich 1992). The alphabetical periods below (for example, Amuq E) are in reference to this system. Other chronological markers and terminology are also used in order to contextualize the Amuq in its larger regional picture.

Amuq E-G: The Rise of Urbanism: approx. 5800-3400 BCE

The Chalcolithic period followed the Pottery Neolithic period and preceded the Bronze Age in the Near East. It was a time of gradual change, and has been described as “Proto-Urban” (Yakar 1985:4). During the 4th millennium BCE, larger settlements, defenses such as town walls, and regional networks all gradually appear (Yakar 1985:4). Contact between northwestern Syria and Mesopotamia has been demonstrated as early as Amuq F (Lupton 1996). As will be explained in greater detail in the Palaeoethnobotanical Setting section (below), the Chalcolithic period also saw the adoption of several new domesticated plant species, and the expansion of fruit tree agriculture in the region.

The findings of the Amuq Valley Regional Project survey (Yener et al . 2000; Casana and Wilkinson 2005), building on the earlier work of Braidwood (1937), allow for an understanding of the habitation sequence of the Plain. During the Chalcolithic period in the Amuq, larger habitation sites were located in the centre of the Plain, as had been the case since Amuq phase A. Smaller sites are found along the postulated earlier course of the river Afrin, in the eastern part of the plain. This archaeological setting preceded the emergence of more extensive urbanization in the Early Bronze Age, following a period of slight climatic deterioration, which likely occurred at the end of the Chalcolithic (Issar and Zohar 2007:113).

Amuq H-J: The Early Bronze Age: approx. 3300-2200 BCE

The Early Bronze Age witnessed substantial changes in the Amuq Plain, as well as the Near East as a whole. This period saw the development of the first major urban centres in northern Mesopotamia (Matney 2002:21). A comment published regarding Selenkahiye, an Early Bronze Age site in northern Syria, is an appropriate portrait for many sites in the region at the time: “everyday life was geared to agriculture, but… ties in material culture with far-away regions… indicate that trade was important” (Meijer 1980:126). Despite these important changes, surprisingly little research has been devoted to how these developments affected crops and agricultural practices. As stated by Miller (1991:156), “[o]ur understanding of the origin and development of agriculture, the most systematically addressed research problem in the Near East, is far from complete, and we have barely begun to study the archaeobotanical evidence of other time periods.”

In the Amuq Plain, site hierarchies appeared by the early third millennium, and the number of sites in the plain doubled by the mid to late third millennium (Verstraete and Wilkinson 2000:183-184; Casana and Wilkinson 2005).

Starting in Amuq H/I, Early Bronze Age sites moved closer to the southern rim of the plain, and thereby closer to east-west and north-south trade routes (Welton et al . 2011 – see Figure 2.1). It is likely that western Syria saw extensive craft and metal specialization throughout the Early Bronze Age, whereas north-eastern Syria was more

focused towards storage and surplus production of grain (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:231).

Figure 2.1 Ancient trade routes through the Amuq Plain

(Courtesy of S. Batiuk)

Synchronous to these developments was the arrival of the Early Transcaucasian Culture in the Amuq, which is recognizable by its distinctive Red Black Burnished Ware (RBBW – also called Khirbet Kerak Ware) pottery. This group, likely immigrants with their pottery as their archaeological signature, is found across the Near East in this time period, from the Caucasus region to northern Syria and down into the Levant (Batiuk 2005; Issar and Zohar 2007:110). Pottery from Phase G is still found in Phase H, but it is the introduction of the RBBW pottery tradition that marks the boundary between the two (Tadmor 1964:260-261). Although there is some debate as to whether a particular pottery type can be tied with a particular group of people (the ‘pots and peoples’ problem), what is now known is that much RBBW was produced locally and with local materials in Anatolia, Syria and the Levant (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:229-230).

Beginning in the 24th century BCE, another influence can be seen in western Syria. Interaction with the Akkadian empire of Mesopotamia began at this time, and continued until the end of the Early Bronze Age. The reign of Sargon, the first ruler of the Akkadians, saw destructions at several key Syrian cities, including Ebla, Mari, and Tell Brak (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:278). The Akkadian empire did not survive the end of the Early Bronze Age (see below).

At Tell Tayinat, it would appear that an extensive settlement, probably the largest in the plain, was present in the Early Bronze Age. This time period has been explored in the Field 1 excavations (Square G4.55), which have revealed a building with two interconnected rooms, along with refuse pits and extensive cultural fill levels. No clear destruction levels have been discovered. However, as will be elaborated on in Chapters 4 and 5, the macrobotanical assemblage from this area of excavation is very rich and diverse.

The Transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age: approx. 2200 BCE

The transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in the region, and in the Near East as a whole, is a time of a debatable ‘collapse’ or ‘crisis’ of the system built up so rapidly in the Early Bronze Age, as previously mentioned in the palaeoclimatic section. The major driving force behind this view was the excavations at Tell Leilan (Weiss et al . 1993; Courty and Weiss 1997; Wetterstrom 2003), which revealed a “marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption” causing “a considerable degradation of land-use conditions”(Weiss et al. 1993:995). Although the picture has become more complicated since its original inception, the overall concept of a major change in settlement pattern, arguably due to aridity or weather, is generally agreed upon for the end of the third millennium BC. Several conferences and publications have focused on these events (Richard 1987; Weiss et al. 1993; Rosen 1995; Dalfes et al . 1997; Ur 2002; Kuzucuoglu and Marro 2007).

The ‘collapse’ has been argued archaeologically via evidence showing the abandonment of many major sites and a progressive move to rural life in the Levant, Syria and northern Mesopotamia (McClellan 1992; Weiss et al . 1993; Falconer 1994; Rosen 1995; Dalfes et al . 1997; Kuzucuoglu and Marro 2007). Wilkinson (1997)

suggests that environmental deterioration brought on by rapid urbanization and thereby rapid landscape changes surrounding newly urbanized centres was the most probable reason for a late third millennium collapse. It is certainly true that settlement patterns changed significantly between the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, as witnessed, for example, in the areas surrounding Arslantepe (Wilkinson 1986) and Hadidi (Dornemann 1980), as well as in the Amuq Plain (Braidwood 1937). Some sites, such as Ebla, a thriving urban metropolis in the Early Bronze Age, were destroyed prior to the hypothesized climate crisis (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:244). Ebla was, additionally, one of the few sites to show substantial size and centralization in the following Middle Bronze Age I (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:294).

Recently, interest has begun to swing towards environment and, more particularly, subsistence as important factors of this period of change, both at a regional level and for the analysis of individual sites (Courty and Weiss 1997; Wilkinson 1997; Weiss 2003:606-609; Kuzucuoglu 2007a and b; Deckers and Riehl 2007; Riehl and Bryson 2007). Several sites show continuous occupation across the Early to Middle Bronze Age boundary, indicating differential human response to the probable climatic deterioration at the time. These sites include Kazane Höyük, Tell Brak, Tell Mozan, Mari, Iktanu, and Iskander (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:286; Roberts et al. 2004:355, Rosen 1998).

There have been few explorations into human adaptation and response to changing surroundings at this time. Studies, such as those by Riehl and Bryson (2007), will help to explain why several sites managed to survive, even thrive, while others were abandoned or severely reduced in size. Overview articles regarding both the wood charcoal record at the time (McCorriston 2007) and the botanical assemblages (Deckers and Riehl 2007) have been published, and the results thus far are intriguing. In excavations at Tell Mozan, although two-row barley appears to be the dominant crop for the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, the transition between the two periods is marked by a switch from free-threshing wheat to the more “drought and salinity-tolerant” emmer, and from lentil to the “less demanding” bitter vetch (Deckers and Riehl 2007:489). Bitter vetch also appears in the 2nd millennium BCE at Korucutepe and Tepecik (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975b). The topic of agricultural changes immediately following the Early Bronze Age clearly deserves further research.

The end of the Early Bronze Age in the Amuq Plain witnessed the abandonment of Tell Tayinat in favour of neighboring Tell Atchana/Alalakh (less than a kilometre to the south-east), which was occupied continuously through the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. These periods encompassed the Hittite Old Kingdom and Empire periods (approximately 1650-1200 BCE) (Kuhrt 1995:230; Alkım 1970:260). The cause of the move from Tell Tayinat to Tell Atchana is unknown at this time. As noted in Chapter 1, the distance between the two sites is minimal.

As discussed in the palaeoenvironmental section, it is important to distinguish environmental and human occurances. Roberts et al. (2004:355-357) warn against any type of environmentally deterministic interpretation of the co-occurrence of climatic deterioration and societal collapse. They point out that the declining precipitation of the arid event “had significant but not predetermined impacts on human communities”, and that the failure of some Early Bronze Age societies was due to an “inability to change… technology… on the part of the managing elite” (emphasis added).

Amuq K-M: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200-1200 BCE)

Following the end of the Early Bronze Age, the Middle and Late Bronze Ages were periods of empire building in the Near East, including the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Mittanian empires in Mesopotamia, the Hittite empire in Anatolia, and the Egyptian Middle and New Kingdoms (Kuhrt 1995).

Closer to Tell Tayinat, the rich and influential city-state of Ugarit (modern Ras- Shamra) became an important entrepot on the Syrian coast, from which a wealth of archaeological and epigraphic evidence has been recovered. The Ugaritic palace economy depended on a large network of towns and farms providing food, oil, wool and other goods to the city, which participated in a far-reaching trade network (Liverani 1989; Archi 1990, 1993). The Amuq Plain at this time was alternately controlled by the Hittites and the Mitannian Empire, as recorded in the written documents recovered at Tell Atchana, which became the most influential settlement in the Amuq Plain during these two periods (Kuhrt 1995:289, 307). In Syria as a whole we see, as preserved in written records such as those found at Tell Atchana, names from many different ethnic groups, including Amorite, Hurrian, and Akkadian. The Amorites played a particularly important

role, with many of their names appearing as persons of power and influence in texts (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:325).

By the later Middle Bronze Age, regional states were starting to emerge, though occasionally under the control of larger groups. Alalakh, Yamkhad (modern Aleppo; the name was used both for the city and the region it controlled) and Qatna flourished in western Syria (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:297). Mari and Leilan grew in size and power to the east.

Alalakh and Yamkhad (the city) were destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age by the Hittites in an attack on Yamkhad (the state). The Hittites were also responsible for the brazen destruction of Babylon in Mesopotamia, and are the likely culprits for another destruction of Ebla, from which it never fully recovered (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:326).

The Late Bronze Age saw the emergence of the Mitannian Empire, which fought with the Hittites for control of parts of Syria, including the Amuq Plain (van de Mieroop 2004:142-145). Originally split between Egypt and Mitanni, the Hittites fought the Mitanni and won control of northern Syria, only to later be challenged by the growing power of the Assyrians (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:329).

The archaeobotanical results published thus far for Tell Atchana will be reviewed in the analysis and discussion (Chapters 5 and 6) in order to help fill in the temporal gap between the Early Bronze and Iron Age occupations at Tell Tayinat.

The Transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age (circa 1200 BCE)

The end of the Bronze Age was a time of widespread social, political and cultural disruption, including the fall of several important empires and the destruction of dozens of sites in the eastern Mediterranean and beyond. As mentioned earlier, the palaeoclimatic record seems to indicate a drying event at approximately the same time which may have been a factor.

It is important to note that the precise dating of the events surrounding the end of the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age is difficult. As mentioned by Manning

(2006/7:55-57), the radiocarbon calibration curve at approximately 1200 BCE “wiggles” (p55), effectively causing a plateau of several decades. Therefore, many of the dates for this time period are established mainly through epigraphic methods, rather than with radiocarbon dating.

For the Amuq Plain, the most relevant event is the end of the Hittite empire. It appears that in their final years, the Hittites became dependant on grain imports, including famine aid sent by Egypt (Kaniewski et al. 2010:213). Parallel to these events in Anatolia, the Assyrian and Babylonian empires also suffered famine, crop failure, and incursions by nomadic peoples (Brinkman 1968:387-389; Neumann and Parpola 1987). The city of Ugarit, mentioned above and long a dominant economic capital on the Syrian coast, was destroyed in approximately 1190/1185 BCE and was never reoccupied (Yon 1992). Cyprus saw the abandonment of settlements and of many traditional artefact types (Sandars 1985:144). Many other sites along the Turkish, Syrian and Levantine coasts suffered destruction and pillaging. Those nearby to Tell Tayinat that suffered some form of destruction and/or abandonment included Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Yener et al. 2000:189), Ras Ibn Hani, Tell Sukas, Hamath, Qatna, Tell Nebi Mend, Aleppo, and Emar (Drews 1993:14-15). These events are blamed, in large measure, on the Sea Peoples.

The term ‘Sea Peoples’ is applied to various groups, mostly hailing from western Anatolia and the Aegean (Redford 2006/7:10), who appear to have travelled the eastern Mediterranean at the same time as the destruction and turmoil of the late 13th and early 12th centuries (Sandars 1985; Dever 1992; Redford 1992:241-256; Ward and Joukowsky 1992; Kuhrt 1995:388-389). Epigraphic evidence from Ugaritic, Hittite, and Egyptian texts points to attacks from the sea (Sandars 1985). Although an indepth discussion of this enormous and highly debated topic is beyond the scope of this paper, the arrival of immigrants at this time is an important factor to keep in mind when discussing subsistence in the early Iron Age in Chapters 4 and 5.

Amuq N: The Iron Age I (1200-950 BCE)

The Iron Age I has a comparative paucity of archaeological remains and epigraphic evidence in southern Anatolia, Syria, and the Levant (James 1987:51-52;

Kuhrt 1995:414; Hawkins 2002:143). The Iron Age I has been referred to as a “Dark Age” in the past (Frankfort 1970:279) due to the general lack of historical documents from this time.

Despite this paucity of information, evidence has recently emerged which suggests continuation of cultural tradition and administration into the early Iron Age in the Amuq Plain and in the vicinity of southern Turkey/northwestern Syria (Mazzoni 1995:183; Harrison 2007). The early Iron Age in this region is characterized by a “fragmented cultural and political terrain” (Harrison 2001a:135), populated by a series of petty states known collectively as the Neo-Hittites (or Late Hittites, due to their close cultural affiliation with the Hittites who once ruled them (Hawkins 2002:147). The Neo- Hittite states also showed, when taken together, “close artistic contacts and common custom”, including somewhat standardized images of the Storm God and the Ruler (Hawkins 1982:385).

Epigraphic evidence of political continuity in the area is shown through a continuing dynastic succession of rulers at Karchemish from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age I (Hawkins 2002:151). Hawkins’ early (1984:65) comment on the Neo-Hittite states seems to be proving itself more and more with the expansion of the archaeological and epigraphic record: “The Hittites themselves disappeared from the homeland Khatti in central Anatolia… In their erstwhile south-eastern provinces… people of kindred stock held their own and indeed expanded in a political landscape of city states.”

In the Amuq Plain, Iron Age I Tell Tayinat is the likely location of Walastin/Palastin (also Padasatini/Wadasatini – see Harrison 2007:61), which is an entity mentioned in several inscriptions. This Palastin seems to continue into the Iron Age II, with a slightly different name (see below). Although the main settlement moved from Tell Atchana back to Tell Tayinat, there is, in general, a strong continuity in settlement locations from the late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age in the Amuq Plain, according to survey data (Harrison 2001b:122). This suggests that there was settlement system continuity throughout this transition.

Although strong affinities with the previous Hittite culture are apparent, the Iron Age I/Amuq N sees the arrival of several indicators of Mycenaean culture as well. These include a particular pottery style (Mycenaean IIIC1), vastly increased quantities of painted pottery, and unpierced clay loomweights (Janeway 2006/7). All of these elements have been found at Tell Tayinat and could indicate connections with, or integration of, populations of Sea Peoples. Though the IIIC1 pottery is Mycenaean in style, it is locally produced, unlike the imported Aegean wares traded to the Eastern Mediterranean in the preceding Late Bronze Age (Yener et al. 2000:188; Bell 2009:30).

Amuq O: The Iron Age II (950-738 BCE)

Tell Tayinat emerged as the dominant site in the Amuq Plain by Amuq Phase O (Harrison 2001a:137-140; 2001b:124). Survey data from the Amuq Valley Regional Project “indicate that during the early centuries of the first millennium the Amuq Plain was transformed into an integrated, urbanized landscape, with Ta’yinat at its center”(Harrison 2001a:137). In the Iron Age II, Tell Tayinat was the central city of a region called Patina or Unqi, which is possibly a continuation of the Iron Age I Palastin, as mentioned above. The capital city was Kunulua (with many spelling variations). The confirmation of Tell Tayinat as ancient Kunulua was confirmed with the translation of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, found in Building XVI at Tell Tayinat in 2009, in which the name of the treaty city is given as “Kinalia”, a Neo-Assyrian rendering of the older Neo- Hittite name (Lauinger 2011:9). This eliminates the possibility that nearby ‘Ain Dara is Kunulua, which had been suggested in the past (Kuhrt 1995:412-413).

Patina was, as mentioned, one of many such small Neo-Hittite kingdoms present in northwestern Syria and southern Anatolia from the Iron Age I onwards. The political landscape surrounding them bore little resemblance to the Bronze Age. Their less intrusive neighbours now included the Hebrew kingdom (later Israel and Judah), Phoenicia/Philistia in the Levant, Late Dynastic Egypt, the Phrygians in central Anatolia, and Urartu to the north-east.

In contrast, the Neo-Assyrian empire to the east (van der Mieroop 2004:216-217) had a turbulent relationship with Patina/Unqi and her neighboring Neo-Hittite states. Kunulua was made to submit to several Neo-Assyrian rulers, including Ashurnasirpal II,

who campaigned between 876-868 BCE in the region, and Shalmaneser III in the 850s BCE. Historical records seem to indicate that Assyria held a good deal of influence over the Neo-Hittite states and received tribute from them, though it did not directly rule them at this time (Hawkins 1982:388-395; Grayson 2001:187). Assyria’s interests in the region included trading, natural resources, and communication channels to the southern Levant and Egypt (Grayson 2001:186-187). It was Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria who later conquered “Kullani”, probably another spelling of Unqi’s capital Kunulua, in 738 BCE (Hawkins 1982:410).

Concurrent to the increasing importance of Tell Tayinat in the late Iron Age I/Iron Age II is the poorly understood rise of the Aramaeans, a nomadic or pastoral group who were documented epigraphically as troublesome by the Assyrians. Their culture spread gradually in the early 1st millennium BCE (Kuhrt 1995:393-401), although they are mentioned in texts as early as the 11th century BCE (Schwartz 1989:277; Sader 1992:159). Unfortunately, most sources regarding the Aramaeans were written by their enemies, and therefore a biased picture is likely painted of them in the historical literature (Schwartz 1989:280). Archaeologically, it seems that the material culture of the Aramaeans and their neighbours is nearly indistinguishable (Schwartz 1989:281). Several Neo-Hittite states are identified as more Aramaean in character, though Patina is one which is described as mainly Hittite (Hawkins 1974:69).

The Amuq Plain is one of only a few areas which preserves extensive archaeological material from the early first millennium BCE, including material culture related to the Aramaean expansion, which seems to have occurred at the expense of the local Luwian population (Harrison 2001a:135; Harrison 2001b:120,128). Given that Tell Tayinat is continuously inhabited from the early Iron Age through this transition from a more Hittite to a more Aramaean material culture, it provides an excellent sequence with which to test whether or not this shift affected subsistence. There is also seemingly purposeful destruction of Luwian monuments in the 9th /8 th century BCE, and so perhaps the transition was not entirely peaceful (Harrison 2001b:128).

The precise physical size of Tell Tayinat in the Iron Age remains unclear, mainly due to the obscuring of the lower town’s size by approximately 2.5-3m of alluviation from the nearby Orontes River (Batiuk 2007:56). It is likely that at the time of the Iron Age, in

particular the Iron Age II, Tell Tayinat was surrounded by marsh or shallow open water. This is supported by data collected from an extensive numbers of cores taken in the area surrounding the tell (Batiuk 2007: 56-57).

On the site itself, the Iron Age II saw extensive monument building, including two palaces and two temples, if the new Building XVI uncovered in 2008/9 is included (Harrison 2007:62). The city was clearly prosperous at this time.

Amuq O: The Iron Age III (738-550 BCE)

The Iron Age III is defined as the time following the Neo-Assyrian conquest of Unqi and other Neo-Hittite states. Much of this conquest occurred at the hands of Tiglath-Pileser III, who came to the throne in 744 BCE (Harrison 2005:24). Tell Tayinat was conquered by him in 738 BCE, and became the Neo-Assyrian province of Kinalia (Hawkins 1982:411). This fact is documented in the Assyrian royal records.

During the Oriental Institute of Chicago’s excavations in the 1930s, a Neo- Assyrian governor’s residence was excavated, exemplifying Tiglath-Pileser III’s imperial administration efforts (Harrison 2005:23-24). This part of the earlier excavations is now covered by a cotton factory, which was built several decades ago.

One of the most important finds from the current Tell Tayinat excavations is Building XVI, dating, at least in its final form, to the Neo-Assyrian period. It is megaron- style, a design that began to appear following the waning of Luwian and Mediterranean influences, and the subsequent rise of Aramaean culture, in the latter part of the 9 th century BCE (Haines 1971:53; Harrison 2001b:127-128; Harrison 2007:66). It is very similar to, and positioned facing into the same courtyard as, the temple (Building II) uncovered by the Oriental Institute in the 1930s. In fact, the previous excavators came within a few feet of discovering Building XVI in a test trench they excavated. This newly excavated temple was destroyed in a conflagration hot enough to ‘melt’ the fired pottery discovered in the inner room (Harrison and Osborne 2012:134). The cause and/or circumstance of this destruction are not known. The plant remains found in Building XVI will be described in the Results and Discussion (Chapters 5 and 6).

The other large area (Field 5) of Iron Age III excavation at Tell Tayinat has revealed a building or building complex on the eastern edge of the mound. Mudbrick walls, though difficult to trace, were preserved to over a metre in height, and the floor deposits were extensively sampled for archaeobotanical analysis which will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 6.

Kinalia, along with many other states-turned-Assyrian-provinces, remained under Assyrian control until at least the mid-7th century BCE (Harrison 2005:25). Tell Tayinat was not occupied after the Iron Age.

The Palaeoethnobotanical Setting

This historical survey critically reviews past and present palaeoethnobotanical research in Turkey and Syria. The development of flotation, and alongside it the vast increase in archaeobotanical studies in the Near East, will be reviewed. Developments in the New World, though equally as revolutionary for the archaeology there, will not be discussed here. Research into the Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages will be reviewed. Finally, the importance of research at Tell Tayinat in the context of the current state of palaeoethnobotany will be discussed.

The Development of Flotation

The advent of flotation in the late 1960s and early 1970s had an immediate impact on the ability of archaeologists to sample extensively for palaeobotanical materials, and this led to a dramatic increase in research regarding ancient plant remains and their sociocultural importance (Miller 1991:133; Pearsall 2000:4). Several flotation techniques were developed and, over time, modified to varying conditions.

The earliest example of flotation was used to separate charcoal from soil samples in order to obtain sufficient quantities of charcoal for radiocarbon dating (Matson 1955). The first application of flotation for macrobotanical purposes in the Old World was presented by Hans Helbaek (Helbaek 1969 – it was used in the field beginning in 1961) followed by David French’s Ankara machine (French 1971; Warnock 1998:241) and David Williams’ Siraf machine, which utilized the 50-gallon drums now

frequently used across the Near East (Williams 1973). Water flotation was also implemented in 1965 and 1967 by Willem van Zeist and Sytze Bottema at Mureybit (van Zeist 1970).

Froth flotation, first demonstrated by Jarman et al. (1972), was developed alongside manual and mechanical systems. Its goal was increased recovery of seeds that, due to density, might not be recovered by conventional water flotation. One criticism of the froth flotation method was the costly and difficult-to-obtain material necessary for its construction and maintenance (Jarman et al. 1972; Williams 1973:288). Williams (1976) also criticized froth flotation for issues such as low soil capacity, difficult cleaning, and poor charcoal recovery.

In a general review of flotation techniques, Gail Wagner (1988) discusses the necessity of, and yet the difficulty in achieving, flexibility in flotation technique. This recognition of a need of flexible methodology is recognized elsewhere (Helbaek 1969; Williams 1973), especially for areas of water scarcity (Stewart and Robertson 1973). Wagner’s (1988:24) table of recovery rates for varying techniques suggests, however, that different methods can recover remains at comparable rates. The only technique with a recovery rate below 80% is that of the Illinois Department of Transportation (I.D.O.T) system, and this is due mainly to the high clay content of the soils that were floated for the project which made use of that system (Wagner 1988:24). Overall, the efficiency of flotation as opposed to conventional screening can hardly be overstated (Watson 1976:79; Payne 1972; Pearsall 2000:15).

General Characteristics of Development of Palaeoethnobotany

The 1960s, and the development of flotation, were concurrent with the development of the New Archaeology, a theoretical school that spearheaded a more scientific archaeology. Lewis Binford, a founding New Archaeologist, contributed to the debate that was growing regarding the origins of agriculture in the Near East by publishing a theory suggesting that overpopulation of marginal areas caused cultivation, in opposition to Braidwood’s ‘hilly flanks’ theory as put forth in his work at Jarmo (Binford 1968:319-323, 335; Braidwood and Howe 1960). Although Binford’s evidence was sparse, his opinion led to increased interest in the subject (Miller 1991).

The 1970s and 1980s saw an explosion of archaeobotanical research in archaeology, especially directed towards the origins of agriculture. The 1970s also witnessed a drive towards a more integrated, holistic palaeoethnobotany, as opposed to mere taxonomic classification (Warnock 1998:244). The site of Çayönü in Turkey (Stewart 1976) was an early departure from the species list format, and was rather a consideration of the “whole archaeological context” (Stewart 1976:221). Another example is Tell Nebi Mend (Moffett 1989:29-30). Although beyond the scope of this paper, palynological and phytolithic studies began to play a more prominent role in palaeoethnobotany at this time (Warnock 1998:247; Pearsall 2000:264-267, 381).

Currently, there are several developing trends in archaeobotanical analysis. One of these is a focus on regional and long-term chronological studies. Regional studies are in their infancy, and several authors have recently published regarding the difficulties of performing regional analysis, given the unstandardized nature of published raw data (e.g., Riehl 2009:97). There has been an increasing realization of the need for excavations to have an all-encompassing strategy of recovery which includes animal, plant, and environmental data in order to obtain a complete regional picture of subsistence (Rothman and Kozbe 1997:111). The significant variations in human choices across different environments and geographical regions mean that regional studies are a necessary compliment to studies of individual sites (Riehl and Nesbitt 2003:305).

A second expanding area of study is the integration of plant and animal data. The new directions of this research were highlighted in a special section of Current Anthropology in December 2009 (vol. 50:6; Smith and Miller 2009). This crucial work, which is attempting to provide a more holistic picture of subsistence, is just beginning. Although no quantitative comparison between the archaeobotanical remains and the faunal results from Tell Tayinat has been attempted in this thesis, this is recommended as a future direction of research in Chapter 6.

One of the benefits of regional, multifaceted studies is to gain an understanding of subsistence and agriculture across several time periods (Riehl 2009; Smith and Munro 2009). Though the Bronze and Iron Ages are often discussed together, there are few sites that have sufficient remains to allow for analysis of both periods, especially for

the Iron Age. As late as 2009, Riehl (2009:97) said the following: “The lack of research is particularly critical for Iron Age sites, where archaeobotany is only in its beginnings.” Although certain areas have been the focus of more intense research and thereby some regional interpretation (for example, the Balikh and Khabur rivers and their tributary networks; see Miller 2004), other regions have been generally neglected, for example western Syria (Mathias and Parr 1989:14). This is in part due to salvage excavation in response to dam building (see below). This imbalance, much like that between Neolithic and Bronze/Iron Age research, is in need of correction.

Agricultural Changes and Choices through Time

The following sections will discuss the current state of archaeobotanical research for the various time periods that are relevant to Tell Tayinat. There will also be a brief discussion of the periods leading up to the occupation of the site. Several of the sites mentioned are also discussed in the Results and Analysis sections of chapters 5 and 6, in order to contextualize the plant remains recovered from Tell Tayinat.

The Neolithic Transition and Early Farming

The subject of the early Holocene transition to domesticated plant use and farming has been one of the most extensively studied areas of palaeoethnobotanical research in the Near East. Beginning with theoretical perspectives such as Childe’s Oasis Hypothesis (Childe 1929:42-45), researchers, for example Robert Braidwood, set out to assess the validity of these theories (Braidwood and Howe 1960). Following pioneering work into the earliest agriculture came overviews and theoretical schemes regarding domestication (Helbaek 1959; Dennell 1976; Hubbard 1980; van Zeist 1988).

The emphasis on the origins of agriculture within Near Eastern palaeoethnobotany has not slowed in recent years. The extensive literature related to this topic is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, many article compilations, comprehensive literature reviews and regional overviews have been published relating to the onset of the Neolithic and the domestication of plants. The reader is referred to these for more information (e.g., Renfrew 1973; Reed 1977; Rindos 1984; van Zeist and Casparie 1984; Harris and Hillman 1989; Renfrew 1991; Cowan and Watson 1992; Harlan 1992; Miller 1992; Garrard 1999; Zohary and Hopf 2000, Hancock 2004; Zeder et

al . 2006;Colledge and Conolly 2007; Simmons 2007). The focus on early Neolithic palaeoethnobotany has led to comparatively fewer studies on sites from the Chalcolithic onwards (Miller 1991:156, see below).

The Chalcolithic

The Chalcolithic period, as noted in the Archaeology section (above), was a time of gradual sociocultural change. It is also notable for its assemblage of new cultivars, interpreted as a “second wave of plant domestication”, consisting mainly of fruit-tree species (Neef 1990:295). The four most important new cultivars were olive, date palm, fig, and grape (Neef 1990: 297; Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975; Zohary and Hopf 2000:248-249). Of these four, only date-palm is not present at Tell Tayinat.

Olive appears to have been collected from the wild as early as the Epipaleolithic and Natufian (early Neolithic) in the Near East, with evidence mostly gleaned from sites in Israel (Zohary and Hopf 2000:149). Definite signs of purposeful cultivation come from the Chalcolithic, mainly from sites in the Jordan Rift Valley in Israel and Jordan (Zohary and Hopf 2000:149; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1984a; Neef 1990; Zohary and Hopf 2000:149). The evidence for the use of olive increases dramatically in the Early Bronze Age.

Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age evidence of viticulture is also concentrated in Israel and Jordan, particularily in the Rift Valley (Zohary and Hopf 2000:156). Several notable exceptions exist. Kurban Höyük in Turkey has Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age levels containing charred grape pips which were likely domesticated (Zohary and Hopf 2000:157; McGovern 2003:78-79). However, grape remains only become commonplace at Kurban Höyük in the mid to late Bronze Age (Miller 1986:88). Other sites have wild- type pips, but are outside of the known range of wild grapes. These include Tell Taya, Tell Hadidi, Selenkahiye, Leilan, and Tell es-Sweyhat (McGovern 2003:173). Epigraphic evidence from sites such as Mari, Tell al-Rimah, Kültepe, and Hattusa (Bogazköy) indicate an active wine trade beginning in the Late Uruk period (approximately 3500- 3200 BCE; McGovern 2003:169-181; Kuhrt 1995:22-23). Recently, pollen analysis has been applied to ceramic drinking vessels as a method of determining beverages consumed (Rösch 2005), revealing the presence of mead and wine.

Although general consensus places the domestication of the fig in the 5 th millennium BCE, Kislev et al. (2006) argue that it could have been domesticated as early as the 10 th millennium BCE. This must be argued from remains of the fruits, as the seeds of wild and domesticated figs are indistinguishable (Zohary and Hopf 2000:164). Further research is necessary to clarify when this species was domesticated.

The Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critical Survey of Past and Present Research

The states of the ancient Near East were essentially agrarian. The vast majority of their populations were farmers. Their political systems were based on control of farming. Their ideology was that of the farmer’s world. Their mythology focused on the order of the annual farming cycle and fear of the disorder that threatens to break in and destroy this world – the natural forces of flood, storm, and drought and the wild men living outside the bounds of the fields. Hierarchical government of gods and kings was the norm, without which agricultural stability and productivity could not be envisaged, and this stability was the context in which recorded “history” began. (Eyre 1995:175-176)

Despite the critical importance of agriculture to ancient populations, a trend immediately observable in the discussion of the archaeobotany of the Bronze and Iron Age Near East is the relative paucity of archaeobotanical reports for these time periods when compared to the number of published sites and studies for the Neolithic (Riehl and Nesbitt 2003:301). Although there are limitations in terms of the available data, the quantity of research has increased tremendously in the past few decades.

One of the reasons for this increase is indirect, via the modernization of Turkey and Syria. Various dam projects over the last three to four decades have necessitated large numbers of short-term, salvage archaeological excavations (Bahnassi 1980; Nesbitt and Summers 1988; Rosenberg and Davis 1992; Oybak and Demirci 1997; for a list of sources related to sites mentioned see Appendix D). These engineering projects included the Ataturk Dam (which flooded Tille Höyük), the Tabqa Dam (which created Lake al-Assad and submerged Abu Hureyra, Selenkahiye, Tell es-Sweyhat, Habuba Kabira, and Hadidi, amongst others), the Keban Dam (Korucutepe and Tepecik), the Karakaya Dam (Imamoglu Höyük) and the Batman Dam (Hallan Çemi Tepesi). The lag between excavation and publication is problematic for the Bronze and Iron Ages, especially due to the fast-paced accumulation of unstudied material that comes hand-in-

hand with salvage work. This type of archaeological work has also led to a vast increase in material from sites close to large rivers, which introduces a prejudice into the types of sites involved in the data sets available for study.

In the Bronze Age of Anatolia and the Near East, crops introduced in the Chalcolithic such as olive and grape grow to be of major economic importance (Zohary and Hopf 2000:145). Additionally, a small number of new crops are introduced and/or intensified, including pomegranate and sycamore fig (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975). Pomegranate, as well as almond, may have been domesticated in the Early Bronze Age, but certainly became widespread in the Iron Age (Riehl and Nesbitt 2003; Zohary and Hopf 2000:171, 187; see Chapters 4 and 5 for information on the almond finds at Tell Tayinat).

The Iron Age also sees the arrival of additional crops, such as sesame (Zohary and Hopf 2000:140; Riehl and Nesbitt 2003) and millet (both broomcorn and foxtail – Nesbitt and Summers 1988; Riehl and Nesbitt 2003; van Zeist 2003c). Nesbitt and Summers’ (1988) study of millets, in which they suggest the possibility that millet was introduced to Greece separately from its introduction to the Near East, is one of only a very few examples of studies attempting to trace the details of the introduction, use and spread of a crop outside of Neolithic contexts.

Dominant Crops of the Bronze and Iron Ages

The most substantial crop in terms of ubiquity, quantity, and probably in terms of diet across the Near East in the Bronze Age was two-row hulled barley. This indicates an increase in importance from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. This is seen, for example, in the comparison between the crop assemblages of Tell Damishliyya and Hammam et- Turkman (van Zeist et al . 1988), as well as from the stratigraphic sequence at Korucutepe and Tepecik (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975b). Only two sites report six-row barley in the Bronze Age (Hillman 1981a and c).

Other important crops of the Bronze Age include hard (macaroni, durum) wheat and/or bread wheat, and emmer wheat. Einkorn wheat, critically important in the Neolithic, was at most a minor component of crop assemblages in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Nesbitt and Samuel 1996a), although its presence is still noted on several Bronze

Age sites (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975b; van Zeist 2003b and c). Emmer, though it decreases in importance from the Neolithic, is still important at several sites such as Tell Leilan (Wetterstrom 2003) and Tell Mozan (Deckers and Riehl 2007). Free-threshing wheats increase in importance in the Bronze and Iron Ages (for example Crawford 1999; Charles and Bogaard 2001; Colledge 2001a). At Kaman-Kalehöyük, for example, bread wheat is the main crop in the Middle Bronze Age (Nesbitt 1993).

In terms of pulse crops, lentil or chick pea are the most frequently encountered, and the site of Hadidi, located next to the Euphrates river in northern Syria, reports one large sample containing almost entirely grass pea (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985). Pea ( Pisum spp.) is the preferred pulse at Early Bronze Age Imamoglu Höyük (Oybak and Demirci 1997). Bitter vetch, likely used mainly as animal fodder, is present in greater quantities beginning in the Bronze Age. No publications have suggested that pulse crops played a dominant role in subsistence, even after taking into account the poor preservation potential of pulses as compared to cereals.

By the Late Bronze Age, crops such as grapes become commonplace (van Zeist 2003c). Safflower appears as a possible cultivar at several sites, including Umm el- Marra, Tell Raqa’i, Tell Bderi, and Hammam et-Turkman (McCorriston 1998; Miller 2000; van Zeist 2003b and c; van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1992). Unique finds from the Bronze Age include St. Lucie cherry ( Prunus mahaleb ) at Hammam et-Turkman (van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1992), coriander at Umm el-Marra (Miller 2000), and a jar of capers ( Capparis spinosa ) at Tell es-Sweyhat (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985). A few very early examples of sesame exist in Iron Age contexts in Jordan at Deir Alla, and in Turkey at Gordion (Bedigian 1998:94). No sesame has been found in such early contexts in the Amuq Plain, including at Tell Tayinat.

Overall, in the Bronze and Iron Ages, we see a diverse plant assemblage, with regional variation in primary cereal crop choice. Pulses play a small, but nutritionally important, role in diet.

Summary

This chapter has summarized the palaeoclimatological, archaeological, and palaeoethnobotanical data that forms the regional picture surrounding Tell Tayinat in the Bronze and Iron Ages. This information will contribute to the analysis and discussion in Chapters 5 and 6, where the information from Tell Tayinat is interpreted in the context of larger regional changes. The summary of current research directions indicates the many avenues of study which require more published data. Hopefully this thesis will contribute to future local- and regional-scale studies.

Chapter 3:

Methods and Sampling

Introduction

This chapter will present the methods utilized in the collection and analysis of the archaeobotanical remains from Tell Tayinat. It will include field and flotation methods, sampling techniques, and quantitative methods selected to present and compare the data. First, however, it is important to review some of the taphonomic factors affecting the preservation and recovery of macrobotanical remains.

Taphonomic Issues in the Preservation of Macrobotanical Remains

The biases inherent within palaeoethnobotanical research must be kept in mind throughout collection and analysis. These biases have been summarized in numerous publications, including factors affecting macrobotanical remains prior to, during, and following deposition (e.g., Minnis 1981; Hillman 1984b; G. Jones 1991; Popper 1998; Pearsall 2000:239-247; Colledge 2001b:18-21). The biases can be divided into several groups. Prior to deposition, there is the concern of bias introduced via how the plants were selected and used by ancient people. This is followed by carbonization, depositional, and post-depositional processes (Braadbaart et al . 2004:822). There are also biases due to sample collection and processing. Addressing these biases is mainly achieved through awareness of their existence, and interpretation must be made while conscious of these limitations.

At Tell Tayinat, ancient plant remains are preserved almost entirely by charring, which can be defined as “heating under anoxic conditions at a specific temperature”

(Braadbaart and Bergen 2005:67). The few seeds which are not charred were mineralized grape ( Vitis vinifera ) and borage (Boraginaceae) seeds. Although mineralized seeds are often found in large numbers in cesspits, latrines, or similar contexts (Jacomet 2007:2388), the very few found at Tell Tayinat do not appear to be associated with such features. Naomi Miller (pers. comm.) has suggested that low numbers of mineralized seeds may be the result of human (or potentially animal) feces deposited at sites (for example, in vacant buildings or on streets), with these deposits acting as micro cess-pit environments resulting in mineralization. No waterlogged or desiccated contexts have been discovered at the site thus far.

In terms of the charred remains, some consideration must be taken as to how they became charred and entered the archaeological record. Apart from the conflagration in Building XVI (see Chapter 2), there is a general lack of catastrophic burning events at Tell Tayinat, and therefore other explanations of how seeds became charred must be explored. Miller (1984a and b; Miller and Smart 1984) strongly suggests that many seeds found in certain types of archaeological deposits across the Near East may have been introduced via the burning of animal dung as fuel. Minnis (1985:104,106) sees most charred remains as an accumulation of accidents. It is important to note that, for the cultivated cereal grains of the Near East (naked and hulled barley, emmer, and free-threshing wheat), they all appear to char in similar quantities in similar circumstances (Gustafsson 2000). Therefore differing quantities of these charred cereals cannot likely be attributed to differential charring ability. Other taxa show different results when charred at similar temperatures and conditions (Wright 2003:581).

At Tell Tayinat, several taphonomic factors are at work on the site itself. There is evidence of snake, rodent and lizard burrowing activities, which can lead to the mixing of deposits. The aridity of the summer months in the area leads to the cracking of the surface of the tell, which could allow a small degree of mixing. Finally, due to an accidental fire, the large majority of the tall weeds and scrub vegetation which densely inhabit the surface of the tell was burned off at the beginning of the 2008 excavation season. The fire did not spread into any of the squares involved in this thesis, however, the windy nature of the Amuq Plain meant that occasional ashy residues were blown into the squares. These were relatively easy to distinguish from ancient plant remains, as they were very shiny and had a dark brown, as opposed to black, colour. Due to the

dryness of the season, the heat and brevity of the fire did not lend itself to the charring of seeds or plant remains but rather to ash production. It is mentioned in other publications (e.g., Smith 2007:171) that other sites have had similar incidents, and that their fires were brief but intense.

Tell Tayinat has one additional taphonomic consideration, which is that the tell itself was once cultivated. Although this was made illegal many years ago, the former cultivation does leave a certain depth of disturbed topsoil across the entire site. Samples included in this thesis have been taken from beneath this disturbed topsoil. Samples of the topsoil itself have also been sorted in order to compare them to relatively undisturbed deposits below (see Chapter 5).

Methods

The research questions presented in Chapter 1 dictated both the sampling strategy and the analysis undertaken here. These questions are far-reaching and span three time periods, and therefore a broad and all-encompassing sampling strategy was undertaken.

Site Sampling and Recovery

The most crucial factor related to sample selection is the association of the sampling strategy to the research objectives (M. Jones 1991:53-54; Table 3.1). In order to answer the research questions proposed, a broad-scale sampling strategy was necessary.

At Tell Tayinat, samples for flotation are systematically collected from each excavated locus (context). This is described by Pearsall (2000:66) as “blanket sampling”. Consistency in sampling technique has been employed year-to-year. Sample size is standard at approximately 8-10L, in order to prevent later difficulties of comparibility in rarer remains (Pearsall 2000:75). All types of contexts are sampled, including cultural fill, pit fill, surfaces, walls, and the contents of intact vessels. Judgmental samples of concentrations of charred material are occasionally taken in addition to the systematic samples. All samples taken in the field are processed by mechanical flotation.

Table 3.1 Reseach design and methods

OBJECTIVE DATA NEEDED METHODS/SOURCES To determine which taxa Broad spectrum of sampled Field sampling strategy were present at Tell contexts Tayinat in the Early Relative chronological Tayinat Archaeological Bronze and Iron Ages, information for samples Project (TAP) database and the potential cultural significance of the Identification of plant Identification manuals and various taxa species present comparative collections Representative sample of Sampling to redundancy the total number of samples Findings from nearby, Literature review; temporally-related sites epigraphic evidence To identify crop plants, Ethnobotanical research Ethnobiological, botanical, weeds, and other types of and ethnoarchaeological plants, and investigate literature review context-related variation Contextual information for TAP database in macrobotanical samples remains over the site Analysis of sample Ubiquity, percentage composition frequency, relative abundance To quantitatively Relative chronological TAP database determine whether or not information for samples there are significant Analysis of similarities and Relative percent distribution changes in crop differences between the through time proportions through time different time periods at the site Findings from nearby, Literature review temporally related sites

For flotation at Tell Tayinat, a modified Ankara-style system with an electrical 2- horsepower pump is used. There is a primary tank, with two settling tanks and a water recycling mechanism (Figure 3.1; for an illustration of a similar device, see Pearsall 2000:49). The recycling outtake from the second settling tank is covered in a 220 µm mesh in order to prevent cross-contamination between samples. The heavy fraction is collected in a 1mm mesh. The smallest sieve used for light fraction recovery is 250 µm. Approximately 15-20 samples are processed per emptying of the primary tank. The two settling tanks are emptied as needed, approximately every three days (30-40 samples).

Figure 3.1 Mechanical flotation system at Tell Tayinat

All heavy fractions are sorted in the field. The primary reason for this is to be sure that little, if any, charred material remains in the heavy fraction. As noted by Miller (1996a:249), the sorting of heavy fraction at Hacinebi Tepe proved crucial to the recovery of nutshell. The conclusion that can be drawn from Miller’s experience as well as the results from Tell Tayinat is that a significant portion of archaeological information can be missed if this task is not performed.

Any charred seeds and pieces of charcoal found in the heavy fraction that are large enough to be picked up (small flecks are not recovered) are bagged and added to the light fractions. Cultural material (including pottery, shell, bone, and objects) is removed from the heavy fractions and returned to square supervisors for integration into

appropriate collections. All light fractions are exported to Simon Fraser University for analysis. From the 2008 field season, 169 samples were processed. In 2009, a single sample that remained from the end of the 2008 season was floated, as well as 204 samples from the 2009 field season. Not all of these samples were chosen for analysis.

Sampling to Redundancy: Collector’s Curves

In order to ensure that a representative number of samples was sorted for each of the time periods presented here, collector’s curves were calculated for NISP (number of identified specimens) versus number of identified taxa. The results of this are presented in Chapter 5.

Collector’s curves assess when a population has been sampled to redundancy. In other words, it demonstrates when a population has been sufficiently sampled and no further new taxa are being found. It is a method used in both archaeobotanical and archaeozoological samples (Lyman and Ames 2004; Lepofsky and Lertzman 2005). For three groups of samples from Tell Tayinat (the Early Bronze Age, the Iron Age I, and the Iron Age III), redundancy was successfully reached. The cautionary notes of Lepofsky and Lertzman (2005:185), such as making sure that the samples were graphed in random order, were followed.

There were two groups of samples at Tell Tayinat for which a redundant number of samples was not sorted: the Building XVI (temple) samples, and the Midden-Surface samples, which came from two areas of densely packed bone and pottery near the Courtyard Building in Field 5. There were only five Midden-Surface samples floated, mainly due to the fact that the material culture of these loci was so dense that there was little soil to sample. These samples were studied, even though they were a small collection, because the faunal material which came from them was relatively unique, and the possibility of the archaeobotanical remains being equally so was intriguing enough to merit study (see Chapter 5).

Building XVI did not have enough samples available in order to achieve redundancy. All samples taken from the porch and interior of the temple were sorted. The total number of identifiable seeds recovered from the interior of the temple was less than 100. The temple’s destruction, however, and the patterning of the seeds that were

found within it, make it a particularly fascinating portion of this study. The results are presented in Chapter 5.

Methods for Objective 1

My first objective for this thesis was to determine which species were present at Tell Tayinat in the Bronze and Iron Ages (see Table 3.1). This was accomplished via the identification of the macrobotanical remains recovered from the light fractions.

For each sample sorted, a score sheet was filled out with the context information. Each sample had a pre-sifted weight which included any remains recovered from the heavy fraction. Heavy fraction macrobotanical remains were weighed separately before being added to the rest of the sample. A digital scale was used, and all weights were rounded to two decimal places. Each sample was then passed through a 1.4mm screen and a .250µm screen. Samples over five grams were also passed through a 0.425µm screen, in order to facilitate the sorting process.

The 1.4mm fraction was sorted into components. All components were weighed and labelled. If a component weighed less than 0.005g, it was rounded up to 0.01g to indicate presence. From the remaining screens and catch pan only macrobotanical remains were recovered.

Identifications of plant taxa from the macrobotanical remains were made primarily by using the seed reference collections at the British Institute at Ankara in Turkey and at Simon Fraser University. The latter has been supplemented by numerous samples ordered through the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Plant Germplasm System. Unless an extensive sample of species for a particular genus was available, no identification to species level was attempted. Most species-level identifications are of crops.

In addition to the reference specimens, various reference manuals and published archaeological reports have been consulted for information both on identifications and characteristics of the species identified (e.g., Bertsch 1941; Martin and Barkley 1961; Davis 1965-1985, Gunn 1970; van Zeist 1976; Holm et al. 1977; Musil 1978; van Zeist et al. 1984; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1984a and b, 1985; Davis et al. 1988, Robson et

al. 1991; Harlan 1992:61-100; Güner et al . 2000; Cappers et al. 2006; Nesbitt 2006; others). Information on the identified taxa can be found in Chapter 4.

Methods for Objective 2

The second objective had two parts. Its first goal was to identify what role identified plant taxa may have played in their cultural and environmental context. Crops were identified, as well as probable or potential weeds. Plants which may have been animal fodder or grazing plants, as well as wild species, were also researched. These results are presented in Chapter 4.

For the cultivated species, particularly cereal grains, the ethnoarchaeological and ethnobiological work has been done on traditional farming practices in Turkey has proven very helpful in the analysis of the various crop and plant remains that were identified (e.g., Hillman 1984a, 1984b). Previous archaeological research in the region has been consulted to better understand local plant ecology (e.g., van Zeist and Bakker- Heeres 1985).

The second part of this objective was to investigate context-related variation in the macrobotanical remains. In order to do this, the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I pits in Field 1 have been examined in detail. These pits provide one of the few identifiable, discrete features which were found in multiple time periods with sufficient samples for comparison. Although two pits have been found dating to the Iron Age III in Field 5, these held very few seeds and extraordinarily high concentrations of charcoal, and were seemingly used for a special function. The Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I pits from Field 1 appear to be less specialized.

The proportions of the various crops and other prominent types of seeds in the pits have been explored, as have the two ‘loom weight pits’, which were similar in shape to other Iron Age I pits but contained several dozen loom weights.

Methods for Objective 3

The third objective is to quantitatively determine if there are significant changes in the crop assemblage found at the site across the three time periods studied. If there

are significant changes through time, then the various environmental and social factors discussed in Chapter 2 can be reviewed and potential causes identified for future verification. If there are no significant changes through time, then it would appear that the agricultural wealth of the Amuq Plain allowed the ancient inhabitants to continue their crop regimen without disruption, despite social and environmental changes.

Density of remains was calculated for each time period, as this can be a proxy for intensity of occupation. This was calculated as both the number of seeds over volume of soil floated, as well as over sample charcoal quantity (g). Pearsall (1983:129) uses charcoal counts for this purpose, but because charcoal fragments have not been counted in this analysis, and given that the selection of the numerator for such a calculation is “largely a matter of convenience” (Miller 1988:73), the use of both volume of soil and charcoal weight will allow for two density calculations, which can then be compared to one another.

Ubiquities have been calculated for various crop, fodder, weed, and wild species for the three time periods studied. As stated by Minnis (1985:104, 106), if charred remains are “primarily the result of accidents, then ubiquity tends to measure the number of accidents, which is… closely related to the degree of utilization.” He does warn however, of overestimation of the importance of rarer remains (Minnis 1985:106). For each time period, if more than one sample was studied from a given locus, these samples are combined and given a single ubiquity score. Failing to do this would cause the treatment of several interrelated samples as independent, and would lead to a weighting of the ubiquity scores in favour of those loci (Popper 1988: 610).

In addition to comparing ubiquity scores through time, I used ratios of various crop species and chaff (for the cereals) in order to identify patterns and changes in relative frequency through time. This technique can be seen in Sue Colledge’s (2001a) work on the archaeobotanical remains from Tell Brak and Kilise Tepe. The characteristics of the various crop species in combination with their fluctuations in relative quantity through time can be used in order to identify changes in subsistence through time.

The literature review of similar Bronze and Iron Age sites in the vicinity of Tell Tayinat, summarized in Chapter 2, will also provide insight into the conclusions and comparisons discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. Regional-scale comparisons are essential in order to interpret the plant remains from Tell Tayinat within the social and cultural context of its neighbours. The Near East at the time of Tell Tayinat’s habitation was an interconnected network of cross-cultural politics, conflict, exchange and trade, and studying the macrobotanical remains recovered from Tell Tayinat in isolation would not reflect the realities of life during its time.

In order to achieve a more holistic picture of subsistence, the textual sources from Tell Atchana/Alalakh will be explored in order to fill some of the temporal gap between the end of the Early Bronze Age and the early Iron Age occupations of Tell Tayinat. The recent publication of Late Bronze Age palaeoethnobotanical research from Tell Atchana/Alalakh will also be summarized in context with the trends through time in the Amuq Plain (Riehl 2010a).

Overall, the goal is to gain a holistic, multidimensional picture of subsistence in each of the three periods present, and to compare them to each other. As described in Chapter 2, major historical changes occurred on a regional scale between the third and first millennia BCE, and the interaction of these changes with subsistence has just begun to be studied in the Amuq plain, an area known for its intensive agriculture (Yener et al. 2000:163). By gaining a quantitative understanding of how crop abundance changed through time, the interplay between major regional political shifts and subsistence at an urban centre such as Tell Tayinat can be more fully understood. This will lead to a more complete picture of how the political and state-level changes through time impacted agricultural subsistence and production of the people within their sphere of influence. This will also permit the integration of the plant remains reported here into larger, regional-scale studies in the future.

Summary

This chapter has summarized the methods used in the field and the laboratory in order to study the macrobotanical remains recovered from Tell Tayinat. Various critical

literature reviews, descriptive statistics and epigraphic research will be used in order to provide a picture of Tell Tayinat’s subsistence through time in its regional context.

Chapter 4:

Results: Inventory of Identified Taxa

Introduction

This chapter will present a summary of the characteristics and significance, both archaeological and ecological, of the various plant families, genera, and species recovered and identified from the archaeological deposits at Tell Tayinat. They are divided into domesticated, forage/fodder, and non-domesticated plants, and thereafter described by genus, and if possible, species, according to the order presented in The Flora of Turkey (Davis 1965, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1978, 1982, 1984, 1985; Davis et al. 1988; Güner et al . 2000). Where necessary, terminology has been updated (for example, Fabaceae is used, as opposed to Leguminosae). Where the identification is only the level of family, only general characteristics or significance are given, due to the fact that a family-level identification is likely to provide varying, if not contradictory, information.

In total, 11,835 specimens have been examined, with 448 additional specimens of chaff. A total of 54 taxa have been identified to genus or species level from the Tell Tayinat remains to date, representing a total of 27 plant families. Appendices A and B provide the raw data collected for each sample. Table 4.1 provides a summary of these raw data for each time period at Tell Tayinat.

Table 4.1 Summary of raw counts of macroremains by period

TIME PERIOD Early Iron Age I Iron Age III Iron Age TOTAL Bronze Age Field 5 III Temple Cereal grains 690 183 125 40 1038 Cereal chaff 429 13 6 0 448 Fabaceae 319 21 8 14 362 (domesticated) Fruit 157 40 32 1 230 Flax 25 1 1 3 30 Weedy/Wild 5178 936 534 28 6676 Nut 0 0 6 0 6 Unknown 58 12 2 0 72 Unidentifiable 2402 730 253 36 3421 TOTALS (not 8829 1923 961 122 11835 including chaff)

As is evident from this table, the large majority of the plant remains recovered from Tell Tayinat come from the Early Bronze Age deposits (Square G4.55 in Field 1). The sediment volumes for each period are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Sorted sediment volume and number of samples sorted by time period

Time Period Sediment Volume (L) Number of Samples Early Bronze Age 374.2 56 Iron Age I 310.5 48 Iron Age III Field 5 254.75 37 Iron Age III Temple 137 19

The distribution of plant remains throughout the samples was generally even across the three time periods, apart from the unique destruction context of Building XVI, which showed distinct patterning of macroremains, and is discussed separately in Chapter 5.

Inventory of Identified Taxa: Domesticated Plant Species

Linaceae:

Linum usitatissimum L.

English: Linseed, flax Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.1 Linum usitatissimum – G4.28.26.78 3

Evidence for the cultivation of flax in the Near East stretches back over 8,000 years (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975a; Zohary and Hopf 2000:132). Riehl (2009:104) does not consider it a drought-tolerant crop. Its production is less likely in times of drought due to wool being a “more reliable textile resource”.

Flax is easily identifiable by its smooth surface and distinctive shape, including its ‘beak’ (van Zeist and de Roller 1991: 81). Domesticated flax is generally more than 3.5mm long. It has been experimentally proven that flax seeds shrink somewhat when they become charred (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982:206-207). The size of the flax identified at Tell Tayinat implies that it is likely domesticated. A few grains were of a

3 These numbers indicate the provenance of the photographed seed(s). The first two numbers (e.g., G4.28) indicate the sample’s excavation unit (square). The third (e.g., 26) is the locus, and the fourth is the pail number. An explanation of the square numbers can be found in Appendix A.

more diminutive size, and the sample size is quite small, so this conclusion is somewhat tentative.

According to Zeven and de Wet (1982:99), the distinction between the terms linseed and flax is that the former is for varieties used for oil, the latter for fibre. Although flax is used here, we have no way of knowing what purpose the plant was used for at Tell Tayinat. Modern ethnographic research suggests that flax was rarely grown for linen in the coastal areas of southern Turkey, including Hatay (Ertu ğ 2000:176). The crop requires large quantities of water, and should only be grown on the same plot of land once every seven years (Kreuz and Schäfer 2011:334).

A variety of uses are documented ethnographically for the oil. It was used in lamps, to oil wooden-wheeled carts, to soften the hides of water buffalo, and for medicinal purposes (Ertu ğ 2000:171). Any residue from oil pressing was used as animal fodder (Ertu ğ 2000:171). In order to extract oil from flax, as well as olive (see below), crushing or grinding of the seeds (or fruit, for the latter) is required (Charles 1985:51-52). Given that the flax found at Tell Tayinat was mainly intact, and the olive pits were mainly whole, it does not appear that they are the by-products of oil production (although this does not mean that oil production was not taking place).

There are references in epigraphic texts to a product called ŠAMMAŠŠAMMU, an Akkadian word, along with similar Sumerian and Hurrian words. Although this word is connected etymologically to sesame, it would seem that the use of this word preceded the arrival of sesame to the Near East. It is therefore assumed that this word referred to flax first and was later applied to sesame (Ertu ğ 2000:174; Helbaek 1966), though some dispute this (Bedigian 1985). An example in favour of this interpretation is the site of Nimrud, where texts make liberal mention of “sesame” oil, but the archaeobotanical evidence reveals plentiful quantities of linseed with no sesame (Helbaek 1966:618).

One of the problems with deciding this debate is that early finds of linseed are by no means ubiquitous. For example, Tell Tayinat’s Early Bronze Age linseed remains stand in contrast to the north Syrian Euphrates, where it is “conspicuously absent” during the time period (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:273). Carthamus tinctorius (safflower), however, is present in the latter (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:273).

Linseed is present but relatively rare in all time periods at Tell Tayinat. Ubiquity is highest in the Early Bronze Age, at 17%. However, 22 of the 25 Early Bronze Age flax seeds come from a single context (a pit).

Vitaceae:

Vitis vinifera L.

English: Grape Period: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.2 Vitis vinifera (charred – stems and pips) – G4.55.232.388

Figure 4.3 Vitis vinifera (mineralized) – F5.99.38.178

Evidence for wine production precedes evidence for the domestication of the grape. The wild progenitor has been identified as Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris (C. C. Gmelin) Berger (Zohary 1996:24). The earliest evidence for cultivated grapes comes from Chalcolithic (ca. 3700-3200 BCE) sites in the Levant (Zohary 1996:28), however, the earliest evidence for wine is from Neolithic Iran, at approximately 5400-5000 BCE

(McGovern et al . 1996). For Anatolia, it would seem that viticulture and viniculture were “well established” by the third millennium BCE, and wine became integral to Hittite culture in the 2nd millennium BCE (Gorny 1996:171).

Wild grape pips are usually identifiable by their plumpness and short stalk (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975b:228), whereas domesticated grape pips are generally larger and pyriform, with a longer stalk (Jacquat and Martinoli 1999:25-26). Both will have two “narrow, longitudinal grooves” on the ventral side (Helbaek 1961:80). At Tell Tayinat, in all three time periods studied, examples which seem to represent both the wild and domesticated types were identified. In some samples, the presence of grape was determined by the presence of stems rather than by pips, and therefore no distinction can be made.

Although irrigation is rarely mentioned in Hittite texts, it is most frequently cited for fruit orchards (Hoffner 1974:24). It is sometimes mentioned for vineyards (KIRI.GEŠTIN.HÁ), but these are not normally irrigated, and are generally situated on slopes with good drainage (Hoffner 1974:24), so the connection is tentative. Wine (KAŠ – roughly translated as “drink” and also used for beer) is mentioned in Alalakh tablet 325, as a measure of “130 pots of wine from the vineyards of the town of Alime” (Wiseman 1953:94). It is likely that grapes for wine were grown in the foothills at the edge of the Plain, where the requisite slopes are available. This shows Alalakh in the Late Bronze Age likely had trade or tribute relations with towns at least as far away as the edge of the valley. Grapes were harvested in September or October, according to Hittite sources (Hoffner 1974:39). Beer is mentioned more often than wine in the tablets from Alalakh (Wiseman 1953). One of the tablets mentions vineyards being held as surety for a loan (Wiseman 1953:46), implying that there were vineyards close enough to the site to be included in their economic record-keeping.

Fabaceae:

Unfortunately, pulses are commonly underrepresented in archaeobotanical samples taken from mixed fill (Miller 2000:442). Although the following crops were identified, their economic or dietary importance is difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

Cicer arietinum L.

English: Chickpea, garbanzo bean Periods: Early Bronze Age

Figure 4.4 Cicer arietinum – G4.55.232.393

The genus Cicer mainly includes perennial shrubs, but the group that includes the domesticated chickpea consists of annuals (Hancock 2004:195). The wild ancestor of the domesticated chickpea is Cicer reticulatum Ladiz., which grows in southeastern Turkey (Zohary and Hopf 2000:109). Evidence of its domestication traces back to very early Neolithic at sites such as Çayönü (Zohary and Hopf 2000:110) and Tell el-Kerkh (Tanno and Willcox 2006). Although finds of chickpea are less common than other pulses in the Neolithic, it increases in quantity starting in the Early Bronze Age in the Levant (Zohary and Hopf 2000 : 110-111). Chickpeas can be identified by their large, ellipsoid shape and rounded, smooth seed coat (Davis 1970:272; Zohary and Hopf 2000: 108).

Only one chickpea has been found at Tell Tayinat, and it belongs to the Early Bronze Age remains from Field 1. Pulse remains as a whole were not overly frequent at Tell Tayinat. One possible explanation for this may be related to the nature of the excavations themselves (see Chapter 1), in that the excavated areas are part of the upper town, and therefore its inhabitants were perhaps wealthier and more able to afford meat as protein. The most common pulse found was bitter vetch, seemingly used most frequently as animal fodder (Wiseman 1953; see Forage or Fodder Plants, below). The particular scarcity of chickpea may be a result of its preferred growing conditions, as they prefer a slightly cooler and drier climate (van Zeist 1985:35).

The Hittite word for chick pea is GÚ.GAL, which was included in festival menus. It was eaten in one form as a hot soup with bread (Hoffner 1974:97).

Lens culinaris Medik.

English: Lentil Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.5 Lens culinaris – G4.56.154.357

Lentil was one of the first domesticated pulse crops of the Near East (Zohary and Hopf 2000:98). The wild ancestor is likely Lens orientalis (Boiss.) Schmalh, which Zohary and Hopf (2000:98) suggest should be renamed L. culinaris ssp. orientalis .

Lentils can be identified by their round, “flattened or subglobose” (Muehlbauer et al. 1985:278) convexo-convex shape (Helbaek 1961:82). Only size, as opposed to morphology, can distinguish wild from domesticated lentil (Zohary 1972; Zohary and Hopf 2000:94-118). Any lentils from Tell Tayinat assigned to the domesticated form Lens culinaris are at least 3mm in diameter. As an arbitrary division, any seeds between 2.5- 3mm in diameter were assigned to cf. L. culinaris . Many archaeological finds seem to indicate that there are domesticated lentils of this size, and also because, as Tell Tayinat is a city-site, it is unlikely that wild lentil was brought into the city in any quantity. Anything below 2.5mm was assigned to Lens sp., and may represent wild lentil. Overall, few lentils were found at Tell Tayinat, indicating that this crop likely played a minimal role in subsistence at the site.

GÚ.TUR is the Hittite word for lentil, and apart from recipe lists in which lentil is an ingredient, we know few details about its cultivation and harvest (Hoffner 1974:95).

Rosaceae:

Amygdalus communis L. (syn. Prunus amygdalus Batsch.)

English: Almond Period: Iron Age III

Figure 4.6 Amygdalus communis – F5.98.23.81

Almond was likely one of the first domesticated fruit crops, and it shows great variability due to its long history of cultivation (Davis 1972:22). Its wild ancestor is Amygdalus communis ssp. spontanea (Zohary and Hopf 2000:185-186). It appears to have been domesticated by the Early Bronze Age, however, its use by people likely preceded this by several thousand years (Zohary and Hopf 2000:187). The seed (“nut”) of almonds, as well as pistachios, is particularly high in protein (Heiser 1973:181) and fat (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982:245).

In general, there is little early evidence of almond use, and it is difficult to distinguish cultivated from wild examples (Zohary and Hopf 2000:187). Almond is identifiable via its pitted-and-grooved surface and its thick shell walls (van Zeist and de Roller 1991:82). Occasionally, a lateral keel was distinguishable on some of the fragments (van Zeist and de Roller 1991:82-83).

At Tell Tayinat, only a few small pieces of almond endocarp (‘shell’) were found, and they came almost entirely from the floor deposits in Room E in the Courtyard Building in Field 5. A single example was also found in the Midden-Surface deposits to the east of the Courtyard Building (see Chapter 5). Whether the almonds were used for food cannot be determined from their context at Tell Tayinat.

Oleaceae:

Olea europaea L.

English: Olive Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.7 Olea europaea – G4.55.232.389

The genus Olea consists of broad-leaved evergreen trees and shrubs with a drupe fruiting structure (Davis 1978:155), with the ‘pit’ being its endocarp. Olive preserves very well in the archaeological record and is easily recognizable, whether the pits are whole or in fragments, due to the distinctive surface texture and shape.

Olive, along with grape, fig and date, make up the founding plants of horticulture in the Near East (Zohary and Hopf 2000:145). Evidence for olive-oil production in the ancient Near East has been found as early as 4500 BCE at a submerged site offshore from Israel (Galili et al. 1997). It is likely, however, that the production of olive oil preceded the domestication of the olive (Kislev 1994-5). Little is said in Hittite texts about

the cultivation of olives, and we therefore know little about the care of olive groves in antiquity (Hoffner 1974:38). However, we do know that the fruit was harvested between October and December, depending on the local climate (Hoffner 1974:38). Olive oil had many uses in addition to culinary applications. These included being burned in lamps, consumed for medicinal purposes, and rubbed on skin to relieve burns or stings (Hoffner 1974:117)

Although Zohary and Hopf (2000:149) mention that Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age olive remains have “been few so far”, olive has a ubiquity of 95% in the Early Bronze Age at Tell Tayinat. Though numbers of individual pits are not extraordinarily high, the fact that they were found in nearly all Early Bronze Age contexts implies that they were in common use at the time.

Moraceae:

Ficus carica L.

English: Fig Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.8 Ficus carica – G4.55.232.389, G4.55.260.466, and G4.56.165.319

Fig has been under cultivation for many thousands of years, and there are about 800 known modern forms (Davis 1982:644). It is extraordinary in its ability to adapt to, and thrive in, a wide variety of environments (Davis 1982:644). Domesticated fig pips are indistinguishable from those of wild figs, and thereby cultivation cannot be directly inferred from charred remains of this crop (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres1982:245; Zohary and Hopf 2000:164).

Similar to olive and grape, there is little said about the production of fig in Hittite texts (Hoffner 1974:38). However, given the presence of high numbers of seeds per fruit, the few seeds (n=20) found throughout the deposits at Tell Tayinat are negligible. It appears from the current finds that fig played a minimal part in the diet of the inhabitants of the site. GIŠ PÈŠ (fig) was eaten both fresh and sun-dried in antiquity, and was used to make a particular type of fig bread (Hoffner 1974:116).

Poaceae:

Domesticated Poaceae species can closely resemble each other, and charring can lead to significant distortion. Additionally, some of the material from Tell Tayinat is not overly well-preserved. Identifications were made with caution, and many seeds with doubtful affiliation have been assigned a genus-level identification. Many also fell under a more general “Indeterminate Hordeum /Triticum ” category.

Hittite texts discuss the process of harvesting grains in some detail (Hoffner

1974:24-37). The harvest (BURU X) would occur in July or August. Both men and women were involved, but male labourers, mainly responsible for reaping, got paid twice as much as women, who were responsible for milling (Hoffner 1974:29). Although the word for winnowing is uncertain, it is known that the Hittites stored chaff in special chaff storage buildings. Grain was stored in “ARÀH”. The term is usually used in context with the verb “iya-“, which usually means the opening of vessels, sealed objects, or pits. Therefore, it is likely that grain was stored in the ground, perhaps in ceramic vessels sunk into the ground or in pits. Given the quantity of pits found at Tell Tayinat, the latter appears most likely with the current evidence.

The translation of terms for different grains is difficult, as they often appear in lists. Some epigraphic context is necessary in order to determine which grain is being discussed. To this day there is still some uncertainty with regards to Hittite grain terminology (Hoffner 2003:97). Further confusing matters is that the general word for grain, ḫalkiš, is also used to refer to barley. However, there is general agreement that, in addition to ḫalkiš being used for both ‘grain’ and ‘barley’, ‘ ḫattar’ and ‘ZÍZ’ refer to bread wheat, and ‘kun āšu’ refers to emmer (Hoffner 2003:97).

In general, Stefanie Jacomet’s (2006) cereal identification guide has been used in determining identification criteria for the various cereals identified at Tell Tayinat. Specific identification criteria will be summarized for each species.

Triticum dicoccum Schübl.

English: Emmer wheat Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.9 Triticum dicoccum – G4.55.232.393 and G4.55.232.401

Emmer is a tetraploid wheat whose wild ancestor is Triticum dicoccoides Körn. It is one of the oldest domesticated wheats, with evidence going back over 9,000 years at sites such as Aswad (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982). Emmer can be relatively easily distinguished from bread/hard wheat if preservation allows. Emmer has a higher length-to-breadth ratio, as it is generally narrower and longer than free-threshing wheat. The distal end is blunt-rounded, however the proximal end is often more pointed. The grains can be somewhat drop-shaped in dorsal view, or may have more parallel sides. The dorsal ridge is symmetrically rounded in side view, whereas the ventral surface is nearly always flat. Emmer chaff is distinguishable by the rectangular glume-base cross- section, the width of the internode, and the basal angle of the glumes (Jacomet 2006).

Although Hoffner (1974) identifies ZÍZ as bread wheat, Wiseman (1953) translates it as emmer. There is some difficulty in connecting particular cereal terms with the crop that they represent. Consistently, however, we do see both bread wheat and emmer present from the Early Bronze Age through the Iron Age in the Amuq, at both Tell Tayinat and Tell Atchana (Oybak Dönmez pers. comm.; Çizer 2006; Riehl 2010a).

Triticum aestivum L. / durum Desf.

English: Bread/hard (macaroni) wheat Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.10 Triticum aestivum/durum – G4.38.7.16, G4.56.154.357, and G4.56.227.481

Bread and hard wheat ( Triticum aestivum and T. durum ) are two types of free- threshing wheat which grew in popularity in the Near Eastern Bronze and Iron Ages. Hard wheat is tetraploid, and bread wheat is hexaploid. However, they are morphologically indistinct when only their caryopses are taken into account. Chaff remains are required in order to distinguish them to species (Hillman et al . 1996:204; Jacomet 2006). Some of the defining identification criteria are that both ends of the grain are blunt-rounded, the embryo is sunken in to the grain, as though in a cavity, and the maximum height of the grain is in the middle (Jacomet 2006). The length-to-breadth ratio is low, and the grain overall is smooth, without furrows, and with a rounded-to-flat ventral face in side view (Jacomet 2006).

These two free-threshing wheat species are grouped together in this study because the chaff that would allow for the distinction of one versus the other was very rare at Tell Tayinat. This is surprising, given that free-threshing wheat grains were found in relatively substantial quantities. Zohary and Hopf (2000:33) state that rachis fragments are relatively common when flotation systems are used, and emmer wheat and barley rachis fragments are found in somewhat higher quantity. However, only four badly- preserved internodes of free-threshing wheat chaff were identified. Their poor preservation did not permit a species-level identification.

Free-threshing wheat played a role of increasing importance from the Bronze through to the Iron Age in the Near East. Especially in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, free-threshing wheat begins to replace, or play a more significant role than, emmer wheat (Riehl 2009). This is reflected in the data from Tell Tayinat, as well as other sites (see Results, below)

The Hittite term ZÍZ likely represents bread wheat, as it is the only term for wheat used in texts related to breadmaking (Hoffner 1974:68).

Hordeum vulgare L.

English: Barley Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.11 Hordeum vulgare – G4.55.232.389, F5.98.23.81 and G4.55.263.575

Modern domesticated barley derives from the wild ancestor H. spontaneum C. Koch. Both the two-row and six-row varieties are attested archaeologically very early in the Neolithic (Zeven and de Wet 1982:91). Barley grains are generally spindle-shaped both in dorsal and in side view, tapering to the top and bottom of the grain. The rachis fragments are very thin and straight in lateral view, when compared to the wheats (Jacomet 2006).

Although no formal measurements were made, none of the grains found at Tell Tayinat displays any obvious sign of the ‘twisting’ that distinguishes some grains of the six-row variety. Also, although the rachis internodes are frequently poorly preserved,

there was no indication of the features which distinguish the internodes of six-row barley. Several of the grains preserve traces of their hulls, and it is therefore likely that the population of Tell Tayinat was using mainly hulled, two-row barley.

Barley in antiquity was used in part for the production of beer (KAŠ, šeššar) (Hoffner 1974:37). It is mentioned more frequently than wine in the Alalakh texts (Wiseman 1953:93-94), including the payment of the “best beer” to a particular town (Wiseman 1953:94), and in the context of its distribution by the palace. Barley is mainly referred to in texts as fodder for cows and horses, and is generally cheaper than wheat (Hoffner 1974:64-67).

In modern times, barley is mainly used as a fodder food, primarily to feed sheep and goats (Hillman 1985:19).

Inventory of Identified Taxa: Forage or Fodder Plants

This section will examine species that have been found at Tell Tayinat and are potentially identifiable as forage or fodder plants. Forage plants can be defined as plants that are grazed while growing, whereas fodder plants are harvested, with or without the seeds, and fed to animals. Fodder also includes the by-products of pulse harvesting and cereal grain processing (Charles 1985:45).

Fabaceae:

Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.

English: Bitter vetch Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Figure 4.12 Vicia ervilia – G4.55.246.412

Evidence for the cultivation of bitter vetch goes back over 9,000 years (e.g., van Zeist 1972; see also Zohary and Hopf 2000:116). The seeds are bitter and are poisonous to humans and some animals if not soaked or boiled in water prior to consumption (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975b:231; Zohary and Hopf 2000:116). The seeds have a distinct angular shape (Zohary and Hopf 2000:116), with a triangular plane at one end where the radical “stretches from the small oval hilum” (Helbaek 1961:81). The seeds also frequently have shallow depressions on their surfaces (Helbaek 1961:81).

Although this crop was certainly an important part of the agricultural regime of the Amuq Plain, whether or not it was consumed by humans is uncertain. It was likely grown in large measure for consumption by animals. In texts from the Hittite capital Bo ğazköy/Hattuša, bitter vetch is referred to as GÚ.ŠEŠ (Hoffner 1974:99). At Alalakh, it was referred to as kišanu/kiššenu (Wiseman 1953:85). In the former case, we see evidence that bitter vetch was potentially a human food, and was a part of several festivals. In the latter, the texts seem to indicate that bitter vetch was distributed as animal fodder. Helbaek (1961) notes the presence of bitter vetch at the site of Beycesultan amongst “the typical human foods” suggests that it may have therefore been consumed by humans. This was suggested, however, before theories of dung-fuel use (Miller 1984a, 1984b; Miller and Smart 1984) were presented and therefore perhaps alternate interpretations could be made now.

Apart from one ambiguous example (tablet 264), all other Alalakh tablets referencing the use of vetch refer to it as animal fodder (Wiseman 1953; the ambiguous tablet reference can be found on pp. 85-86). Whereas barley (above) is found ethnographically as sheep and goat fodder, bitter vetch is more often fed to cows (Hillman 1985:19).

Bitter vetch was by far the most ubiquitous and the most plentiful pulse crop found at Tell Tayinat. If cf . identifications are included, bitter vetch has an 87% ubiquity in the Bronze Age (78% without). This drops by half in the Iron Age, but is still much more plentiful than any other pulse crop.

Trifolieae:

English: Clover, melilot, trefoils Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

The tribe Trifolieae includes the genera Trifolium , Melilotus , and Medicago . Identifications are mainly to tribe due to generally poor preservation of pulses at the site and difficulty in identifying them to genus or species level.

The various clovers and melilots fare well in irrigated crops, orchards, and waste places (Bischof 1978:146; Robson et al. 1991:146). It has been demonstrated in ethnographic studies that several genera of Trifolieae are used as animal fodder (Ertu ğ 2000:161).

Although present in all three time periods at Tell Tayinat, the Trifolieae remains are most ubiquitous and plentiful from Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I contexts, with less found in the Iron Age III.

Medicago sp. L.

English: Medick, Burclover Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Occasionally, better-preserved seeds from the trefoil tribe were distinguishable as Medicago sp., with a crescent shape and protruding hilum (van Zeist and Bakker-

Heeres 1982:224), or from the remains of their seeds pods. These have been scored as such, separately from Trifolieae.

This genus, which includes alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ), contains many species which, both cultivated and wild, serve as fodder foods for domesticated animals due to their high protein content (Heiser 1973:120). Clovers are can be found growing in crop fields, fallow fields and waste places (Bischof 1978:144; Robson et al . 1991:144).

Inventory of Identified Taxa: Wild and Weedy Plant Species

This section examines the wild and weedy species identified at Tell Tayinat. A weed can be defined as “…any plant which adversely affects the production of a crop, injures livestock or interferes with the maintenance of a lawn or garden” (Edgecombe 1959:5), although it is important to note that there is extensive scientific debate regarding the definition of a weed (Holzner 1982). Weeds can be divided into two main groups, segetals and ruderals, with the former being primarily found in cultivated fields, and the latter in other areas disturbed by humans such as trash deposits, roads, ditches, etc (Edgecombe 1959:6). Some of the most common segetal weeds in Syria and Turkey in modern times were found in the identified taxa at Tell Tayinat. These include amaranth/chenopod, Coronilla , Lolium , Malvaceae, Phalaris , Centaurea , Galium and Bromus (Hamidi 1987, Kurcman 1987).

Ecological information regarding a taxon must be considered as tentative at best if the identification is to genus rather than species. Many species classified here as wild and weedy may also have had practical uses to the ancient inhabitants of Tell Tayinat (Bending and Colledge 2007:585), though this can be difficult, if not impossible, to confirm in the archaeological record.

Ranunculaceae:

Adonis sp. L.

English: Pheasant’s eye Periods: Early Bronze Age

The genus Adonis consists of annual or perennial herbs (Davis 1965:140). The achenes are rounded, with a vein-like surface texture (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975b:252; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982:230). Identifications were aided by comparison to the specimens from the site of Can Hasan III identified by Gordon C. Hillman, which were observed in the collection at the British Institute at Ankara. Members of this genus can generally be found in fields, fallow fields, and disturbed areas (Davis 1965:140-146). It was considered a segetal taxon by van Zeist and de Roller at Çayönü (1991:94).

The few examples of this genus identified at Tell Tayinat all belong to Early Bronze Age remains.

Papaveraceae:

English: Poppy family Periods: Early Bronze Age

The poppy family generally consists of herbs (Davis 1965:213). Two specimens have been assigned to this family from the Early Bronze Age remains, however, their preservation was not sufficient to allow for a more specific identification.

Brassicaceae:

English: The mustard family Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

A very large family and usually found relatively ubiquitously in archaeological deposits in the Near East, the Brassicaceae family it is somewhat poorly represented at Tell Tayinat. Although it has an overall ubiquity of 43%, no context contained more than a few examples from the family. The overall preservation of these specimens is poor, however, it is likely that many belong to the genus Brassica , which includes mostly annual, biennial, or perennial herbs that prefer rocky areas or ruderal environments (Davis 1965:263)

Ethnographically, many different genera and species from this family are used for both human and animal consumption (Ertu ğ 2000:158).

Lepidium sp. L.

English: Cress, pepperweed Periods: Early Bronze Age

This genus from the mustard family includes annual, biennial or perennial herbs found on dry slopes, in waste places and, for a few species, marshy areas (Davis 1965:279-286). A single specimen has been assigned to this genus from the Early Bronze Age.

Caryophyllaceae:

Stellaria sp. L.

English: Chickweed Periods: Early Bronze Age

This small genus, which includes only seven species, consists of annual or perennial herbs. Only two species, Stellaria media and Stellaria cilicica, are found in southern Turkey (Davis 1967:69-72).

Chickweed, particularly common chickweed ( Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), is frequently found in fields and especially in orchards (Robson et al. 1991:40). Although only one example attributable to this genus was found at Tell Tayinat, 10 less well- preserved examples identified as Caryophyllaceae were found in the same context as the single Stellaria example. The sample dates to the Early Bronze Age.

Silene sp. L.

English: Catchfly, campion Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

The Silene genus is large and polymorphic, consisting of more than one hundred species of annual, biennial or perennial herbs (Davis 1967:179-242). Catchfly is common in grain and other cultivated fields (Salisbury 1961:183-184; Edgecombe 1964:56; Robson et al . 1991:36-39). It is identifiable by its wedge-like shape and “warted” surface (Helbaek 1961:80).

Although relatively plentiful in the Early Bronze Age with a ubiquity of 65%, there is only one example found from the Iron Age I and none from the Iron Age III.

Polygonaceae:

Polygonum sp. L.

English: Knotweed Periods: Iron Age I

The knotweed genus includes annual, perennial or suffrutescent herbs or climbing plants (Davis 1967:269). Habitat for the Polygonum genus is varied – some prefer hard-packed ground such as next to paths, whereas others prefer wet areas, such as irrigation ditches (Edgecombe 1964:54). Only one example identified as Polygonum was found at Tell Tayinat.

Rumex sp. L.

English: Dock Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

An annual or perennial herb, dock is a common field weed (van Zeist and de Roller 1993:13), especially of vegetables (Robson et al. 1991:186). It has a very deep taproot system, making it very difficult to eliminate (Salisbury 1961:179). It is also consumed in its own right by both humans and animals (Ertu ğ 2000:165).

Dock was a relatively common find in the Tell Tayinat remains across the three time periods, with a 49% overall ubiquity.

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae:

English: Goosefoot/Amaranth families Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae are able to grow in saline conditions and often spread in the face of increasing salinization (Dimbleby 1978: 147). Various species in these two families are weeds of both cultivated fields and vineyards/orchards (Holm et al. 1977; Robson et al . 1991).

Due to poor preservation, many remains were not identified below a family level for this grouping.

Chenopodium sp. L.

English: Goosefoot Periods: Early Bronze Age

Although most examples from the Goosefoot/Amaranth family group were too poorly preserved to distinguish, a few seeds from the Early Bronze Age have been identified as Chenopodium sp., a family consisting of herbs that, depending on the species, favour a wide variety of environments, from steppe to waste places to salt marshes.

Malvaceae:

English: Mallow Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

Several species in this family of herbs or shrubs can survive in a diverse number of environments, including gardens, fields, steppe, roadsides, and waste places (Edgecombe 1959:70; Davis 1967:401; Bischof 1978:164; Robson et al. 1991:156-160). They are used for a wide range of purposes – as human food, animal fodder, and medicine (Ertu ğ 2000:164).

A few examples of this family were found in both Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I contexts.

Rhamnaceae:

Rhamnus sp. L.

English: Buckthorn Periods: Early Bronze Age

The buckthorn genus includes both trees and shrubs that can be either deciduous or evergreen (Davis 1967:526). A single example of this genus was found at Tell Tayinat.

Fabaceae:

Several poorly-preserved specimens from all three time periods were only identifiable to family. Overall, the legume family was much less well represented in the samples from Tell Tayinat than the grass family (Poaceae, below), both in terms of domesticated and wild/weedy taxa. Apart from those only identifiable to family, many Fabaceae specimens were identifiable to genus or species:

Prosopis cf. farcta (Banks & Sol.) Macbride

English: Prosopis Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Prosopis farcta is the likely candidate for the relatively ubiquitous Prosopis finds from Tell Tayinat, as is the only species of this genus listed in the Flora of Turkey, as well as the Syrian and Lebanese Flora (Davis 1970; Mouterde 1966-1984), Prosopis is thermophilous, indicating a hot and dry summer period (Zohary 1973:31). The species does well in cultivated, especially wheat, fields, as well as in fallow fields along roadsides and in ditches (Bischof 1978:148; Robson et al. 1991:148). Its root system is very deep, and is therefore it is a difficult weed to remove from cultivated land (Miller 2000:445). It is grazed by animals, as its pods are very nutritious, and the plant can also be used as fuel (Miller 2000:445).

Although it is more commonly used as fodder, it is also used by humans and is referred to as “poor woman’s date” (Townsend and Guest 1974:41). It is dried or roasted prior to consumption.

It is worthy of note that although Prosopis was relatively ubiquitous and numerous at Tell Tayinat in the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I, only one example (and one other possible example) came from the Iron Age III.

Astragalus sp. L.

English: Milk vetch Periods: Early Bronze Age

This genus is one of the largest, if not the largest, genus of flowering plants (Angiospermae), with a global total of some 2500 species (Podlech 1986:38). In the Near East, they are a common element of steppe vegetation (van Zeist and Bakker- Heeres 1984b:189; Miller 2000:445), and can be used as a fuel source, as their stalks are woody (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982:234).

All examples of Astragalus found at Tell Tayinat came from the Early Bronze Age. It had a ubiquity of between 74 and 91 percent (depending on whether cf . identifications are included). Why it is not present in the other two periods studied is unknown.

Vicia/Lathyrus

A total of 19 specimens from the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age I were identified as belonging to this grouping. Due in part to the generally poor preservation of Fabaceae at the site and in part to the morphological similarity of the two genera, only a few specimens were distinguishable as one or the other genus.

Vicia sp. L.

English: Vetch Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

The vetch family consists of some 60 species of herbs (Davis 1970:274-325). Species of vetch such as Vicia narbonensis L. are very common weeds of cultivated land (Edgecombe 1964:86; van Zeist and de Roller 1991:85). Ethnography has documented that vetches are frequently used as animal fodder (Ertu ğ 2000:161).

Lathyrus sp. L.

English: Sweet pea/vetchling Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

The Lathyrus genus is very similar to the vetches (above). Only three specimens from Tell Tayinat were identifiable as Lathyrus . Like Vicia , Lathyrus spp. are frequently found as weeds of arable fields (Robson et al. 1991:142).

Lens sp. Medik.

English: Wild lentil Periods: Early Bronze Age

As noted by Zohary and Hopf (2000:101), there is no morphological distinction between wild and domesticated lentils apart from general size. A single lentil was found with a diameter less than 2.5mm and has been scored as wild lentil. It has been included in the weedy/wild plant total. All other lentils recovered from the site are either likely domesticated lentil, as outlined under Domesticated Species, above.

Trigonella sp. L.

English: none Periods: Early Bronze Age

The genus Trigonella, as represented in Turkey, consists of annual herbs (Davis 1970:452). A single example attributed to Trigonella came from the Early Bronze Age.

Coronilla sp. L.

English: Coronilla Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

This genus includes herbs and shrubs that generally prefer limestone slopes or disturbed ground, including gardens and waste places (Edgecombe 1959:60; Davis 1970:538; Bischof 1978:132). Several species, in particular Coronilla scorpioides (scorpion vetch), are common weeds of arable land in the Near East (Hillman 1981a:503).

As with many of the other wild and weedy species, Coronilla finds at Tell Tayinat have a much higher ubiquity in the Early Bronze Age than in the Iron Age, and are absent in the Iron Age III.

Scorpiurus muricatus L.

English: Furrowed caterpillar Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

This species of annual, prostrate herb grows on cultivated land and in fallow fields (Bischof 1978:164). S. muricatus is the only species of this genus present in the Turkish, Syrian and Lebanese flora (Davis 1970; Mouterde 1966-84). Davis (1970:548) lists this species as mainly found on slopes and in fallow fields at low (less than 800m) elevations.

Onobrychis sp. Adans.

English: Sainfoin Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

This genus of some 50 species of annual or perennial herbs (Davis 1970:560- 589) is not well-represented archaeologically. Remains have been found at sites such as Selenkahiye and Hadidi on the Euphrates (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985). One species, Onobrychis tournefortii , has been ethnographically noted as used for animal fodder (Ertu ğ 2000:161). It tends to be present on non-agricultural land such as meadows and slopes (Davis 1970:586). Only one definite and one possible example of this genus come from Iron Age I contexts at Tell Tayinat, otherwise they are all found in the Early Bronze Age.

Apiaceae:

English: Parsley family Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age III

The Apiaceae or parsley family of annual or perennial herbs (Davis 1972:265), though a large and widespread family, is often under-represented in the macrobotanical assemblages of archaeological sites (van Zeist et al . 1984:217). It is therefore unsurprising that this family is found only in small numbers at Tell Tayinat. Whether this is a factor of taphonomy or actual presence is not certain.

Only a single example, from the Early Bronze Age, has been attributed to Apiaceae at the family level. Two specimens, also from the Early Bronze Age, have been designated as ?Apiaceae. Apart from these three, there are over a dozen contexts containing a type which has been designated as “ cf. Apiaceae-type”, which appears to

be from the parsley family, but for which no modern parallel was found (see Unidentified Types, below). Almost all of the examples of this type are Early Bronze Age in date.

Ethnographic data from central Turkey indicates that various members of this family are used as food, animal fodder, and medicine (Ertu ğ 2000:156).

Bupleurum sp. L.

English: Hare’s ear Periods: Early Bronze Age

According to Davis (1972:393-418), most species of Bupleurum are found in wild contexts, and only secondarily as segetal or ruderal weeds. Various species of Bupleurum have been found, however, in fields, vineyards and waste land in the Near East (Edgecombe 1959:78; Davis 1972:408, 414). Nine specimens from Tell Tayinat all came from the Early Bronze Age contexts.

Valerianaceae:

Valerianella coronata-type (L.) DC.

English: Cornsalat Periods: Early Bronze Age

Valerianella coronata is an annual herb that can be found on rocky slopes, in open woodlands, in fields and along roadsides (Davis 1972:576).

A total of three examples of this type were found in G4.55. They were identified from drawings published in van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985:260), matching both the morphological form and the relatively unique “finely granular surface” that they indicate for the type. van Zeist and Bakker Heeres (1985) also mention that the genus today seems to grow mainly in fields and other natural habitats.

Valerianella dentata -type (L.) Poll.

English: Cornsalat Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

This annual herb (Davis 1972:580), whose common name is ‘corn salad’, is a common weed of cultivated areas (Edgecombe 1964:176). Specimens were identified from drawings published in van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1984a:162).

Dipsacaceae:

Cephalaria syriaca L.

English: Syrian scabious, Syrian cephalaria Periods: Iron Age III

This species, though mainly a weed of wheat fields and waste places (Bischof 1978:92), is occasionally cultivated in central Anatolia for its oil (Zeven and de Wet 1982:89). It was found archaeologically as a weed in samples from Tell Ilbol, where Hillman’s (1981a:503-505) conversations with local farmers reveal that the seeds cause a bitter taste in bread if they are not removed (this is also mentioned by Bischof 1978:92). Their size matches the size of the wheat grains closely, so that they, along with weeds such as Agrostemma githago and Lolium temulentum (which are poisonous), must be hand-picked from already-sifted grain (Hillman 1981::505). At Tell Ilbol, the Cephalaria syriaca was a weed within a grain deposit consisting almost entirely of emmer.

Only one example was found at Tell Tayinat, which may support van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres’ (1985:254) assertion that this species was not yet as invasive and troublesome a weed in antiquity as it is in modern times.

Asteraceae:

English: Aster family Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

The aster family is very large and includes annual, biennial or perennial herbs or shrubs. Most of the Asteraceae identified from Tell Tayinat were not preserved well enough to allow for genus- or species-level identification.

Centaurea sp. L.

English: Murrar, thistle

Periods: Early Bronze Age

The genus Centaurea is one of the largest genera in the aster family, with over 170 species, and a heavy distribution in southern Turkey and northwest Syria (Davis 1975:465-583; Wagenitz 1986:12). Their means of distribution and number of flowers per capitulum vary enormously across the genus (Wagenitz 1986:19). Taxonomically, the issue of separating the various specimens into species is complicated due to vast numbers of intermediate and hybrid specimens (Davis 1975:465-466).

Centaurea is widespread as a weed of crops and occurs in ruderal environments such as roadsides (Robson et al. 1991:52).

Cichorium sp. L.

English: Chicory, endive Periods: Early Bronze Age

A single specimen has been identified as likely a part of the herbaceous genus cf. Cichorium sp.

Two species of this small genus are cultivated for their leaves. Whether edible species of this genus were eaten in antiquity is unknown. Members of this genus can often be found growing in cultivated fields or in disturbed areas (Davis 1975:626-629).

Picris sp. L.

English: none Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

The genus Picris includes annual, biennial or perennial herbs, and is most often found in areas without human interference, such as rocky slopes (Davis 1975:678-684).

Only three specimens of Picris have been identified from Tell Tayinat. Two date to the Early Bronze Age, and one dates to the Iron Age I.

Boraginaceae:

English: Borage family

Periods: Early Bronze Age

Various species in this herb family are found in cereal and pulse fields, orchards, and along roadsides (Davis 1978:237-437; Robson 1991:32-35). Its ethnographic uses are mainly as animal fodder and medicine (Ertu ğ 2000:158). Only two specimens were identified from Tell Tayinat, and both were mineralized.

Scrophulariaceae:

English: Figwort family Periods: Early Bronze Age

This family consists of herbs or subshrubs, and is very large and diverse (Davis 1978:458-784). Only one tentative identification was made of cf. Scrophulariaceae.

Lamiaceae:

English: Mint family Periods: Iron Age I

The large Lamiaceae family consists of herbs and shrubs (Davis 1982:36-463). Although other sites have found greater numbers of this family found, it is very poorly represented in the collection from Tell Tayinat. Only two specimens were identified, dating to the Iron Age I.

Thymelaeaceae:

Thymelaea sp. Miller

English: none Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

This genus of annual herbs prefers dry environments, such as rocky slopes, dry fields, and dry stream beds (Davis 1982:527-531). Several species also have a preference for being located near the sea (Davis 1982:527-528).

Although relatively ubiquitous in the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age I, only a single specimen came from Iron Age III deposits.

Euphorbiaceae:

English: Spurge family Periods: Early Bronze Age

This family consists of herbs or shrubs (Davis 1982:566). One specimen has been identified as belonging to this family, and two have been tentatively assigned to it as well.

Rubiaceae:

Galium sp. L.

English: Bedstraw Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

This large genus of subshrubs, annual and perennial herbs consists of over 100 species in Turkey today (Davis 1982:767-849). It is a very common weed of cultivated fields (Edgecombe 1959:102; Robson et al. 1991:198-200), particularly wheats (Salisbury 1961:167). Galium was by far the most common genus of Rubiaceae recovered from Tell Tayinat.

Galium seeds are nearly spherical, with a large opening leading into a mainly hollow interior space, and can vary widely in diameter (Helbaek 1961:82).

Sherardia arvensis L.

English: Field madder Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

Field madder, a prostrate annual herb (Salisbury 1961:183), is a monotypic genus (Davis 1982:724). It is a common field weed (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1984:164). It was found in small numbers in the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I.

Asperula sp. L.

English: none Periods: Early Bronze Age

This genus includes low shrubs, perennial or annual herbs, and consists of approximately 40 species within Turkey (Davis 1982:734-767).

Unlike Galium , Asperula is found only in the Early Bronze Age, but in relatively significant numbers and ubiquity (47%).

Cyperaceae:

Although a few specimens were only identifiable to family (examples exist from all three time periods), most Cyperaceae finds were attributable to a particular genus.

Cyperus sp. L.

English: Sedge (many types) Periods: Iron Age I

The annuals or perennials in this genus can be found in shallow water or marshy areas (Davis 1985:34-40). Only one example attributed to Cyperus was found in the Tell Tayinat remains.

Eleocharis sp. R. Br.

English: Spikerush Period: Iron Age I?, Iron Age III

Eleocharis is a genus of annuals or perennials with approximately seven species in Turkey (Davis 1985:48-53). Like other members of the Cyperaceae family, Eleocharis prefers shallow water or marshy environments (Davis 1985:48-53). A single specimen attributed to Eleocharis was recovered from Field 5 (Iron Age III). A second specimen only tentatively identified with the genus came from the Iron Age I.

Scirpus cf. maritimus L.

English: Club-rush Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Club-rush (which appears as Bolboschoenus maritimus in the Flora of Turkey) is a perennial, usually with tuber growth (Davis 1985:62). It can be found in a variety of wet

environments, such as marshes, water meadows, alluvial flats, irrigation ditches and the like (Davis 1985:63).

Club-rush is common to fields and waste places (Edgecombe 1964:40). The most common species identified archaeologically is Scirpus maritimus , which is smaller than its European counterpart and can be found in either saline or fresh water (van Zeist and de Roller 1991:85). Club-rush is cited by van Zeist et al . (1984:220) as a plant which could be used for thatching or bedding. Marsh vegetation could also have been grazed by animals, and therefore club-rush seeds could have entered the archaeological record of the site through the burning of dung as fuel (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982:239). Marsh plants such as club-rush are sometimes regarded as indicators of irrigation (van Zeist 1999:370), as they are often weeds of irrigated crops and found at the edges of irrigation ditches (Deckers and Riehl 2007:488-489).

At Tell Tayinat, club-rush was by far the most common genus of Cyperaceae identified, with 30% ubiquity overall and very little variability in ubiquity across the three time periods.

Carex sp. L., cf. Carex sp . L.

English: Sedge Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

This genus includes grass-like perennials (Davis 1985:73). Carex is the largest genus of Cyperaceae in Turkey, with over 60 species (Davis 1985:73-157). A single specimen was attributed to Carex , and was recovered from an Iron Age I context.

The grouping “ cf. Carex sp.” is a type for which the closest modern analog observed appears to be Carex , but for which no exact match was found. Most examples in this grouping come from the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age I, with only a single example from the Iron Age III.

Figure 4.13 cf. Carex sp. – G4.56.196.386

Poaceae:

Aegilops sp. L.

English: Goatgrass Periods: Early Bronze Age

Species of Aegilops , or goatgrass, are variously described as weeds of both cultivated and fallow land (Zeven and de Wet 1982:89-90). Although relatively common at other archaeological sites (e.g., van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:255; Miller 1997:109; Charles and Bogaard 2001:302-303), it appears that, much like Lolium temulentum , goatgrass was not present to any significant degree at Tell Tayinat. Only one specimen has been identified as Aegilops , with two tentatively assigned as cf. Aegilops .

Triticum sp. L. (wild)

English: Wild wheat Periods: Early Bronze Age

Wild wheat is a genus of annuals. The various uncultivated species can be found in disturbed areas such as overgrazed grassland and roadsides (Davis 1985:245-254).

One specimen of Triticum sp. identified at Tell Tayinat was very diminutive in size and has been distinguished here from domesticated-sized specimens. That it might represent tail-grain or simply a small example of a domesticated caryopsis is a possibility.

Hordeum sp. L. (wild)

English: Wild barley Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

Wild barley, such as Hordeum murinum L., is common to fields, roadsides, and waste places (Edgecombe 1964:24; Davis 1985:262-268; Robson et al. 1991:120). Various species of wild barley are also used as animal fodder (Ertu ğ 2000:165).

The species designation of the Hordeum found at Tell Tayinat is not certain, however, it does not appear to have the characteristic features of Hordeum spontaneum C. Koch. It was found in greater quantities than wild wheat, with an overall ubiquity of 17%.

Bromus sp. L.

English: Brome grass Period: Early Bronze Age

This genus consists of both annuals and perennials, however, it is the annuals which are frequent ruderals as well as weeds of cultivated fields (Davis 1985:273). This grass provides forage in the early spring (Edgecombe 1964:16). It is also an occasional weed of a wide variety of crops (Robson et al. 1991:110). The most common species of this weed in the region today are Bromus tectorum and B. sterilis (Robson et al. 1991:110-113). The former is documented ethnographically as useful for animal fodder (Ertu ğ 2000:164).

All examples of brome grass from Tell Tayinat come from the Early Bronze Age. Although it has a ubiquity of 30%, only rarely did a single context have more than one or two caryopses of the grass.

Avena sp. L. (wild )

English: Wild oat Periods: Early Bronze Age

Wild oat species are annuals (Davis 1985:302). Species such as Avena sterilis L. are abundant in the Near East, and are found in fields, vineyards, roadsides and waste

places (Edgecombe 1964:26). Although the author has observed it growing abundantly on the site of Tell Tayinat today, only two specimens have been tentatively assigned to cf. Avena sp. from the ancient botanical remains.

Phalaris sp. L.

English: Canary grass Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

The Phalaris genus of annuals or perennials has eight species in Turkey. Almost all are frequently found in areas disturbed by humans, such as roadsides, fields, and gardens (Davis 1985:366-370; van Zeist and de Roller 1993:13). Two species ( P. arundinacea and P. aquatica ) have a preference for wet places such as damp soils or the edges of fresh-water lakes or streams (Davis 1985:367-369). The various species of canary grass which grow in the Near East are commonly found in fields and roadsides (Bischof 1978:118), and some make desirable forage for animals (Edgecombe 1964:32). They can also tolerate saline soils (Robson et al. 1991:126), and are more common in areas which are moist, such as irrigated fields (Deckers and Riehl 2007:488).

Along with Lolium , canary grass is one of the most ubiquitous genera at Tell Tayinat, identified in 81% of samples overall.

Phleum sp. L.

English: Catstail, timothy-grass Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I

This genus of grasses can be found in very diverse environments, from forests and meadows to cultivated land and roadsides (Davis 1985:388-397). Only a few examples were identified at Tell Tayinat.

Lolium sp. L.

English: Rye grass Periods: Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age III

This genus consists of six species in Turkey, of which Lolium perenne L. and Lolium rigidum Gaudin are present in either Adana or Hatay provinces (Davis 1985:445-

451). Two ( Lolium perenne L. and Lolium multiflorum Lam.) are used as fodder and are commonly cultivated, whereas Lolium temulentum L. (darnel) is noxious (Davis 1985 – see below). All are common field weeds in their respective localities (Davis 1985; van Zeist and de Roller 1993:13). L. remotum is a serious weed of irrigated fields, as well as rainfed cereals, pulses, vineyards, and orchards (Robson et al. 1991:124).

Most of the Lolium sp. remains recovered from Tell Tayinat likely belong to the non-L. temulentum , smaller species of the genus (Nesbitt 2006:15), as almost all of them are less than 4.5mm in length. Lolium has a 100% ubiquity in the Early Bronze Age, and an overall ubiquity of 83%, making it the most common genus identified at Tell Tayinat. Other nearby sites, such as Kinet Höyük and Tell Atchana (Hynd 1997:45; Riehl 2010) also had high quantities of rye grass.

Lolium temulentum-type L.

English: Darnel Periods: Early Bronze Age?

One specimen at Tell Tayinat has been tentatively identified as darnel. Although Lolium , as mentioned above, is present in nearly every sample, they are demonstrably of the smaller varieties of Lolium . Lolium perenne or L. remotum is present without a substantial quantity of darnel at many other sites, such as Tell Qarqur (Smith 2005:Appendix B-2), whereas other sites show the presence of both darnel and smaller Lolium varieties, such as Tell Selenkahiye (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:272). Tell Atchana had no L. temulentum (Riehl 2010a), though Kinet Höyük, which is very close to the Amuq, had relatively substantial amounts of L. temulentum in the Iron Age (Hynd 1997:45).

Inventory of Macroremains: Unidentified Types

?Solanaceae-type

Figure 4.14 ?Solanaceae-type – G4.55.232.389, G4.56.167.393

Three specimens dating from the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age I have been attributed to this tentative category. Although the seed shape and size are relatively consistent with other examples of Solanaceae studied in the SFU collection as well as at the British Institute at Ankara, there was no definite match found. cf . Apiaceae-type

Figure 4.15 cf. Apiaceae-type – G4.55.271.496, G4.55.279.497

This type, mentioned above, was the largest type that failed to achieve at least a family-level identification. The seeds show a strong morphological resemblance to observed members of the Apiaceae family, such as Bupleurum . A total of 25 specimens belong to this group, with 21 coming from the Early Bronze Age, and four coming from Field 5 in Iron Age III contexts.

Summary

This chapter has presented an inventory of the domesticated, fodder, and wild/weedy plants identified from Tell Tayinat. The Latin and English names, time periods, and ecological and ethnobotanical information for each taxon has been provided to the fullest extent possible. Most taxa include a brief discussion of the distribution of the plant across the three time periods. A total of 11835 specimens, along with 448 pieces of chaff, were examined across the three time periods (Table 4.1).

Chapter 5:

Results and Analysis

Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis completed on the macro-botanical samples excavated from Tell Tayinat. Collector’s curves for each time period are presented and information relating to the flotation and analysis of two topsoil samples are discussed. Descriptive statistics, including densities, ratios, percent distributions and ubiquities are used to demonstrate trends through time in the plant macro-remains recovered from Tell Tayinat, in order to address the goals set out in Chapter 3.

Results

Sampling to Redundancy

Collector’s curves, or the graphical presentation of the sampling to redundancy method, have been used to ensure that a representative sample has been studied for each of the time periods under investigation. These data are illustrated in Figures 5.1- 5.3. The samples were tallied in random order to ensure that no false plateaus were created in the data (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2005).

The plateaus seen in each figure indicate that redundancy has been reached for each grouping, as no additional species were found. Once this plateau is seen, it is unlikely that any species found will significantly alter the interpretation of the richness or diversity of a sample (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2005:178).

Miller (1996a:249) points out that if a collection curve does not level off quickly, it is likely that new species are more likely to appear than if a quick plateau is reached.

Considering that none of the Tell Tayinat curves levelled off particularly quickly, it is likely that further investigation would yield new taxa. However, the fact that plateaus were achieved would suggest that whatever species were added would not be of a significant quantity or ubiquity, at least within the scope of the present analysis.

The Early Bronze Age had the greatest variety of taxa, and the Iron Age III the least. The temple, which belongs to the Iron Age III, is not included here, but will be discussed separately below. Its collector’s curve is haphazard due to the limited number of samples taken from within the temple, as well as the patterning of the seeds that were identified within the samples.

Figure 5.1 Early Bronze Age collection curve

10 Number of NumberIdentified Taxa

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 NISP

Figure 5.2 Iron Age I collection curve

40 35 30 25 20 15 Number of Numbertaxa 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Number of identified seeds

Figure 5.3 Iron Age III collection curve

10 Number of NumberTaxa

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Number of Identified Specimens

Sampling Topsoil

Two samples of topsoil, FS (flotation sample) numbers 2009-001 and 2009-143, were analyzed in order to provide qualitative and quantitative comparison to the flotation

samples from the archaeological deposits, as recommended by Lennstrom and Hastorf (1995:702). Sample 2009-143 was taken from Field 2 and sample 2009-001 from Field 5 (both revealed Iron Age III deposits). No topsoil was excavated in Field 1 (Iron Age I and Early Bronze Age) during the 2008 and 2009 seasons (see Figure 5.4, below, for Field distribution).

Figure 5.4 Fields of excavation at Tell Tayinat

NOTE: The West Central Area indicates the area of the Oriental Institute of Chicago’s excavations in the 1930s. The Fields are the areas of excavation of the Tayinat Archaeological Project. The light-grey angular area to the north, east and southeast of the Tell is the area of the Lower Town, now covered in alluvium. The legend indicates densities of potsherds found in surface survey, which mirror the contours of the lower town visible in the satellite image. (Courtesy of S. Batiuk – also used in Ch. 1, included here for reference)

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the entirety of Tell Tayinat used to be plowed and farmed. Therefore, a disturbed layer of topsoil of varying thickness is distributed across

the entire site. Structures such as walls have been discovered just below the topsoil layer in some areas, indicating that plowing disturbed the uppermost preserved archaeological remains.

The topsoil light fractions were mainly composed of modern root and plant debris, including many uncharred seeds, particularly of the Amaranthaceae and/or Chenopodiaceae families. A few uncharred sedges (Cyperaceae) and asters (Asteraceae) were also present. The only charred remains were two poorly-preserved grass caryopses (Poaceae), two possible Asteraceae, one olive pit ( Olea europaea L.), and a few unidentifiable seed fragments. There was very little charcoal (see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Summary of topsoil sample information

Sample number 2009-001 2009-143 Field (Period) 5 (IR III) 2 (IR III) Volume (L) 10.00 11.75 Light Fraction weight (g) 7.77 13.05 1.4mm screen (g) 3.60 10.87 Charcoal from 1.4mm screen (g) 0.07 0.01

Olea europaea 1 0 Poaceae 2 0 cf. Asteraceae 2 0 Unidentifiable seeds 7 0 TOTAL SEEDS 12 0

These results seem to show a certain degree of penetration of modern, uncharred seeds and roots into the uppermost site deposits. This is expected, as the surface of the Tell tends to crack during the dry season. However, there is a general lack of charred remains in the topsoil, despite the fact that the entire surface of the tell burned due to an accidental fire at the beginning of the 2008 season. This suggests that the fire in 2008 was hot and brief enough that it produced mainly ash, not charred seeds, from the plants it consumed. It would appear that the charred seeds found in the archaeological deposits below this topsoil layer can be interpreted as ancient in origin.

Any uncharred seeds found in the archaeological samples from below the topsoil have not been considered in this analysis, as they are more than likely modern intrusions. For tables of all macrobotanical remains included in this analysis, see Appendices B and C.

The Early Bronze Age

The Early Bronze Age (3300-2200 BCE) had the most plant remains in overall quantity. It also had the most diverse assemblage of taxa and the highest number of domesticated species of the three time periods studied. In total, 56 samples were sorted from Early Bronze Age contexts in square G4.55 in Field 1 (see Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Types of samples analyzed from the Early Bronze Age Sample type Number of samples Cultural fill 32 Pit features* 11 Vessel contents 11 Wall tumble 1 Kiln? 1 TOTAL 56

*Note: The term ‘pit features’ is used throughout the Results and Discussion, however, these features may have been used as silos, storage bins, refuse pits, or some combination of the three throughout their use-lives in antiquity.

The samples from the Early Bronze Age date to two Field Phases (7 and 8, with 8 being chronologically earlier). FP (Field Phase) 7 consists of extensive post- occupational pitting activity, possibly dating to after the abandonment or destruction of the Early Bronze Age settlement (Welton et al. 2011:154). FP8 includes the remains of two rooms within a large, well-preserved building (Figure 5.5) that appears to have been destroyed fairly rapidly, as opposed to having been “exposed for a long period after abandonment” (Welton et al. 2011:154-155).

Both the pits and the room fill yielded very high quantities of macrobotanical remains per litre of soil. Some material culture, including chipped and ground stone,

recovered from one of the rooms is likely related to domestic activities (Welton et al. 2011:160).

Although the contents of vessels were floated separately, charred remains recovered from them are still often of mixed origin and reserve should be used in reaching conclusions related to these seeds and their final contexts (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:247). They are studied briefly, below, and the patterning of the remains recovered from vessel contents pattern very similarly to remains recovered from the Early Bronze Age as a whole.

Figure 5.5 Field 1 Top Plan (2009 season)

G4.55 G4.56

NOTE: The FP 7 pit features in G4.55 are mostly not present on this top plan, as they were mainly excavated in 2008. Their contours are visible in places, showing how the pitting activity disturbed the FP8 remains below them. (Top plan courtesy of S. Batiuk )

The Iron Age I

The Iron Age I (1200-950 BCE) at Tell Tayinat is represented overwhelmingly by pit features in Field 1 (Square G4.56; see Figure 5.5, Table 5.3). Thirty of the 48 samples sorted from the Iron Age I come from pit features. Two of the pits were of special interest because they contained several dozen unpierced, unbaked clay loom weights (a comparison of the different types of pits is undertaken below). This potential focus on textile production may indicate that the Iron Age I contexts excavated thus far are of a more industrial nature than the Early Bronze Age remains.

Table 5.3 Types of samples analyzed from the Iron Age I Sample type Number of samples Cultural fill 10 Pit features 30 Beaten earth/potsherd surface 4 Possible textile installation 3 Post hole 1

The Iron Age III: Field 5

A total of 32 samples were sorted from an Iron Age III (738-550 BCE) structure in Field 5 (squares F5.98, F5.99 and G5.08). Throughout the Results and Analysis, it will be referred to as the Courtyard Building. The material culture recovered from this building indicates that it may have had an administrative function in antiquity.

Nearly all samples taken from the Courtyard Building came from surface contexts, including an area which may have been an outdoor courtyard (Room E – see below). One sample came from within a pottery vessel that had had its top cut off in antiquity, as though to make it function as a basin of some sort. The one sample analyzed from this context had only a few weed seeds and little charcoal.

The building rooms were assigned letters A-E (Figure 5.6). Samples were sorted from each room excavated in the Courtyard Building (Table 5.4).

Figure 5.6

F5.98 F5.99 Area of Room Room Midden- Room B C A Surface loci

Room D Room G5.08 E

(courtesy of S. Batiuk)

Table 5.4 Field 5 Sample Distribution

Location in Field 5 Number of Litres of sediment Samples Sorted analyzed (L) Room A 9 33.00 Room B 2 7.75 Room C 3 18.75 Room D 5 52.50 Room E 9 68.00 Doorway area between 3 12.25 Rooms A&E ‘Basin’ in Room D 1 14.50 TOTAL 32 206.75

A total of five additional Iron Age III samples were sorted from several loci outside the Courtyard Building (see the red circle on Figure 5.6). These layers were dense deposits of bone, potsherds, and other material culture and were termed Midden- Surfaces by the excavator. Their purpose is unclear, but they may have been fill used to level the ground for the construction of the Courtyard Building. Recovering standard soil samples from these features was nearly impossible, as the bone, pottery and material culture were so dense that there was very little soil. The findings from these loci are discussed separately below.

The Iron Age III Temple (Building XVI)

In total, 19 samples were sorted from Building XVI’s interior contexts and front porch (Figure 5.15). The total number of identifiable seeds is only 86 (with 36 unidentifiable seeds). Sixty of the seeds (41 identifiable and 19 unidentifiable) came from a single sample. The results from Building XVI are discussed separately, below, due to the style of preservation of the building, as well as the observed patterning of the archaeobotanical remains.

Analysis

The Tell Tayinat plant remains have been studied mainly by time period. One of the reasons that individual loci are not studied separately is that most of the recovered remains are not in unambiguous, rigidly definable contexts (Hubbard and Clapham 1992:118). Tell Tayinat has yet to yield archaeological deposits, such as catastrophic destruction of plant stores, representing discernible events (apart from Building XVI). Many of the samples, as mentioned above, are from pits and room fill, which may have accumulated from various sources over prolonged periods of time. These types of samples, called “Class C” samples by Hubbard and Clapham (1992:119), are those whose contexts are relatively clear, but for which the origins of the macrobotanical remains are uncertain and likely mixed. Although these samples came from pit fill or room fill, the seeds may come from many sources, such as hearth sweepings, cooking activities, accidental burning, or accumulation after abandonment.

100

Three more specific context types have been identified and studied separately. Early Bronze Age and Iron Age pit features, along with the two loomweight pits, are compared to each other. The contents of various ceramic vessels from the Early Bronze Age and the samples from the Midden-Surfaces (Iron Age III) are also examined in order to determine if they differ substantially from the fill surrounding them.

The findings from Tell Tayinat are compared throughout the analysis and discussion to other temporally related sites. Sites for comparison have been taken from western and northern Syria and southern Turkey. A list of the sites, their locations, and published archaeobotanical sources can be found in Appendix D. Many of the sites are marked on the maps published by Riehl (2009:99).

The sites used for comparison can be grouped into two main categories. The first consists of sites from western Syria and coastal southern Turkey, including sites that are more environmentally and climatically similar to Tell Tayinat. The second group is composed of sites excavated along the Euphrates River in north-central Syria and southern Turkey. Sites from the Khabur and Balikh systems farther east have not generally been considered, as the number of sites used for comparison from marginal steppe areas would be disproportionate if they were included. Riehl (2009) discusses the fact that there are palaeoclimatically-influenced archaeobotanical differences between the southern Levant and the north Syrian/northern Mesopotamia areas, and therefore sites from the former area have not been used for comparisons.

As will be seen below, the findings from Tell Tayinat stand in contrast to the results published for many of the sites on the Euphrates River, which are located in the Irano-Turanian environmental zone. This region receives less rainfall and has more steppe vegetation than is present at Tell Tayinat, which falls within the Mediterranean zone (Zohary 1973:81-90, Map 5 opposite p.340).

Density of Seeds through Time

The density of archaeobotanical remains for each time period can serve as a proxy for intensity of occupation (Miller 1988:75). Two different density ratios have been chosen. A high number of seeds per litre of soil floated can indicate a higher intensity of site occupation, and a low number of seeds per gram of charcoal can be indicative of

101

increased use of wood fuel (Pearsall 1983:129-130; Miller 1988:75; Miller 2004). These results are presented in Table 5.5, Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8.

Table 5.5 Density calculations by time period

Time Period Seeds per Total Total soil Total Seeds gram of seeds* analyzed (L) charcoal (g) Per Litre charcoal Early Bronze 8829 374.2 42.29 23.59 208.77 Age Iron Age I 1923 310.5 24.77 6.19 77.63 Iron Age III: 961 254.75 39.84 3.77 24.12 Field 5 Iron Age III: 122 137 17.81 0.89 6.85 Temple MEAN: 8.61 79.11 * includes identified, unknown, and unidentifiable seeds, but not chaff

Figure 5.7 Seeds per litre of excavated soil by time period

Seeds/L 10

0 Early Bronze Iron Age I Iron Age III: Iron Age III: Age Field 5 Temple

102

Figure 5.8 Seeds per gram of charcoal by time period. Charcoal was weighed from materials captured by the 1.4mm screen.

250

200

150

100

50 Seeds perSeedsgram of charcoal 0 Early Bronze Iron Age I Iron Age III: Iron Age III: Age Field 5 Temple

As is clearly visible by the results, the density measurements show a decrease through time, with values being especially high in the Early Bronze Age. This richness of the Early Bronze Age is not a function of quantity of light fraction sorted, but rather shows a return of seeds per litre of soil floated more than twice that of all three other groups of samples combined. This may indicate that the site was occupied more intensively during the Early Bronze Age, or that wood fuel use increased through time at the site.

When several of the larger categories of domesticated species are graphed in the same way (Figure 5.9), the observed pattern is the same. The Early Bronze Age remains may represent more domestic refuse, as the material culture associated with the two excavated rooms includes grinders, Canaanean blades, fish bones, and pottery (Welton et al. 2011:165). The Iron Age III Courtyard Building, on the other hand, may have served a business or public function (Harrison 2010:8-9).

103

Figure 5.9 Decrease in seeds/charcoal (g) through time

18 16 14 12 Cereal grains 10 8 Fabaceae 6 (domesticated) 4 Fruit 2 Number of Numberseeds/charcoal (g) 0 Early Iron Age I Iron Age III Bronze Age

Relative Use of Cereals Through Time

Tell Tayinat is, and was in antiquity, surrounded by ample, rich farmland. Today, the Amuq Plain is one of the largest and most productive areas of arable land in the region (Yener et al. 2000:163). However, evidence of cereal processing is relatively sparse at Tell Tayinat. In particular, little was found in the way of chaff remains.

In order to achieve a better idea of the changing agricultural economy of Tell Tayinat through time, the ratio of wild and weedy seeds to charcoal has been calculated (Table 5.6). This measurement can be a potential indicator of relative dependence on farming versus pastoralism, with a higher value indicating greater pastoralism and the grazing of animals on uncultivated land (Miller 2000:446).

Table 5.6 Ratios of wild/weedy plant seeds vs. charcoal

Period Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Iron Age III ‘Courtyard House’ Total wild/weedy 5178 936 534 seeds (#) Total charcoal (g) 42.29 24.77 39.84 Wild/charcoal (#/g) 122.44 37.79 13.40

104

From the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age III, the ratio of wild/weedy seeds to charcoal decreases, indicating a potential increase in farming dependency from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age III, and/or a potential decrease in pastoral activities. The amount of charcoal present can also be influenced by the proportionate use of non- wood fuel sources, such as dung (Miller 1984; Miller and Smart 1984; see Wild/Weedy Species, below).

In order to show changes in the overall composition of the cereal assemblage through time, a graph showing percent representation through time of the various cereal components has been presented in Figure 5.10.

Figure 5.10 Percent Representation of Cereals through time at Tell Tayinat

100%

90%

80%

70% Barley (grain) Barley (chaff) 60% Emmer (grain)

50% Emmer (chaff) Free -threshing wheat (grain) 40% Free-threshing wheat (chaff) Indet. Wheat (grain) 30% Indet. Wheat (chaff) 20%

10%

0% Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Iron Age III

There is a relative increase in the percent representation of free-threshing wheat through time at Tell Tayinat. There is also an increase in both emmer and barley moving

105

from the Bronze Age to Iron Age I, which could be a reflection of a period of decreased moisture availability, as both crops have good drought tolerance (Riehl and Bryson 2007:530; Riehl 2009:98).

Although the Amuq Plain receives 600-800mm of rain per year (Zohary 1973:Map 5), which is much higher than other areas further inland (Zohary 1973:87-91), there was a mild drying episode across northern Mesopotamia at approximately 1200 BCE (Riehl 2009:96) which may have led to more conservative agricultural decisions in the early Iron Age. Emel Oybak Dönmez (pers. comm.) confirms that there was a dominance of drought-tolerant species in Late Bronze II Tell Atchana, including barley, emmer, and bitter vetch, perhaps indicating that this pattern may have existed prior to the end of the Late Bronze Age. These results stand in contrast to Riehl’s (2010a:128) Late Bronze Age results from Tell Atchana, where she finds a pattern of remains indicative of “very good” moisture conditions. Further study will hopefully clarify why these contradictory conclusions have been found in the Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana remains.

Although barley and emmer increase in the early Iron Age relative to other periods at Tell Tayinat, when other sites in the region are considered the overall proportions of cereal crops at Tell Tayinat are quite unique. The higher precipitation at Tell Tayinat may have permitted a larger quantity of wheat relative to barley to be grown than in many other places in the Near East. Wheat (hulled and free-threshing) has a higher percent representation in all three time periods than barley, which is not the case at other sites, including in the Balikh and Khabur river basins (van Zeist 1999:361; Colledge 2001a; Wilkinson 2004:166-167), and at western Syrian sites such as Tell Mishrife (Peña-Chocarro and Rottoli 2007:127). The latter was occupied in the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Despite its geographical proximity to Tell Tayinat, it is in a more marginal 200-400mm isohyet, and has barley and emmer in the palace, but only a single grain of free-threshing wheat.

Barley occurs in almost all cases as the most ubiquitous, and in the highest proportions, of any crop species in Bronze Age period sites (Riehl 2009:100). In the Upper Euphrates area, this is due to the “marginal nature of the lowland soils of the area”, along with the use of barley as fodder (Schlee 1995:31). This is not the case in

106

western Syria, however, given the larger quantities of wheat at Tell Tayinat, Tell Atchana, and Tell Qarqur (Riehl 2009:132; Smith 2005:206). Just slightly farther inland, at Tell Afis, barley is once more the most prominent crop (Wachter-Sarkady 1998:458). Tell Nebi Mend is a unique site, in that its dominant crops were emmer and einkorn (Moffett 1989). Table 5.7 lists Bronze and Iron Age sites which have barley as the primary or dominant cereal crop (sources for each site, and their locations, can found in Appendix D).

Table 5.7 Early Bronze Age and Iron Age sites with barley as the dominant crop

SITE TIME PERIOD Emar Bronze Age Gre Virike Early Bronze Age Tell Hadidi Bronze Age Jerablus Tahtani Early/Middle Bronze Age Kilise Tepe Middle/Late Bronze Age, Iron Age Kinet Höyük Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age Mezraa Höyük Early/Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age Tell Afis Bronze and Iron Ages Tell es-Sweyhat Early Bronze Age Tell Jouweif Middle Bronze Age Tell Mishrifeh Bronze Age Tell Munbaqa Bronze Age Tell Qaramel Early Bronze Age? Tell Qara Q ūzāq-I Bronze Age Tell Selenkahiye Bronze Age Titris Höyük Early Bronze Age Umm el-Marra Bronze Age Yarim Höyük Bronze Age NOTE: There are very few studied Iron Age sites when compared to the quantity of Bronze Age sites. This imbalance has been noted by several researchers as a disparity in need of correction (e.g., Riehl 2009:97)

107

Overall, there is a low quantity of cereal chaff at Tell Tayinat when compared to the results at other sites, such as Tell Brak (Colledge 2003) and Tell Mozan (Deckers and Riehl 2007:489). At Brak, many categories of chaff remains had ubiquities over 60%, whereas at Tell Tayinat the overall quantities are much lower in the Iron Age (less than 20%; see Figure 5.11), especially for free-threshing wheat (less than 15% in all three time periods). Although the ubiquities are somewhat higher in the Early Bronze Age at Tell Tayinat, the number of chaff fragments per sample was minimal.

Hillman (1984b) mentions that chaff fragments are dense enough to survive charring without being turned to ash. This fact, along with substantial and widespread archaeological finds of chaff remains at other sites, indicates that the overall paucity of chaff remains at Tell Tayinat is likely due to human actions and choices as opposed to taphonomic considerations. It is possible that the processing of grain took place away from the main settlement, or in the unexcavated lower town.

The highest proportion of chaff occurs in the Early Bronze Age (Figures 5.10, 5.11), supporting the suggestion made earlier that the Early Bronze Age remains represent more domestic refuse than the Iron Age I or III remains.

In terms of sites both temporally and geographically proximal to Tell Tayinat, its neighbor Tell Atchana shows a similar pattern of chaff remains in the Late Bronze Age, with 1.2% of the total remains being chaff, and only a very few examples free-threshing wheat (Riehl 2010a:127-128). ‘Ain Dara, another site not far to the northeast, had very minimal chaff, and this came from what can be interpreted as their lower town (Crawford 1999:35), whereas the low number of chaff in Tell Mishrife’s palace was considered a result of fewer by-products being produced in a palace setting (Riehl 2007:147). Therefore, it is uncertain whether finds of chaff remains at Tell Tayinat would increase if the lower town were excavated, or whether substantial chaff would be found at towns surrounding the main site.

108

Figure 5.11 Ubiquity of chaff remains by time period

50 Barley 40 Free-Threshing Wheat 30 Ubiquity (%) Emmer wheat 20 Wheat (indet)

0 Early Bronze Iron Age I Iron Age III Age

The very low proportion of chaff at sites covering the Chalcolithic through to the Iron Age in the Amuq Plain (Kinet Höyük, Tell Tayinat, and Tell Atchana) indicates a pattern through time. These larger sites are not producing significant cereal processing debris in their macrobotanical remains (Çizer 2006; Riehl 2010a). It is likely that the site hierarchy mentioned in Chapter 1 (Braidwood 1937; Wiseman 1953; Magness-Gardiner 1994; Yener et al. 2000) played a role in processed grain reaching larger settlements, thereby explaining the lack of chaff.

Hillman (1981b:142-143) states that the lack of processing debris can be a sign that a site is a ‘consumer’ as opposed to a ‘producer’ site, implying that the grain is processed elsewhere and then brought to the site. However, given the limited amount of domestic architecture uncovered thus far, more excavation is needed before any such conclusions can be made regarding Tell Tayinat, especially for the Iron Age III.

Ubiquity

When the ubiquities of the various cereals are considered, a trend emerges which is present in all categories of plant macroremains analyzed from Tell Tayinat. Ubiquities of all of the most common taxa are highest in the Early Bronze Age, apart from Scirpus (all three time periods have nearly equal ubiquity for club rush, but the Iron Age I is highest). Most of the more ubiquitous taxa have their lowest ubiquity in the Iron

109

Age III (see Figure 5.12, Figure 5.13, Table 5.8), with very few exceptions. The exceptions include Vitis vinifera, Galium, Asteraceae , Centaurea and Medicago, which have slightly lower ubiquities in the Iron Age I than the Iron Age III.

Figure 5.12 Ubiquity of cereals by period

100 90 80 70 60 Emmer 50 Free -threshing wheat 40 Wheat (indet) Ubiquity (%) 30 Barley 20 10 0 Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Iron Age III

This pattern in ubiquity, as discussed above, may have to do with the overall quantity of domestic refuse included in the fill from each time period.

Non-Cereal Domesticates

The non-cereal crops identified at Tell Tayinat are olive, grape, flax, fig, lentil, and chickpea (bitter vetch is discussed in the fodder section, below). These species are expected within the general Near Eastern Bronze and Iron Age crop spectrum. Flax, lentil, fig, and chickpea were found in such small quantities that it is unlikely that they played any substantial role in local diet and/or economy, at least within the context of the areas currently excavated at the site.

Olive and grape were not dietary staples, but played a relatively important social function in antiquity (Hamilakis 1999:44-45). Their respective products (oil and wine) were generally products for the elite, though they might have been shared with the majority of the population on special occasions, adding an element of elite generosity (Hamilakis 1999:43-45). Both crops are higher-risk, labor-intensive, delayed-return,

110

market-economy crops (Hamilakis 1999:43-45), and their production is liable to suffer in times of climatic stress or political upheaval. The relative ubiquity of these two crops is again indicative of the less marginal climate of the Amuq Plain. Other inland sites, such as Tell Brak, Tell Hadidi, Tell Munbaqa and Umm el-Marra (Colledge 2003:403; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985; Küster 1989; Miller 2000), had minimal recovery of the two species. Even ‘Ain Dara, only slightly east of Tell Tayinat, had no olive remains (Crawford 1999). Other nearby sites with a Mediterranean climate similar to Tell Tayinat, such as Kilise Tepe, had “consistent” quantities of olive and grape throughout Middle and Late Bronze Age deposits (Bending and Colledge 2007:594).

Figure 5.13 shows the ubiquities of the olive and grape specimens recovered for the three time periods. The grape remains include pips, stems, and two charred whole fruits. The olive remains are ‘pits’ (endocarps). The reason the ubiquities have been included is to point out that the olive ubiquities are an exception to the general trend of decreasing ubiquity through time, as discussed above, and have their lowest ubiquity in the Iron Age I.

The Iron Age I followed a period of extreme social upheaval and disruption, including in the area surrounding Tell Tayinat (Yener et al. 2000:189). The political fragmentation that occurred may have led to fewer trips to the hills surrounding the Plain, which today are used in many areas for olive production, and likely were so in antiquity as well. The remains from Tell Atchana in the Late Bronze Age correspond well to Tell Tayinat’s Iron Age I remains, with olive having a very low ubiquity (Riehl 2010a:127). ‘Ain Dara (Crawford 1999), as mentioned below, and Tell Qarqur (Smith 2005:197) had no olive at all in their Iron Age remains.

111

Figure 5.13 Ubiquity of grape and olive remains by period

100 90 80 70 60 50 Grape 40 Olive 30 20 10 0 Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Iron Age III

The olive pits recovered from Tell Tayinat do not show signs of having been crushed for oil production. Most are either complete or complete halves. This has been shown through experimental archaeology as the likely result of consumption of the olives as table olives, preserved by salt (Margaritis and Jones 2008:385). Most broken olive pits were modern breaks during the course of excavation or transport back from the site (the latter often in the case of olive pits that were recovered by hand-picking – see Appendix C).

Although the grape pips from Tell Tayinat tend towards ‘wild’ as opposed to ‘domesticated’ morphology, evidence from Jordan seems to indicate that archaic domesticated grape forms can often have pips which appear to be morphologically ‘wild’ (Jacquat and Martinoli 1999). Many of the grape pips were also incomplete or distorted. It is unlikely, therefore, that the remains from Tell Tayinat can be firmly placed in one of these categories.

The grape ubiquities follow the same pattern as most ubiquities at the site, with the lowest ubiquity in the Iron Age III (Figure 5.13). ‘Ain Dara also had substantial quantities of grape remains in site deposits, and Crawford (1999:114) associates their preservation with numerous potential activities, such as the feeding of immature fruit or refuse from wine-making to animalsand the subsequent burning of the animal dung as fuel, humans consuming the fruit, and seeds being put in a hearth or fire after

112

consumption of the fruits. The presence at ‘Ain Dara of both mineralized and charred grape pips, stems, and both immature and mature pips is mirrored by the Tell Tayinat remains, which may have also entered the archaeobotanical record as a result of variety of activities.

The low quantity of pulse crops such as lentil, grass pea, pea, or chickpea is notable at Tell Tayinat as well as Tell Atchana (Riehl 2010a). Riehl and Bryson (2007:535) list lentil as the “main pulse crop in the Near East throughout the Early and Middle Bronze Age”. Although it was the most common pulse crop (apart from bitter vetch) found at Tell Tayinat, its ubiquity only reaches a maximum of 21%, with no more than one or two specimens generally found in any sample. It was only present in small numbers at Tell Atchana in the Late Bronze Age as well (Riehl 2010a). At the western Syrian site of Tell Afis, although no pulse crop was found in large amounts, lentil was the most common (Wachter-Sarkady 1998:459), similar to Tell Tayinat.

Unlike Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana, Tell Tayinat has flax in all three studied time periods, albeit in very small quantities. In the region of Tell Tayinat, Tell Qarqur to the south also has flax in the Iron Age (Smith 2005:197).

Fig appears to have been quite rare in the Bronze and Iron Age in western Syria. Three large tell sites (Tell Tayinat, Tell Atchana, and Tell Qarqur) have only negligible numbers of fig seeds, a fact that Riehl (2010a) finds surprising.

Fodder Plants and Fabaceae

Although bitter vetch has been included here as a fodder plant, it can be difficult to distinguish between crops meant for human versus animal consumption. Other plants included as fodder are medick and the Trifolieae tribe.

Points made by researchers such as Jones (1998) regarding difficulties in the archaeobotanical distinction of fodder versus food crops are valid, however, the categorization of bitter vetch as a fodder crop is made here based on epigraphic evidence from Tell Atchana. Many of the tablets described ration distributions, and bitter vetch is referred to on many occasions as food for animals (Wiseman 1953). Although barley may have also been used for animal consumption, it is often described as a ration

113

for labourers in the Atchana tablets, and is therefore included under cereals (above). The idea that bitter vetch was consumed by humans should not be dismissed, however. At Tell es-Sweyhat on the Orontes, south of Tell Tayinat, a kitchen was found which had been charred and buried, leading to excellent preservation of context. From this kitchen, several thousand specimens of bitter vetch were recovered, seemingly in association with pottery vessels (Smith 2005:184).

The ubiquities of bitter vetch, the Trifolieae tribe and medick at Tell Tayinat show the same trend of decreasing ubiquity through time discussed for cereals. Bitter vetch is by far the most numerous legume crop found at Tell Tayinat, unlike ‘Ain Dara, which had no bitter vetch in its Iron Age deposits (Crawford 1999). Tell Atchana had bitter vetch in the Late Bronze Age, but with a ubiquity of 11% - the following Iron Age I at Tell Tayinat showed a ubiquity of 35%.

As was noted in Chapter 4, members of the legume family (Fabaceae) tend to have poorer archaeological preservation than members of other families, such as the grass family (Poaceae). One reason for this is that pulses are often boiled or crushed in preparation, whereas cereals are often toasted, and therefore more likely to come into contact with fire. While taking this caveat into account, Tell Tayinat still has very little in the way of Fabaceae when compared to other sites, both domesticated (as discussed above) and fodder/weedy/wild.

Wild/Weedy Species

As noted in Chapter 4, many of the identifications of wild and weedy species are to the genus level. Therefore, only general comments can be made regarding their ecological provenance or their role in the fields, pastures and unmanaged land surrounding Tell Tayinat in antiquity. Modern segetal taxa likely differed considerably from those in antiquity as well (van Zeist 1993), so any direct association with modern ecology is tentative.

As has been noted elsewhere (e.g., van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:286), the greatest variety and number of weedy and wild plants recovered from archaeological deposits is generally found in cultural fill samples. As many of the samples from the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age I are cultural fill, it is not surprising that they have

114

higher ubiquities of weed and wild seeds than the Iron Age III samples. The Iron Age III remains mainly came from the administrative Courtyard Building and Building XVI.

The most ubiquitous types of wild and weedy plants for the three time periods are summarized in Table 5.8 (not including samples from Building XVI). Types which are very commonly found in archaeological samples from more marginal environments, such as the grasses Eremopyrum and Aegilops (Miller 2000:443; Oybak Dönmez 2006), are almost entirely or totally absent at Tell Tayinat and at Tell Atchana (Cizer 2006; Riehl 2010a). These species are much more common at sites on the Khabur or Euphrates rivers, such as Tell Brak, Selenkahiye, and Tell Hadidi (Colledge 2003; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985; van Zeist 1993).

Table 5.8 Highest overall wild/weedy plant ubiquities Taxon English name Ubiquity (%)

Poaceae* Grass family 97 Lolium* Rye grass 84 Phalaris* Canary grass 83 Trifolieae n/a 71 Rumex* Dock 51 Brassicaceae* Mustard family 44 Galium* Bedstraw 43 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae Goosefoot/Amaranth families 38 Thymelaea (none) 35 Fabaceae* Bean family 33 Coronilla* (none) 33 Prosopis* (none) 32 Scirpus Club-rush 30 Astragalus* † Milk vetch 29 Silene* Catchfly, campion 27

* Identified as field weeds by van Zeist (1993) † All examples of this genus came from the Early Bronze Age

115

By far the most ubiquitous weed seeds at Tell Tayinat are Poaceae, Lolium (ryegrass), and Phalaris (canary-grass). It is likely that many of the caryopses identified as Poaceae are in fact rye-grass, as the overall size and shape were similar, but poor preservation made identification to genus impossible. The total numbers for these three taxa make up 63% of all weedy and wild specimens identified.

van Zeist’s (1993) comparison of pre-Neolithic (non-agricultural) Mureybit and the farming settlement at Selenkahiye reveals some evidence for these nearly ubiquitous species being field weeds. Both rye-grass and canary grass, along with members of the Trifolieae tribe, Coronilla , and Prosopis are rare or missing at the Palaeolithic site of Mureybit, whereas at Bronze- and Iron Age Selenkahiye all five taxa have relatively high ubiquities. Because both Mureybit and Selenkahiye are within the same general environmental situation, the weedy seeds found only at Selenkahiye, which also have high ubiquities at Tell Tayinat, are probably segetal taxa associated with agricultural production.

According to Hillman (1984a:131-133), small weeds such as rye grass and canary grass would likely be included in his “fine cleanings” category within the process of cleaning cereals after harvesting. However, the chaff which should also be present alongside these weeds is missing. These small seeds are generally used as animal fodder after being removed from the grain (Hillman 1984a). The various larger weed seeds which must be hand-sorted out of grain, including Agrostemma, Lolium temulentum , and Cephalaria syriaca (Hillman 1984a:134), were almost entirely absent at Tell Tayinat.

Miller (1984a, 1984b, Miller and Smart 1984) has studied the likelihood that many seeds, especially weed seeds, were incorporated into the archaeological record due to the use of animal dung as fuel. Miller’s (1984a:73) findings included many species seen at Tell Tayinat, such as Centaurea, Lolium, Astragalus, Galium, Carex, Phalaris, Rumex, Medicago, and cf. Trifolium . The only species present in larger quantities in her samples that is nearly absent at Tell Tayinat is goatgrass. This genus’ association with “dry, unirrigated land” (Miller 1984a:73) explains this discrepancy between the two sites. Despite the fact that no charred dung fragments were recovered from Tell Tayinat’s light fractions, the very low quantities of charcoal per volume of soil at the site overall (see

116

Table 5.9), along with the similarity in weed presence between the two studies, suggest that many of the weeds recovered at Tell Tayinat did come from this type of human action.

Table 5.9 Charcoal density through time

Period Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Iron Age III Field 5 Total charcoal (g) 42.29 24.77 39.84 Total soil analyzed 374.20 310.50 254.75 (L) Charcoal (g)/L 0.11 0.08 0.16

A Contextual Comparison: Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I Pits

The only features with sufficient numbers of samples to allow for comparison across plural time periods at Tell Tayinat are pits. Many domestic refuse pits in Field 1 (Early Bronze Age, Iron Age I) have been excavated and intensively sampled. These pits are each given two locus numbers during excavation. They are assigned an installation locus number, for the digging of the pit, and a soil locus number, for the fill. This allows for the documentation of various characteristics of the pit itself, such as lining and shape, as well as the characteristics of the fill it contains, such as density and inclusions. The pits are referred to here by their soil locus numbers.

There are three groups of pits available for comparison which are listed in Table 5.10. The ‘Loomweight Pits’ are two unique Iron Age I pits. They were found to contain dozens of unbaked, unpierced clay loom weights. As mentioned in Chapter 2, these loom weights are reminiscent of Mycenaean cultural influences, and are present in very early Iron Age levels at Tell Tayinat (Janeway 2006/7). The fact that so many loom weights were kept in these pits indicates that they may have had a special purpose, and therefore they have been grouped separately.

117

Table 5.10 Loci of pit features from the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I

TIME PERIOD Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Loomweight Pits LOCI 209 154 167 232 165 196 246 177 250 199 203 216 Total Pit Features: 4 6 2 Total volume of 60.25 90 102.75 samples (L)

Domesticates have significantly higher concentrations per litre in the Early Bronze Age pits than in those from either the Iron Age I or the Loomweight Pits (Table 5.11), and the higher concentration of macrobotanical remains is also seen for the Early Bronze Age when the weedy and wild species are considered (see table 5.12, below). Figure 5.14, however, shows that the proportion of different categories of plant remains is more consistent than density. The loom weight pits show the lowest overall domesticated remains of the three time periods, indicating they were likely filled with less domestic refuse than the other two groups of pits. The concentration of both weedy/wild and domesticated remains (per litre of soil floated) seems to indicate that more domestic refuse was disposed of in the Early Bronze Age pits than in the other two groups.

Table 5.11 Number of domesticated seeds per litre of floated soil: Pits

Pit Grouping Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Loomweight pits Domesticated seeds (#) 433 87 47 Volume of soil (L) 60.25 90 102.75 Number of domesticated 7.19 0.97 0.46 seeds per litre

118

Table 5.12 Numbers of the most common weeds by pit grouping

Taxon Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Loomweight Pits Poaceae 415 56 110 Lolium 228 30 73 Phalaris 211 22 27 Rumex 24 9 10 Brassicaceae 2 8 3 Galium 48 2 1 Chenopodiaceae/ 50 0 2 Amaranthaceae Thymelaea 11 1 1 Fabaceae 4 3 1 Coronilla 19 1 5 Prosopis 7 2 1 Scirpus 9 5 7 Astragalus 10 0 0 Trifolieae 27 0 2

Figure 5.14 Proportions of plant remains in pit groupings

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Weedy/wild

50% Other domesticates

40% Pulses Cereals 30%

20%

10%

0% Early Bronze Age Iron Age I Loomweight Pits

119

Midden-Surface Contexts

Five samples were sorted from a total of four loci in Square F5.99 (Field 5, Iron Age III). They were located to the east of, and may have been levelling fill for the construction of, the Courtyard Building. They produced tens of thousands of potsherds, thousands of pieces of bone (1231 bones and bone fragments were recovered from the heavy fractions alone), and many fragments of bone and stone objects.

The palaeobotanical macroremains are unremarkable when compared to elsewhere on the site. Both wheat and barley are represented by a few caryopses, and common weeds such as Lolium and Phalaris are present in moderate quantities. Almond shell was recovered from one sample (TT09-132), but it was also recovered from several samples taken from Room E in the Courtyard Building.

Vessel contents

Vessel contents were collected separately by square supervisors when possible, including when vessels were partially broken. These samples were analyzed separately in order to determine if their contents are different when compared to the plant remains from the Early Bronze Age as a whole.

Figure 5.15 shows the results of this analysis for the four types of cereal remains examined above. As is evident from the side-by-side comparison, the proportions of cereal remains do not show substantial differences between the samples recovered from vessels and those recovered from the other contexts, such as pits and room fill. That the Early Bronze Age contexts are similar to each other but not similar to the Iron Age I remains, as in the case of the pit feature analysis, opens up the question of whether the differences between the two groups of pits may in fact be differences between the two time periods as a whole.

120

Figure 5.15 Comparison of Early Bronze Age vessel contents vs. overall

100% Barley (grain) 90%

80% Barley (chaff)

70% Emmer (grain) 60% Emmer (chaff) 50%

40% Free-threshing wheat (grain) 30% Free -threshing wheat (chaff) 20% Indet. Wheat (grain) 10%

0% Indet. Wheat (chaff) Early Bronze Age - total Early Bronze Age - vessels

A single heavy fraction from a very small vessel is sufficiently unique to merit mention here (no comparable heavy fractions were sorted 2005-2010), although its light fraction was not sorted for this study. The heavy fraction from FS 2009-203 contained several tablespoonfuls of what appeared to be small (less than 5mm) pieces of quartz or a similar crystalline mineral with a slight pinkish hue. This does not appear to be by chance, and it is likely that the small jar, for some reason, contained this crystalline rock.

Building XVI

Building XVI was first discovered in 2007, and was excavated through 2009. The temple was nearly discovered in the 1930s Braidwood excavations; photos show that they came within approximately one metre of the steps to the temple during a sounding (Haines 1971:Plate 74B).

Figure 5.16 shows a top plan of the temple. Its entrance faces south. It has a mudbrick-paved porch with a round column-base in the centre, a plaster-floored first

121

room, and an inner room with a mudbrick platform. It was destroyed in a conflagration in the late 7 th century BCE (Harrison and Osborne 2012). The walls and floors were burned, and many of the objects from on and around the platform in the interior room showed damage from extreme heat. The collapse of the structure which occurred due to this event effectively sealed the interior context, therefore the macrobotanical remains found likely reflect the state of the temple immediately prior to destruction (Harrison and Osborne 2012).

Overall, 18 of the 19 samples sorted from inside the temple, when taken together, had the lowest seeds-per-volume ratio of any of the studied contexts in this thesis, at 0.75 seeds/litre. The 19th sample contained 41 identifiable seeds and 19 unidentifiable seeds. Despite the low density of seeds, they showed specific patterning (see Table 5.13), indicating clusters of particular types of crops. Ten of the 19 samples contained two or fewer seeds, indicating that the majority of the floor of the temple was clean at the time of its destruction. The fact that so many samples contained few or no seeds indicates that the locations of the various clusters are not random.

Two samples taken in the entranceway yielded a total of 13 bitter vetch seeds. From the back of the first room, nearly between the pillars leading to the inner room, came a total of 39 cereal grains. Most were recognizable as free-threshing wheat. Also in the sample were six grains of ryegrass and one of canary grass, likely weed contaminants.

From the interior room, one fig seed came from the platform, and three flax seeds were found to the west of the platform, on the beaten-earth surface that surrounded it.

122

Figure 5.16 Plan of Building XVI

(Top plan by J. Osborne, in Harrison and Osborne 2012)

123

Table 5.13 Macrobotanical summary of Building XVI

Other Unknown/ Total LOCATION Sample Vol (L) Cereals domesticates Weedy/wild Unidentifiable seeds TT08-041 7.75 - - 3 4 7 Porch TT08-071 7 - 1 - 4 5 Entranceway TT08-167 4.25 - 12 1 - 13 TT08-042 7.75 - - 2 1 3 TT08-044 4.5 34 - 7 19 60 TT08-054 1 - - - - 0 First room TT08-055 4 4 - 3 2 9 TT08-060 4.5 - - 1 1 2 TT08-063 5.25 - - - - 0 TT08-070 3.25 1 - 2 1 4 TT09-175 10.5 - 1 3 1 5 Doorway to inner room TT09-188 12.75 - - 1 - 1 TT09-200 10.25 - - - - 0 TT09-127 9 - - - - 0 TT09-133 2 - 1 - - 1 TT09-142 11 - - - - 0 Inner room TT09-162 10.25 - - - 2 2 TT09-191 10 - - 1 - 1 TT09-192 12 1 3 4 1 9 TOTALS 137 40 18 28 36 122

The free-threshing wheat and the bitter vetch may have been spilled, perhaps as they were removed prior to the conflagration. It would appear that this first room, unless it was ordinarily kept empty, must have been emptied prior to the destruction, as it contained very little material culture.

The interior room, in sharp contrast, contained objects of bronze and iron (including an iron shield), a collection of tablets, and several ceramic vessels, indicating that this room was not cleared of its contents prior to the temple’s destruction. The presence of flax in the interior room is interesting, as it is the only flax from the Iron Age III apart from a single example from Field 5.

124

Summary

Chapter 5 has addressed both the second and third objectives presented in Chapter 1:

- Investigation of context-related variation in macro-botanical remains across the site; and - Determination of whether or not there are significant changes in crop proportions through time at Tell Tayinat

Although the majority of the macroremains studied thus far from Tell Tayinat come from Early Bronze Age contexts, the findings presented here indicate that the domestic contexts of the Early Bronze Age samples may be responsible for the much higher proportion of plant remains, particularly food species, found per litre of soil floated. The analysis of pit features shows that, although the number of seeds per litre was much higher in the Early Bronze Age, the overall proportions of types of seeds varied little across the three groupings. The loomweight pits had by far the lowest number of seeds and the lowest number of domesticates, perhaps indicating that this grouping of pits had the lowest quantity of domestic refuse. The analysis of vessel contents seems to indicate that the proportions of various types of seeds don’t differ substantially from the overall Early Bronze Age assemblage, suggesting that vessel contents may be mixed with the surrounding fill.

The study of crop plants shows that Tell Tayinat has a very high proportion of wheat in all three time periods when compared to other Bronze and Iron Age Near Eastern sites, which mainly have barley as the predominant crop. It also has very low quantities of chaff in all three time periods. The highest density of cereal remains is found in the Early Bronze Age, contributing to the conclusion that the Early Bronze Age contexts may reflect more domestic refuse than later time periods.

125

Chapter 6:

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Introduction

This chapter will provide a discussion of the analysis in the previous chapter, and will situate the findings from Tell Tayinat within their regional context. Concluding statements will suggest future directions of research at both a local and regional level.

Discussion

The currently visible site of Tell Tayinat, as described in Chapter 1, is only part of the original settlement. The entire lower town remains unexcavated at present. It is difficult to access archaeologically due to the accumulation of several meters of alluvium from the historical flooding of the Orontes River, as well as modern use of the agricultural fields that overlie it today.

During the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I, it is likely that the settlement was confined to the mound area. However, during the Iron Age II/III, the area under analysis herein can be described as an upper town or citadel, with the expansion of the site out to include the lower mound (see figure 1.4). It is likely that the crop, weedy, and wild species identified here represent the choices, actions, and immediate environment of a city-dwelling elite during the later Iron Age, rather than pastoralists or farmers. This interpretation is supported by the lack of chaff remains in the later Iron Age, indicating that early stage crop processing likely did not take place in the areas that have been excavated thus far. This is consistent with finds from other sites, such as the palace at Tell Mishrifeh, where the paucity of chaff remains supports “the idea of primarily crop products in the palace in contrast to crop-processing products” (Riehl 2007:147).

126

Research Objectives

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, there were three broad objectives of this research:

1. To determine which plant taxa were present at Tell Tayinat in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and the potential cultural significance of the various taxa; 2. To identify crop plants, weeds, and other types of plants and investigate context-related variation in macro-botanical remains over the site; and 3. To determine whether or not there are significant changes in crop proportions through time.

Objective 1

To determine which plant taxa were present at Tell Tayinat in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and the potential cultural significance of the various taxa

A total of 54 taxa were identified in the samples studied thus far from Tell Tayinat, which belonged to 27 different botanical families, not including tentative ( cf., ‘?’) identifications.

None of these taxa is unexpected, and all are represented at other, temporally related Near Eastern archaeological sites, though the comparative evidence for the Iron Age is relatively minimal. A lack of steppic weeds (Miller 2004; Oybak Dönmez 2006) is expected, as they would have been less dominant in the Mediterranean climate of the Amuq Plain. The taxa found at Tell Tayinat show a close similarity to other western Syrian sites, especially Tell Atchana, in terms of dominant weed types such as ryegrass and canary grass (Riehl 2010a).

Several seed categories remain as unidentified types. The three most numerous unknown types are described and photographed in Chapter 4. Despite the use of the reference collections at Simon Fraser University and the British Institute at Ankara, and despite having checked drawings and photographs from other archaeological sites in the Near East from the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages (Bertsch 1941; Cappers et al. 2006; Davis 1965-1988, Güner et al. 2000, Gunn 1970; Harlan 1992:61-100; Holm et al. 1977;

127

Martin and Barkley 1961; Musil 1978; Nesbitt 2006; Robson et al. 1991; van Zeist 1976; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1984a, 1985; van Zeist et al. 1984; others), no definite identifications could be proposed for these types.

The overall proportion of unknown remains, when compared to those which were identified, is very small, and the remains which have been identified are an accurate reflection of the overall plant spectrum recovered thus far from Tell Tayinat.

Objective 2

To identify crop plants, weeds, and other types of plants, and investigate context- related variation in macro-botanical remains over the site.

The most noticeable pattern identified in the crops, weeds and wild species presented in Chapters 4 and 5 is the differential quantities of macroremains per volume preserved for the three time periods, as the ubiquities of the three time periods pattern nearly identically, regardless of plant type, from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age III. The Early Bronze Age has the most abundant plant remains per volume of any of the contexts studied thus far. The floors of the Courtyard Building in Field 5 were seemingly dark and ashy at the time of excavation, leading to a presumption that they would be archaeobotanically rich. However, the remains from Field 5 show the fewest seeds per volume of any area studied thus far, apart from Building XVI.

The relatively large quantities of plant remains found in the Early Bronze Age cultural fill and pits may be the result of prolonged use and build-up of deposits over time, as well as the density of settlement on the mound during that time period. The Field 5 Courtyard Building may have been used over a shorter period of time, or kept much cleaner. Some of the finds from the Courtyard Building, such as bullae, have led to a potential interpretation that it had a political, business or public function, as opposed to a private function, and may therefore have not been used for domestic tasks such as cooking and food storage. These factors may combine to explain why plant remains were less dense in this area of the site, and why pits were nearly absent.

The comparison of pit features from the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I highlights the fact that similar contexts may yield differing results. The Early Bronze Age pits show dense macrobotanical remains, likely the result of domestic refuse disposal.

128

Although the proportions of the various categories of plant remains are not dramatically different between the three groups of pits, it is clear that less domestic refuse was disposed of in both of the groups of Iron Age I pits, as the plant remains were found in much lower quantities per volume. The loom weight pits clearly had a special purpose during their use-life, but the reason for the differences between the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I non-loom weight pits is less certain. Increased excavation of more varied contexts for the different time periods may allow for more specific interpretation of various contexts than is currently possible, and allow for the comparison of time period- versus context-related variation.

The study of vessel contents indicated that the proportions of various seed types were not substantially different than the proportions in the Early Bronze Age as a whole, likely indicating that the fill of the vessels was mixed with the cultural fill that surrounded them. The Midden-Surface samples also followed a pattern of remains similar to other samples from the same time period.

Objective 3

To determine whether or not there are significant changes in crop proportions through time.

The crops, particularly the cereals, were discussed at length in Chapter 5. It would appear, as was expected, that the proportion of free-threshing wheat increased through time, similar to other sites (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975; Nesbitt and Samuel 1996a:75; Figure 5.9). However, the results also seem to indicate that, regardless of time period, the residents of Tell Tayinat and Tell Atchana grew or used more wheat, compared to barley, than other contemporary sites.

Few of the sites occupied contemporarily to Tell Tayinat were located in areas with as much rain and as much rich arable land as Tell Tayinat during the Early Bronze Age and the Iron Age, and this may have allowed for more agricultural stability in the Amuq Plain through time than was seen elsewhere. There are many political and cultural changes through time, and these changes seem relatively independent of the agricultural regime in place. This conclusion is significant for the region, as we see a

129

possible separation of the political elite from the day-to-day agricultural activities of the masses.

The Early Bronze Age appears to have, proportionally, much more chaff than the other two time periods. This supports the conclusion that the Early Bronze Age settlement at Tell Tayinat may have been less of a “consumer” site (Hillman 1981b:142- 143) than it was in the later Iron Age. This could be an indication of increased political centralization and control of surrounding “producer” sites, or of the more elite repurposing of the mound in the Iron Age III. Increased sampling from diverse contexts at Tell Tayinat will permit testing of these hypotheses.

Major Conclusions

The results presented from Tell Tayinat show a crop and weedy/wild plant spectrum for the Early Bronze Age and Iron Ages consistent with other sites in the area of northern Syria and southern Turkey. There is a slight increase in free-threshing wheat and decrease in emmer wheat through time. The high proportion of wheat compared to barley at Tell Tayinat is relatively unique within the area of northern Syria/southern Turkey (Riehl 2009:102, 109), and stands apart from the findings of sites in more marginal habitats, such as the Euphrates River valley (Schlee 1995). The favourable climatic conditions of the Amuq Plain are reflected in the overall abundance of wheat when compared to barley. Textual evidence from Tell Atchana indicates the distribution of barley from the palace, proving that this crop still played an important role (Wiseman 1953), regardless of the proportion of wheat being produced.

The overall goal of this thesis, as revealed by its title, was the study of urban subsistence at Tell Tayinat through time. This goal has been accomplished through period-level study of plant taxa through time. The evidence both from Tell Tayinat and from Tell Atchana (Riehl 2010a) seems to indicate a consistency in availability and quantity of various types of food plants through time, indicating that food stress would not have been a reason for the change in site location at the end of the Early and Late Bronze Ages. There seems to be a lack of agricultural variation through time despite frequent political instability.

130

Future Research

Palaeoethnobotanical work at Tell Tayinat is only just beginning. Future excavation of Iron Age II contexts will allow for a study of the Iron Age as an uninterrupted whole through periods that included political upheaval and warfare. This would permit for further exploration of the hypothesis that agricultural production did not change substantially with changing social or political situations at Tell Tayinat, as proposed above.

Although logistically difficult, the ability to look at the lower town and compare the contents of deposits there to those in the upper town could potentially highlight intrasite socioeconomic differences in food use and procurement, as well as contribute further information regarding the relatively low quantities of chaff found on the tell.

The integrated interpretation of plant and animal data (Miller et al. 2009; Miller and Smith 2009) is a research area that holds great promise for a more holistic understanding of overall subsistence. In the future, the combined analysis and interpretation of Tell Tayinat’s plant and animal remains may be able to address questions such as why there is a paucity of pulse crops found at the site.

Contributions

Throughout its long history of archaeological research, Tell Tayinat’s archaeobotanical record has remained largely silent. This is surprising, considering that much of the Amuq’s position as a central location through time depended to a significant degree on its farmland. As agricultural wealth formed part of the structure on which complex regional interaction was built for the Amuq Plain, a better understanding of how agriculture progressed with the changes of the third through first millennia BCE contributes to a more holistic picture of agricultural economy and prosperity for a region whose importance in history is only just beginning to be understood.

In addition to these local contributions, the raw data presented here will provide another data set to increasing numbers of regional studies being conducted in the Near East (e.g., McCorriston and Weisberg 2002; Riehl and Nesbitt 2003; Riehl 2009; Smith

131

and Munro 2009). As a large proportion of the currently published research derives from sites in more marginal environments, the addition of Tell Tayinat to the current spectrum of studied sites contributes data from an area of that is, “[f]rom the archaeobotanical point of view,… largely unknown” (Peña-Chocarro and Rottoli 2007:124), and therefore adds another perspective to the study of regional changes. This data contributes to the growing corpus of information available on western Syria and southern Anatolia in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

132

References

Akkermans, Peter M. M. G. and Glenn M. Schwartz 2003 The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Akman, Y. And O. Keteno ğlu 1986 The climate and vegetation of Turkey. In Plant Life of South-West Asia: Second Plant Life of South West Asia Symposium , edited by I. C. Hedge, pp. 123-134. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section B vol. 89. The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Algaze, Guillermo, Paul Goldberg, Dierdre Honça, Timothy Matney, Adnan Misir, Arlene Miller Rosen, Duncan Schlee, and Lewis Somers 1995 Titris Höyük, a Small EBA Urban Center in SE Anatolia: The 1994 Season. Anatolica 21:13-64

Alkım, U. B. 1970 Anatolia I (From the beginnings to the end of the 2nd millennium B.C.). Nagel Publishers, Geneva.

Archi, Alfonso 1990 Agricultural Production in the Ebla Region . Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 40:50-55. Archi, Alfonso 1993 Trade and Administrative Practice: The Case of Ebla. Altorientalische Forschungen 20(1):43-58.

Bahnassi, Afif 1980 Le sauvetage des vestiges de la zone de submersion du barrage de l’Euphrate. In Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone de contact et d’échanges. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 10-12 Mars 1977 , edited by J. Cl. Margueron, pp. 1-7. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Bar-Matthews, Mira, Avner Ayalon and Aharon Kaufman 1998 Middle to Late Holocene (6,500 Yr. Period) Paleoclimate in the Eastern Mediterranean Region from Stable Isotopic Composition of Speleothems from Soreq Cave, Israel. In Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change , edited by A. S. Issar and N. Brown, pp. 203-214. Water Science and Technology Library Vol. 31. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

133

Baruch, U. and S. Bottema 1991 Palynological evidence for climatic changes in the Levant ca. 17,000- 9,000 B.P. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant , edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla, pp. 11-20. International Monographs In Prehistory Archaeological Series 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Batiuk, Stephen D. 2005 Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Batiuk, Stephen 2007 Ancient Landscapes of the Amuq: Geoarchaeological Surveys of the Amuq Valley: 1999-2006. Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2:51-57.

Bedigian, Dorothea 1985 Is še-giš-ì Sesame or Flax? In Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Volume II , edited by J. N. Postgate and M. A. Powell, pp. 159-178. Aris & Phillips Ltd., Warminster.

Bedigian, D. 1998 Early History of Sesame Cultivation in the Near East and Beyond. In The Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication: Proceedings of the Harlan Symposium 10-14 May 1997 Aleppo, Syria , edited by A. B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C. O. Qualset, pp. 93-101. ICARDA/IPGRI/FAO/UC GRCP, Davis CA.

Behre, Karl-Ernst 1990 Some reflections on anthropogenic indicators and the record of prehistoric occupation phases in pollen diagrams from the Near East. In Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape , edited by S. Bottema, G. Entjes-Neborg and Willem van Zeist, pp. 219- 230. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Bell, Carol 2009 Continuity and Change: The Divergent Destinies of Late Bronze Age Ports in Syria and Lebanon across the LBA/Iron Age Transition. In Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an international symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Exford 25-6th March 2006 , edited by Christoph Bachhuber and R. Gareth Roberts, pp. 30-38. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bending, Joanna and Sue Colledge 2007 Chapter 49: The Archaeobotanical Assemblages. Pp. 583-595 in Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia Vol. 1: Text , edited by Nicholas Postgate and David Thomas. BIAA Monograph No. 3. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/BIAA, Cambridge/London.

134

Bertsch, h.c. Karl 1941 Früchte und Samen: Ein Bestimmungsbuch zur Pflanzenkunde der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit . Verlag Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart.

Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology , edited by Lewis R. and Sally R. Binford, pp313-341. Aldine, Chicago.

Bischof, Friedrich 1978 Common Weeds from Iran, Turkey, the Near East and North Africa . The German Agency for Technical Cooperation Ltd., Eschborn.

Blackburn, Michel and Michel Fortin 1994 Geomorphology of Tell ‘Atij, Northern Syria. Geoarchaeology 9(1):57-74.

Bottema, Sytze 1984 The composition of modern charred seed assemblages. In Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in palaeoethnobotany , edited by Willem van Zeist and W. A. Casparie, pp207-212. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/Boston.

Braadbaart, F. and Pim F. van Bergen 2005 Digital imaging analysis of size and shape of wheat and pea upon heating under anoxic conditions as a function of the temperature. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14:67-75.

Braadbaart, F., J. J. Boon, H. Veld, P. David, and P.F. van Bergen 2004 Laboratory simulations of the transformation of peas as a result of heat treatment: changes of the physical and chemical properties . Journal of Archaeological Science 31:821-833.

Braidwood, Robert J. 1937 Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archaeological Survey . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Braidwood, Robert J. and Linda S. Braidwood 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages Phases A- J. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Volume LXI. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Braidwood, Robert J. and Bruce Howe 1960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan . The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization no. 31. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Breasted, James Henry 1933 The Oriental Institute . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

135

Breckle, Siegmar-Walter 2002 Walter’s Vegetation of the Earth: The Ecological Systems of the Geo- Biosphere . 4th English ed. Translated by Gudrun and David Lawlor. Springer, New York.

Brinkman, John A. 1968 A Political History of post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158-722 BC . Analecta Orientalia 43. Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, Rome.

Cappers, René T. J., Renée M. Bekker and Judith E. A. Jans 2006 Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland . Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, Groningen.

Cappers, R. T. J., S. Bottema and H. Woldring 1998 Problems in Correlating Pollen Diagrams of the Near East: A Preliminary Report. In Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication: The Harlan Symposium , edited by A. B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C. O. Qualset, pp.160-169. ICARDA, Syria.

Carpenter, Rhys 1966 Discontinuity in Greek Civilization . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Casana, Jesse 2008 Mediterranean valleys revisited: Linking soil erosion, land use and climate variability in the Northern Levant. Geomorphology 10:429-442.

Casana, Jesse and T. J. Wilkinson 2005 Settlement and Landscapes in the Amuq Region. Pp. 25-98 in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects vol. 1, Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002 , edited by K. Aslihan Yener. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Charles, M. P. 1985 The husbandry of pulses and oil crops in modern Iraq. In Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Volume II , edited by J.N. Postgate and M.A. Powell, pp. 39-62. Aris & Phillips Ltd., Warminster.

Charles, Mike and Amy Bogaard 2001 Third-millennium BC Charred Plant Remains from Tell Brak. In Excavations at Tell Brak Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC , by David Oates, Joan Oates and Helen McDonald, pp. 301-326. British School of Archaeology in Iraq/McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Childe, V. Gordon 1929 The Most Ancient East . Knopf, New York.

136

Cizer, Özgur 2006 Archaeobotanical macro remains from Late Bronze Age Kinet Höyük and Tell Atchana (Alalakh) in southern Turkey: Economical and environmental considerations. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Universität Tübingen, Germany.

Colledge, Sue 2001a Final Report on the Archaeobotanical Analyses (report text). In Contextual Analysis of the Use of Space at two Near Eastern Bronze Age sites , by R. J. Matthews and J. N. Postgate. http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/resources.html?tellbrak

Colledge, Sue 2001b Plant Exploitation on Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic Sites in the Levant . BAR International Series 986. Hadrian Books, Oxford.

Colledge, Sue 2003 Chapter 11: Plants and People. Pp. 389-416 in Excavations at Tell Brak Vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre 1994-1996 , edited by Roger Matthews. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British School of Archaeology in Iraq, Cambridge/London.

Colledge, Sue and James Conolly, eds. 2007 The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe . University College London Institute of Archaeology Publications. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek.

Courty, Marie-Agnès and Harvey Weiss 1997 The Scenario of Environmental Degradation in the Tell Leilan Region, NE Syria, During the Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change. In Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, edited by H. Nüzhet Dalfes, George Kukla, and Harvey Weiss, pp. 107-147. NATO Advanced Research Workgroup on Third Millennium BC Abrupt Climate Change and Old World Social Collapse held at Kemer, Turkey Sept. 19- 24, 1994. NATO ASI Series 1: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 49. Springer, Berlin/New York.

Cowan, C. Wesley and Patty Jo Watson 1992 The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington/London.

Crawford, Patricia L. 1999 Chapter 8: Botanical Remains. In The Iron Age Settlement at ‘Ain Dara, Syria: Survey and Soundings , edited by Elizabeth C. Stone and Paul E. Zimansky, pp113-122. BAR International Series 786. Archaeopress, Oxford.

137

Cullen, H. M., P. B. deMenocal, S. Hemming, G. Hemming, F. H. Brown, T. Guilderson, and F. Sirocko 2000 Climate change and the collapse of the Akkadian empire: Evidence from the deep sea. Geology 28(4):379-382.

Dalfes, H. N., George Kukla and Harvey Weiss eds. 1997 Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. NATO Advanced Research Workgroup on Third Millennium BC Abrupt Climate Change and Old World Social Collapse held at Kemer, Turkey Sept. 19- 24, 1994. NATO ASI Series 1: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 49. Springer, Berlin/New York.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1965 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume One . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1967 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Two . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1970 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Three. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1972 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Four. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1975 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Five . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1978 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Six . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1982 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Seven. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1984 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Eight . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Davis, P. H. ed. 1985 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Nine. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

138

Davis, P. H., R. R. Mill, and Kit Tan eds. 1988 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Ten (Supplement). Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Deckers, Katleen and Simone Riehl 2007 An evaluation of botanical assemblages from the third to second millennium B.C. in northern Syria. In Société Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 , edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp481-502. De Boccard, Paris.

Dennell, R. W. 1976 The Economic Importance of Plant Remains Represented on Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Scienc e 3:229-247.

Dever, W. G. 1992 The Late Bronze-Early Iron Age I Horizon in Syria-Palestine: Egyptians, Canaanites, “Sea Peoples,” and Proto-Israelites. In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris , edited by William A. Ward and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, pp. 99-110. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque IA.

Dimbleby, Geoffrey 1978 Plants and Archaeology . John Baker Ltd, London.

Dornemann, Rudolph H. 1980 Tell Hadidi: an Important Center of the Mitannian Period and Earlier. In Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone de contact et d’échanges. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 10-12 Mars 1977 , edited by J. Cl. Margueron, pp. 217-234.

Drews, Robert 1993 The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200B.C . Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Edgecombe, Winnie S. 1959 Some Major Weeds of the North Beka’a . Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, American University of Beirut Publication No. 6. Harb Bijjani Press, Beirut (Lebanon).

Edgecombe, Winnie S. 1964 Weeds of Lebanon . Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, American University of Beirut Publication No. 6. Harb Bijjani Press, Beirut (Lebanon).

Ehrlich, R. W. ed. 1992 Chronologies in Old World Archaeology 3rd ed . 2 vols. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

139

Ekstrom, Heidi L. 2000 Archaeobotanical Remains from the 1998 and 1999 seasons at Tell Kurdu. Pp. 80-83 in Tell Kurdu Excavations 1999, by K. Aslıhan Yener, Christopher Edens, Jesse Casana, Benjamin Diebold, Heidi Ekstrom, Michelle Loyet and Rana Özbal. Anatolica 26:31-117.

Ekstrom, Heidi L. 2004 Archaeobotanical Report for the 2001 Tell Kurdu Season. Pp. 69-70, 90 in Tell Kurdu Excavations 2001 by Rana Özbal et al . Anatolica 30:37-108.

Ertu ğ, Füsun 2000 Linseed Oil and Oil Mills in Central Turkey – Flax/Linum and Eruca, Important Oil Plants of Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 50:171-185.

Eyre, Christopher J. 1995 The Agricultural Cycle, Farming, and Water Management in the Ancient Near East. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East , edited by Jack M. Sasson, pp. 175-189. Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York.

Falconer, S. 1994 The Development and Decline of Bronze Age Civilizations in the Southern Levant: A Reassessment of Urbanism and Ruralism. In Development and Decline in the Bronze Age Mediterranean , edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart, pp. 305-333. J.R. Collis Publications, Sheffield.

Fiorentino, G., V. Caracuta, L. Calcagnile, M. D’Elia, P. Matthiae, F. Mavelli, and G. Quarta 2008 Third millennium B.C. climate change in Syria highlighted by Carbon stable isotope analysis of 14C-AMS dated plant remains from Ebla. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 266:51-58.

Fortin, Michel and Lisa Cooper 1994 Canadian Excavations at Tell ‘Atij (Syria) 1992-1993. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 27:33-50.

Fortin, Michel, Bruce Routledge and Carolyn Routledge 1994 Canadian Excavations at Tell Gudeda (Syria) 1992-1993. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 27:51-63.

Frankfort, Henri 1970 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient . Yale University Press, Newhaven/London.

French, David H. 1971 An Experiment in Water-Sieving . Anatolian Studies 21:59-64.

Frumkin, A., M. Magaritz, I. Carmi, and I. Zak 1991 The Holocene Climatic Record of the Salt Caves of Mount Sedom, Israel. Holocene 1(3):191-200.

140

Frumkin, Amos, Israel Carmi, Avi Gopher, Derek C. Ford, Henry P. Schwarcz, and Tsvika Tsuk 1999 A Holocene millennial-scale climatic cycle from a speleothem in Nahal Qanah Cave, Israel. Holocene 9(6):677-682.

Galili, Ehud, Daniel J. Stanley, Jacob Sharvit, and Mina Weinstein-Evron 1997 Evidence for Earliest Olive-Oil Production in Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:1141- 1150.

Garrard, Andrew 1999 Charting the Emergence of Cereal and Pulse Domestication in South- west Asia. Environmental Archaeology 4:67-86.

Giacumakis, George Jr. 1970 The Akkadian of Alalakh . Mouton & Co., the Hague.

Gorny, Ronald L. 1996 Viticulture and Ancient Anatolia. In The Origins and Ancient History of Wine , edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming and Solomon H. Katz, pp. 133-174. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

Grayson, A. K. 2001 Assyria and the Orontes Valley. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 36:185-187.

Green, Francis J. 1979 Phosphatic Mineralization of Seeds from Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 6:279-284.

Güner, A., N. Özhatay, T. Ekim, and K. H. T. Baser eds. 2000 The Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands Volume Eleven (Supplement 2 ). Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Gunn, C. R. 1970 A Key and Diagrams for the Seeds of 100 Species of Vicia (Leguminosae). Proceedings of the International Seed Testing Association 35:773-790.

Haines, Richard C. 1971 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II: The Structural Remains of the Later Phases. Chatal Hüyük, Tell al-Judaidah, and Tell Ta’yinat. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Volume XCV. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

141

Hamidi, Mohieddin 1987 Weed management: Country status paper – Syria. Pp. 212-216 in Improved weed management in the Near East : Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation on Improved Weed Management in the Near East. Nicosia, Cyprus 30 October – 1 November 1985 . FAO Plan Production and Protection Paper 80. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Hamilakis, Yannis 1999 Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeology 31(1):38-54.

Hancock, James F. 2004 Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species 2nd Ed . CABI Publishing, Cambridge.

Harlan, Jack R. 1992 Crops and Man 2nd Ed . American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Madison WI.

Harris, David R. and Gordon C. Hillman 1989 Foraging and Farming: The evolution of plant exploitation . Unwin Hyman, London.

Harrison, Timothy P. 2001a The evidence for Aramaean cultural expansion in the Amuq Plain. In Recherches Canadiennes sur la Syrie antique , edited by M. Fortin, pp. 135-144. The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 36. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, Toronto.

Harrison, Timothy P. 2001b Tell Ta’yinat and the Kingdom of Unqi. In The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in the History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion , edited by Daviau, P. M. M., John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl, pp. 115- 132. The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, Toronto.

Harrison, Timothy P. 2005 The Neo-Assyrian Governor’s Residence at Tell Ta`yinat. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 40:23-32.

Harrison, Timothy P. 2007 Neo-Hittites in the North Orontes Valley: Recent Investigations at Tell Ta`yinat. Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2:59-68.

142

Harrison, Timothy P. 2009 Lifting the Veil on a “Dark Age”: Ta cyinat and the North Orontes Valley during the Early Iron Age. In Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager , edited by David Schloen, pp.171-189. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake (Indiana).

Harrison, Timothy P. 2010 Tayinat Archaeological Project 2009 Seasonal Report. Unpublished field report .

Harrison, Timothy P. and James F. Osborne 2012 Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat. Journal of Cuneiform Studies .

Hastorf, C. A. and V. S. Popper eds. 1988 Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hawkins, J. David 1974 Assyrians and Hittites . Iraq 36(1/2):67-83.

Hawkins, J. David 1982 Chapter 9: The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia. In The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3 Part 1: The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C. , edited by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, pp. 372-441.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hawkins, J. David 1984 The Syro-Hittite States. In The Cambridge Ancient History: Plates to Volume III, pp. 65-67 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hawkins, J. David 2002 Anatolia: The End of the Hittite Empire and After. In Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr.: Kontinuität und Wandel von Struckturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion , edited by Eva Andrea Braun-Holzinger and Hartmut Matthäus, pp. 143-151. Kolloquium des Schonderforshungsbereiches 295 “Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte” der Johannes Gutenbert-Universität Mainz, 11.-12. Dezember 1998. Bibliopolis, Möhnesee.

Heiser, Charles B. Jr. 1973 Seed to civilization: the story of man`s food . W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Helbaek, Hans 1959 Domestication of Food Plants in the Old World. Science 130(3372):365- 372.

143

Helbaek, Hans 1960 Appendix II: Cereals and weed grasses in Phase A. In Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J, by Robert J. Braidwood and Linda S. Braidwood, pp. 540-543. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Helbaek, Hans 1961 Late Bronze Age and Byzantine Crops at Beycesultan in Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 11:77-97.

Helbaek, Hans 1966 The Plant Remains from Nimrud. In Nimrud and its Remains vol. 2 , by M. E. L. Mallowan, pp. 613-620. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Helbaek, Hans 1969 Appendix I: Plant collecting, dry-farming, and Irrigation agriculture in prehistoric Deh Luran. In Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain , by Frank Hole, Kent V. Flannery, and James A. Neely, pp. 383-426. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, number I. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Hide, Christine M. 1990 Archaeobotanical Remains from Tell es-Sweyhat, northwest Syria. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Hillman, Gordon C. 1981a Cereal remains from Tell Ilbol and Tell Qaramel. In The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria and its catchment, edited by J. Matthers, pp. 503-507. BAR International Series Number 98. Parts i and ii. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Hillman, Gordon C. 1981b Reconstruction crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In Farming Practice in British Prehistory , edited by R. Mercer, pp. 123- 162. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Hillman, Gordon C. 1981c The Barleys from Iron Age Rifa’at. In The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria and its catchment, edited by J. Matthers, pp. 508-510. BAR International Series Number 98. Parts i and ii. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Hillman, Gordon C. 1984a Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in modern times: Part I, the glume-wheats. In Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Volume II , edited by J.N. Postgate and M.A. Powell, pp. 114-152. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

144

Hillman, Gordon C. 1984b Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In Plants and Ancient Man , edited by W. van Zeist and W. A. Casparie, pp. 1-41. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Hillman, Gordon C. 1985 Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: Part II, the free-threshing cereals. In Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture Volume II, edited by J.N. Postgate and M.A. Powell, pp. 1-31. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hillman, Gordon C., Robert Hedges, Andrew Moore, Susan Colledge and Paul Pettitt 2001 New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. The Holocene 11(4): 383-393.

Hillman, Gordon C., Sarah Mason, Dominique de Moulins, and Mark Nesbitt 1996 Identification of archaeological remains of wheat: the 1992 London workshop. Circaea 12(2): 195-209.

Hoffner, H A. Jr. 1974 Alimenta Haethorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor . American Oriental Series Vol. 55. American Oriental Society, New Haven.

Hoffner, H. A. Jr. 2003 Daily Life among the Hittites. Pp. 95-118 in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East , edited by Richard E. Averbeck, Mark W. Chavalas, and David B. Weisberg. CDL Press, Bethesda.

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger 1977 The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology . University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Holzner, W. 1982 Concepts, categories and characteristics of weeds. In Biology and ecology of weeds , edited by W. Holzner and M. Numata, pp. 3-20.

Hood, Sinclair 1951 Excavations at Tabara el-Akrad, 1948-1949. Anatolian Studies 1:113-147.

Hubbard, R.N.L.B. 1980 Development of Agriculture in Europe and the Near East: Evidence from Quantitative Studies . Economic Botany 34(1):51-67.

Hubbard, R.N.L.B. and A. Clapham 1992 Quantifying macroscopic plant remains. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73:117-132.

145

Hynd, Alison 1997 A Model of Local Continuity: The 1995 Archaeobotanical Assemblage From Kinet Höyük, Hatay. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Sheffield.

Issar, Arie S. and Mattanyah Zohar 2007 Climate Change: Environment and History of the Near East . 2nd edition. Springer, New York.

Jacomet, Stefanie 2006 Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites . 2nd edition. Archaeobotany Lab IPAS, Basel University. (Partial English translation by James Greig).

Jacomet, Stefanie 2007 Plant Macrofossil Methods and Studies: Use in Environmental Archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science , with editor-in-chief Scott A. Elias, pp. 2384-2412. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Jacquat, Christiane and Danièle Martinoli 1999 Vitis vinifera L.: wild or cultivated? Study of the grape pips found at Petra, Jordan; 150 B.C. – A.D. 40. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8:25- 30.

James, P. J. 1987 Southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria: Dating Neo-Hittite art and architecture. In Studies in Ancient Chronology Volume 1: Bronze to Iron Age Chronology in the Old World: Time for a Reassessment? By P. J. James, I. J. Thorpe, H. Kokkinos and J. A. Frankish, pp. 46-52. Institute of Archaeology, London.

Janeway, Brian 2006/7 The Nature and Extent of Aegean Contact at Tell Ta’yinat and Vicinity in the Early Iron Age: Evidence of the Sea Peoples? Scripta Mediterranea 27/28:123-146.

Jarman, H.N., A.J. Legge, and J.A. Charles 1972 Retrieval of plant remains from archaeological sites by froth flotation. In Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies by Members and Associates of the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture , edited by E.S. Higgs, pp. 39-48. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jones, Glynis E. M. 1991 Numerical analysis in archaeobotany. In Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany , edited by W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa and K.-E. Behre, pp. 63-80. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

146

Jones, Glynis E. M. 1998 Distinguishing Food from Fodder in the Archaeobotanical Record. Environmental Archaeology 1:95-98.

Jones, Martin K. 1991 Sampling in palaeoethnobotany. Pp. 53-62 in Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany , edited by W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, and K. Behre. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Kaniewski, D., E. Paulissen, E. Van Campo, H. Weiss, T. Otto, J. Bretschneider, and K. Van Lerberghe 2010 Late second-early first millennium BC abrupt climate changes in coastal Syria and their possible significance for the history of the Eastern Mediterranean . Quaternary Research 74:207-215.

Kislev, Mordechai E. 1994-5 Wild Olive Stones at Submerged Chalcolithic Kfar Samir, Haifa, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26:134-145.

Kislev, Mordechai E., Anat Hartmann and Ofer Bar-Yosef 2006 Early Domesticated Fig in the Jordan Valley. Science 312:1372-1374.

Kreuz, Angela and Eva Schäfer 2011 Weed finds as indicators for the cultivation regime of the early Neolithic Bandkeramik culture? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20:333-348.

Kuhrt, A. 1995 The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330BC . 2 vols. Routledge, London/New York.

Kurcman, M. 1987 Weed Management: Country status paper – Turkey. Pp. 217-220 in Improved weed management in the Near East : Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation on Improved Weed Management in the Near East. Nicosia, Cyprus 30 October – 1 November 1985 . FAO Plan Production and Protection Paper 80. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Küster, Hansjörg 1989 Bronzezeitliche Pflanzenreste aus Tall Munbaqa. Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 121:85-91.

Kuzucuoglu, Catherine 2003 Environmental Changes in Souther (Antalya) and South-eastern (Euphrates Valley) Turkey, at the End of the 2nd Millennium BC and Beginning of the 1st Millennium BC. In Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighboring Areas , edited by Bettina Fischer, Hermann Genz, Éric Jean and Kemalettin Köroglu, pp. 271-282. Türk Eskiçag Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul.

147

Kuzucuoglu, Catherine 2007a Integrating environmental matters in cultural trends. In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 , edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp. 21-33. De Boccard, Paris.

Kuzucuoglu, Catherine 2007b Climatic and environmental trends during the third millennium B.C. in Upper Mesopotamia. . In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 , edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp. 459-480. De Boccard, Paris.

Kuzucuoglu, C. and C. Marro eds. 2007 Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 . De Broccard, Paris.

Landmann, Günter and Andreas Reimer 1996 Climatically induces lake level changes at Lake Van, Turkey, during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition . Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10(4):797-808.

Lauinger, J. 2011 Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Tablet collection in Building XVI from Tell Tayinat. Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6:5-14.

Lemcke, Gerry and Michael Sturm 1997 d18O and Trace Element Measurements as Proxy for the Reconstruction of Climate Changes at Lake Van (Turkey): Preliminary Results. In Third Millennium Climate Change and Old World Collapse , edited by H. Nüzhet Dalfes, George Kukla and Harvey Weiss, pp. 653-678. NATO ASI Series I: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 49. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg.

Lennstrom, Heidi A. and Christine A. Hastorf 1992 Testing Old Wives’ Tales in Palaeoethnobotany: A Comparison of Bulk and Scatter Sampling Schemes from Pancán, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:205-229.

Lennstrom, Heidi A. and Christine A. Hastorf 1995 Interpretation in Context: Sampling and Analysis in Paleoethnobotany. American Antiquity 60(4):701-721.

Lepofsky, Dana and Ken Lertzman 2005 More on sampling for richness and diversity in archaeobiological assemblages. Journal of Ethnobiology 25(2):175-188.

148

Liverani, Mario 1989 Economy of Ugaritic Royal Farms. In Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East, edited by Carlo Zaccagnini, pp. 127-168. University of Budapest, Budapest.

Lupton, Alan 1996 Stability and change: Socio-political development in north Mesopotamia and south-east Anatolia, 4000-2700B.C . BAR International Series #627. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Lyman, R. Lee and Kenneth M. Ames 2004 Sampling to redundancy in zooarchaeology: lessons from the Portland Basin, northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington . Journal of Ethnobiology 24(2):329-346.

Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie 1994 Urban-Rural Relations in Bronze Age Syria: Evidence from Alalah Level VII Palace Archives. Pp. 37-47 in Archaeological Vies from the Countryside: Village communities in early complex societies , edited by Glenn M. Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington/London.

Manning, Stuart W. 2006/7 Why Radiocarbon Dating 1200 BCE is Difficult: A Sidelight on Dating the End of the Late Bronze Age and the Contrarian Contribution . Scripta Mediterranea 27/28:53-80.

Margaritis, Evi and Martin Jones 2008 Crop processing of Olea europaea l.: an experimental approach for the interpretation of archaeobotanical olive remains. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17:381-392.

Martin, Alexander C. and William D. Barkley 1961 Seed Identification Manual . University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles.

Mathias, V.T. and P.J. Parr 1989 The Early Phases at Tell Nebi Mend: A Preliminary Account. Levant 21:13-32.

Matilla Séiquer, Gonzalo Matilla and Diego Rivera Núñez 1993 Estudio paleoetnobotánico de Tell Qara Q ūzāq-I. Pp. 151-182 in Tell Qara Q ūzāq – I: Campañas I-III (1989-1991) , edited by G. del Olmo Lete. Editorial Ausa, Barcelona.

Matney, Timothy 2002 Urban Planning and the Archaeology of Society at Early Bronze Age Titris Höyük. Pp. 19-34 in Across the Anatolian Plateau: Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey , edited by D. C. Hopkins. Annals of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 57.

149

Matson, Frederick R. 1955 Charcoal Concentration from Early Sites for Radiocarbon Dating. American Antiquity 21(2):162-169.

Mayewski, Paul A., Eelco E. Rohling, J. Curt Stager, Wibjörn Karlén, Kirk A. Maasch, > David Meeker, Eric A. Meyerson, Francoise Gasse, Shirley van Kreveld, Karin Holmgren, Julia Lee-Thorp, Gunhild Rosqvist, Frank Rack, Michael Staubwasser, Ralph R. Schneider, and Eric J. Steig 2004 Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62:243-255.

Mazar, Amihai 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. Doubleday, New York.

Mazzoni, Stefania 1995 Settlement Pattern and New Urbanization in Syria at the Time of the Assyrian Conquest. In Neo-Assyrian Geography , edited by Mario Liverani, pp. 181-191. Dipartimento di Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5. Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Rome.

McClellan, T. 1992 Twelfth Century B.C. Syria: Comments on H. Sader’s Paper. In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B. C. from beyond the Danube to the Tigris , edited by W. Ward and M. Joukowsky, pp. 164-173.

McCorriston, Joy 1998 Syrian Origins of Safflower Production: New Discoveries in the Agrarian Prehistory of the Habur Basin. . In The Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication: Proceedings of the Harlan Symposium 10-14 May 1997 Aleppo, Syria , edited by A. B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C. O. Qualset, pp. 39-48. ICARDA/IPGRI/FAO/UC GRCP, Davis CA.

McCorriston, Joy 2007 Cultural and Environmental History in Archaeological Charred Woods from the Khabur Drainage, Upper Mesopotamia. In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t- elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005, edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp. 503-522. De Boccard, Paris.

McCorriston, Joy and Sanford Weisberg 2002 Spatial and Temporal Variation in Mesopotamian Agricultural Practices in the Khabur Basin, Syrian Jazira . Journal of Archaeological Science 29:485-498.

McEwan, C. W. 1937 The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. American Journal of Archaeology 41(1):8-16.

150

McGhee, Robert 1981 Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 5000 years. In Climate and History: Studies in past climates and their impact on Man , edited by T. M. L. Wigley, M. J. Ingram and G. Farmer, pp. 162-179. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McGovern, Patrick E. 2003 Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture . Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford.

McGovern, Patrick E., Donald L. Glusker, and Lawrence J. Exner 1996 Neolithic Resinated Wine. Nature 381:480-481.

Meadows, John 2005 The Younger Dryas episode and the radiocarbon chronologies of the Lake Huleh and Ghab Valley pollen diagrams, Israel and Syria. The Holocene 15(4):631-636.

Meijer, D. J. W. 1980 The Excavations at Tell Selenkahiye. Pp. 117-126 in Le Moyen Euphrate: Zone de contact et d’échanges. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 10-12 mars 1977 , edited by J. Cl. Margueron. Université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg, Strasbourg.

Migowski, Claudia, Mordechai Stein, Sushma Prasad, Jörg F. W. Negendank, and Amotz Agnon 2006 Holocene climate variability and cultural evolution in the Near East from the Dead Sea sedimentary record. Quaternary Research 66:421-431.

Miller, Naomi F. 1984a The Use of Dung as Fuel: An Ethnographic Example and an Archaeological Application. Paléorient 10:71-79.

Miller, Naomi F. 1984b The interpretation of some carbonized cereal remains as remnants of dung cake fuel. In Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Volume I, edited by J.N. Postgate and M.A. Powell, pp. 45-47. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Miller, Naomi F. 1986 Vegetation and Land Use. In The Chicago Euphrates Archaeological Project 1980-1984: An Interim Report , edited by G. Algaze. Anatolica 13:85-89.

Miller, Naomi F. 1988 Ratios in Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains , edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 72- 85. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

151

Miller, Naomi F. 1991 The Near East. In Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany , edited by W. van Zeist, Krystyna Wasylikowa and Karl-Ernst Behre, pp. 133-160. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Miller, Naomi F. 1992 Origins of Plant Cultivation in the Near East. In The Origins of Agriculture, an International Perspective, edited by C. W. Cowan and Patty Jo Watson, pp. 39-58. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Miller, Naomi F. 1994 Appendix 1: Some archaeobotanical remains from the 1992 excavation season at Hacınebi Tepe. Pp. 168-172 in Mesopotamian-Anatolian Interaction at Hacinebi, Turkey: Preliminary report on the 1992 excavations, by Gil J. Stein and Adnan Mısır. Anatolica 20:145-189.

Miller, Naomi F. 1996a Hacinebi Tepe 1993: Archaeobotanical Report. In Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey , by Gil J. Stein, Reinhard Bernbeck, Cheryl Coursey, Augusta McMahon, Naomi F. Miller, Adnan Misir, Jeffrey Nicola, Holly Pittman, Susan Pollock, and Henry Wright, pp. 248-257. American Journal of Archaeology 100(2):205-260.

Miller, Naomi F. 1996b Archaeobotanical Remains from the 1995 Season. Pp. 106-109, 115-119 in Hacinebi, Turkey: Preliminary Report on the 1995 Excavations by Gil J. Stein et al . Anatolica 22:85-128.

Miller, Naomi F. 1997 Sweyhat and Hajji Ibrahim: Some Archaeobotanical Samples from the 1991 and 1993 Seasons. Pp. 95-122 in Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report by Richard L. Zettler. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology Vol. 14. MASCA, Philadelphia.

Miller, Naomi F. 1998 Some Plant Remains from the 1996 Excavation of Yarim Höyük. Pp. 79- 80, 88 in Yarim Höyük and the Uruk Expansion (Part I), by Mitchell S. Rothman, Rifat Ergeç, Naomi Miller, Jill Weber and Gülriz Kozbe. Anatolica 24:65-99.

Miller, Naomi F. 2000 Plant Remains. In Excavation and Survey in the Jabbul Plain, Western Syria: The Umm el-Marra Project 1996-1997, by Glenn M. Schwartz, Hans H. Curvers, Fokke A. Gerritsen, Jennifer A. MacCormack, Naomi F. Miller, and Jill A. Weber, pp. 438-447. American Journal of Archaeology 104(3):419-462.

152

Miller, Naomi F. 2004 Flotation Samples from the 1992 Excavation at Tell Jouweif. In On the Margin of the Euphrates: Settlement and Land Use at Tell es-Sweyhat and in the Upper Lake Assad Area, Syria, by Tony J. Wilkinson, pp. 157- 165. Oriental Institute Publications vol. 124. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Miller, Naomi F. and Tristine Lee Smart 1984 Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological record. Journal of Ethnobiology 4(1):15-28.

Miller, Naomi F., Melinda A. Zeder, and Susan R. Arter 2009 From Food and Fuel to Farms and Flocks: The Integration of Plant and Animal Remains in the Study of the Agropastoral Economy at Gordion, Turkey. Current Anthropology 50(6):915-924.

Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46(1):143-152.

Minnis, Paul E. 1985 Social Adaptation to Food Stress: A Prehistoric Southwestern Example. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Moffett, Lisa 1989 Appendix: Early Bronze Age Plant Remains from Tell Nebi Mend: A Preliminary Report. In The Early Phases at Tell Nebi Mend: A Preliminary Account, by V.T. Mathias and P.J. Parr, pp. 29-32. Levant 21:13-32.

Moore, A. M. T. 1998 The Interaction Between People and Environment at the Early Village of Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. In Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e millénaires av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à l’Université Laval (Québec) du 5 au 7 mai 1997 , edited by Fortin, Michel and Olivier Aurenche, pp. 131-138. Canadian Society of Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 33. Canadian Society of Mesopotamian Studies Québec, Toronto.

Mouterde, Paul 1966-84 Nouvelle Flore du Liban et de la Syrie . Éditions de l’Imprimerie Catholique, Beyrouth (Beirut).

Muehlbauer, F. J., J. I. Cubero and R. J. Summerfield 1985 Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medic.). Pp. 266-311 in Grain Legume Crops, edited by R. J. Summerfield and E. H. Roberts. William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., London.

153

Munro, Natalie D. 2003 Small game, the younger dryas, and the transition to agriculture in the southern levant. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 12: 47-71.

Murray, Mary Anne 1995 Preliminary Archaeobotanical Report, Jerablus-Tahtani, 1994 – Tomb 302. Pp. 24-25 in Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1992-4: Preliminary Report, by Edgar Peltenburg et al . Levant 27:1-28.

Murray, Mary Anne 1996 Preliminary archaeobotanical report, 1995. Pp. 20-21 in Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1995: Preliminary Report by Edgar Peltenburg et al. Levant 28:1- 25.

Musil, Albina F. 1978 Identification of Crop and Weed Seeds. Agriculture Handbook No. 219. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Neef, Reinder 1990 Introduction, development, and environmental implications of olive culture: The evidence from Jordan. In Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape , edited by Sytze Bottema, G. Entjes- Nieborf, and Willem van Zeist, pp. 295-306. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/Brookfield.

Nesbitt, Mark 1993 Ancient crop husbandry at Kaman-Kalehöyük: 1991 Archaeobotanical Report. In Essays on Anatolian Archaeology , edited by H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, pp. 75-98. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan vol VII. Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden.

Nesbitt, Mark 2006 Identification Guide for Near Eastern Grasses . Institute of Archaeology University College London, London.

Nesbitt, Mark and Delwen Samuel 1996a From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and history of the hulled wheats. In Hulled Wheats: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops 4 , edited by S. Padulosi, K. Hammer, and J. Heller, pp. 40-99. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.

Nesbitt, Mark and Delwen Samuel 1996b Archaeobotany in Turkey: a review of current research. Orient-Express 3:91-96.

154

Nesbitt, Mark and G. D. Summers 1988 Some recent discoveries of millet (Panicum miliaceum L. and Setaria italic (L.) Beauv.) at excavations in Turkey and Iran. Anatolian Studies 38:85-97.

Neumann, J. and S. Parpola 1987 Climatic Change and the Eleventh-Tenth-Century Eclipse of Assyria and Babylonia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46(3):161-182.

Niklewski, J. and W. van Zeist 1970 A Late Quaternary Pollen Diagram from Northwestern Syria. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 19(5):737-754.

Oliva, Juan C. 2000 A Forgotten Text from Alalakh VII. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52:61- 65.

Oliva, Juan C. 2005 New Collations and Remarks on Alalakh VII Tablets. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65(1):1-21.

Oybak, E. and S. Demirci 1997 Early Bronze Age Plant Remains from Imamoglu Höyük, Se [sic] Turkey. Anatolian Studies 47:173-176.

Oybak Dönmez, Emel 2006 Prehistoric and Medieval Plant Remains from Two Sites on the Euphrates, South-eastern Turkey. Turkish Journal of Botany 30:11-38.

Özbal, Rana, Fokke Gerritsen, Benjamin Diebold, Elizabeth Healey, Nihal Aydin, Michelle Loyette, Frank Nardulli, David Reese, Heidi Ekstrom, Sabrina Sholts, Nitzan Mekel-Brobov, and Bruce Lahn 2004 Tell Kurdu Excavations 2001. Anatolica 30:37-107.

Payne, S. 1972 Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies by Members and Associates of the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 39-48. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 1983 Evaluating the Stability of Subsistence Strategies by Use of Paleoethnobotanical Dada. Journal of Ethnobiology 3(2):121-137.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures . Academic Press, San Diego.

155

Peltenburg, Edgar 2007 Diverse Settlement Pattern Changes in the Middle Euphrates Valley in the Later Third Millennium B.C.: The Contribution of Jerablus Tahtani. In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie?, edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp. 247-266. Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005. De Broccard, Paris.

Peña-Chocarro, Leonor and Mauro Rottoli 2007 Crop Husbandry Practices during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrifeh (Central-Western Syria). Pp. 123-143 in Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in central-western Syria , edited by Morandi Bonacossi. Studi Archeologici su Qatna 01. Forum, Udini (Italy).

Podlech, D. 1986 Taxonomic and phytogeographical problems in Astragalus of the Old World and South-West Asia. In Plant Life of South-West Asia: Second Plant Life of South West Asia Symposium , edited by I. C. Hedge, pp. 37- 43. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section B vol 89. The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Popper, Virginia S. 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Palaeoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 53-71. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Possehl, G. 1997 Climate and the eclipse of the ancient cities of the Indus. In Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, edited by H. N. Dalfes, G. Kukla, and H. Weiss, pp. 193-244. NATO ASI Series 1, volume 49. Springer, New York.

Pustovoytov, Konstantin, Klaus Schmidt, and Heinrich Taubald 2007 Evidence for Holocene environmental changes in the northern Fertile Crescent provided by pedogenic carbonate coatings. Quaternary Research 67:315-327.

Redford, Donald B. 1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times . Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Redford, Donald B. 2006/7 The Tjeker. Scripta Mediterranea 27/28:9-13.

Reed, Charles A. ed. 1977 Origins of Agriculture . Mouton Publishers, The Hague/Paris.

156

Renfrew, Jane M. 1973 Palaeoethnobotany: The prehistoric food plants of the Near East and Europe . Columbia University Press, New York.

Renfrew, Jane M. 1991 New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Richard, Suzanne 1987 Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism. The Biblical Archaeologist 50(1):22-43.

Riehl, Simone 2007 Preliminary Archaeobotanical Results from the Palace at Qatna (Tell Mishrifeh). Pp. 145-152 in Urban and Natural Landscapes of an ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in central-western Syria , edited by Daniele Morandi Bonacossi. Forum, Udine (Italy).

Riehl, Simone 2009 Archaeobotanical evidence for the interrelationship of agricultural decision-making and climate change in the ancient Near East. Quaternary International 197:93-114.

Riehl, Simone 2010a Flourishing Agriculture in Times of Political Instability – The Archaeobotanical and Isotopic Evidence from Tell Atchana. In Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh Vol. 1: The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons , edited by K. Aslihan Yener, pp. 123-136. Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Riehl, Simone 2010b Maintenance of agricultural stability in a changing environment – the archaeobotanical evidence at Emar. Pp. 177-224 in Emar after the Closure of the Tabqa Dam: The Syrian-German excavations 1996-2002 Volume I: Late Roman and Medieval Cemeteries and Environmental Studies , edited by Uwe Finkbeiner and Ferhan Sakal. Subartu 25. Brepols, Brussels (Belgium).

Riehl, Simone and Reid Bryson 2007 Variability in human adaptation to changing environmental conditions in Upper Mesopotamia during the Early and the Middle Bronze Age. In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a-t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 , edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp. 523-548. De Boccard, Paris.

157

Riehl, Simone and Mark Nesbitt 2003 Crops and cultivation in the Iron Age Near East: change or continuity? In Identifying changes: the transition from the Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its neighbouring regions , edited by B. Fischer, H. Genz, E. Jean, and K. Köroglu, pp. 301-312. Türk Eskiçag Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul.

Riehl, Simone, Konstantin E. Pustovoytov, Sara Hotchkiss, and Reid A. Bryson 2009 Local Holocene environmental indicators in Upper Mesopotamia: Pedogenic carbonate record vs. archaeobotanical data and archaeoclimatological models . Quaternary International 209:154-162.

Rindos, David 1984 The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective . Academic Press Inc., Orlando.

Roberts, Neil, Tony Stevenson, Basil Davis, Rachid Cheddadi, Simon Brewster, and Arlene Rosen 2004 Holocene Climate, Environment and Cultural Change in the Circum- Mediterranean Region. In Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa , edited by Richard W. Battarbee, Françoise Gasse and Catherine E. Stickley, pp. 343-362. Springer, Dordrecht.

Roberts, Neil, Warren J. Eastwood, Catherine Kuzucuo ğlu, Girolamo Fiorentino, and Valentina Caracuta 2011 Climatic, vegetation and cultural change in the eastern Mediterranean during the mid-Holocene environmental transition. The Holocene 21(1):147-162.

Robinson, Stuart A., Stuart Black, Bruce W. Sellwood, and Paul J. Valdes 2006 A review of palaeoclimates and palaeoenvironments in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean from 25,000 to 5000 years BP: setting the environmental background for the evolution of human civilisation. Quaternary Science Reviews 25:1517-1541.

Robson, T. O., P. J. Americanos and B. E. Abu-Irmaileh 1991 Major Weeds of the Near East . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, Rome.

Rohling, Eelco J., Angela Hayes, Paul A. Mayewski, and Michal Kucera 2009 Holocene Climate Variability in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the End of the Bronze Age. In Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an international symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Exford 25-6th March 2006, edited by Christoph Bachhuber and R. Gareth Roberts, pp. 2-5. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

158

Rösch, Manfred 2005 Pollen analysis of the contents of excavated vessels – direct archaeobotanical evidence of beverages. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14:179-188.

Rosen, Arlene Miller 1995 The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:26-44.

Rosen, Arlene Miller 1997 The Geoarchaeology of Holocene Environments and Land Use at Kazane Hoyuk, S.E. Turkey. Geoarchaeology 12(4):395-416.

Rosen, Arlene Miller 1998 Chapter 10: Early to Mid-Holocene Environmental Changes and Their Impact on Human Communities in Southeastern Anatolia. In Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change, edited by A. S. Issar and N. Brown, pp. 215-240. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Rosen, Arlene Miller 2007 Civilizing Climate: Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient Near East . Altamira Press, Lanham MD.

Rosenberg, Michael and Michael K. Davis 1992 Hallan Çemi Tepesi, an early Aceramic Neolithic site in Eastern Anatolia: Some preliminary observations concerning material culture. Anatolica 18:1-18.

Rossignol-Strick, M. 1993 Late Quaternary climate in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Paléorient 19(1):135-152.

Rothman, Mitchell S. and Gülriz Kozbe 1997 Mus in the Early Bronze Age. Anatolian Studies 47:105-126.

Routledge, B. 1998 Making nature human: Small-scale production and specialization at Tell Gudeda in the middle Khabour valley. In Espace Naturel, Espace Habité en Syrie du Nord 10e-2e millénaires av. J-C, edited by M. Fortin and O. Aurenche, pp. 243-256. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, Toronto.

Sader, Hélène 1992 Chapter 19: The 12th Century B.C. in Syria; The Problem of the Rise of the Aramaeans. In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris , edited by William A. Ward and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, pp. 157-163. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque (Iowa).

159

Salisbury, Sir Edward 1961 Weeds & Aliens . Collins, London.

Sandars, N. K. 1985 The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the ancient Mediterranean (revised edition). Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Schlee, Duncan 1995 Paleobotanical Investigations. Pp. 28-32 in Titris Höyük, a Small EBA Urban Center in SE Anatolia: The 1994 Season, by Guillermo Algaze, Paul Goldberg, Deirdre Honça, Timothy Matney, Adnan Mısır, Arlene Miller Rosen, Duncan Schlee, and Lewis Somers. Anatolica 21:13-64.

Schwartz, Glenn M. 1989 The origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and northern Mesopotamia: Research problems and potential strategies. In To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological studies in honour of Maurits N. van Loon , edited by O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers and P. M. M. G. Akkermans, pp. 275- 291. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Schwartz, Glenn M., Hans H. Curvers, Fokke A. Gerritsen, Jennifer A. MacCormack, Naomi F. Miller, and Jill A. Weber 2000 Excavation and Survey in the Jabbul Plain, Western Syria: The Umm el- Marra Project 1996-1997. American Journal of Archaeology 104(3):419- 462.

Schwartz, Glenn M. and Naomi F. Miller 2007 The “Crisis” of the Late Third Millennium B.C.: Ecofactual and Artifactual Evidence from Umm el-Marra and the Jabbul Plain. In Sociétés Humaines et Changement Climatique à la Fin du Troisième Millénaire: Une Crise a- t-elle eu Lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 , edited by Catherine Kuzucuoglu and Catherine Marro, pp. 179-203. De Broccard, Paris.

Simmons, Alan H. 2007 The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape . The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Smith, Alexia 2005 Climate, Culture, and Agriculture: Examining Change in the Near East during the Bronze and Iron Ages . Ph. D. Dissertation, Boston University.

Smith, Alexia 2007 Plant Use at Çadir Höyük, Central Anatolia. Anatolica 33:169-184.

Smith, Alexia and Naomi F. Miller 2009 Integrating Plant and Animal Data: Delving Deeper into Subsistence. Current Anthropology 50(6):883-884.

160

Smith, Alexia and Natalie Munro 2009 A Holistic Approach to Examining Ancient Agriculture: A Case Study from the Bronze and Iron Age Near East. Current Anthropology 50(6): 925- 936.

Stevens, L. R., H. E. Wright Jr. and E. Ito 2001 Proposed changes in seasonality of climate during the Lateglacial and Holocene at Lake Zeribar, Iran. Holocene 11(6):747-755.

Stewart, Robert B. 1976 Paleoethnobotanical Report – Çayönü 1972. Economic Botany 30:219- 225.

Stewart, Robert B. and William Robertson IV 1973 Application of the Flotation Technique in Arid Areas. Economic Botany 27:114-116.

Tadmor, Miriam 1964 Contacts between the ‘Amuq and Syria-Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 14: 253-269.

Tanno, Ken-ichi and George Willcox 2006 The origins of cultivation of Cicer arietinum L. and Vicia faba L.: early finds from Tell el-Kerkh, north-west Syria, late 10th millennium B.P. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 15:197-204.

Townsend, C. C. and Evan Guest eds. 1974 Flora of Iraq Vol. 3. Leguminales . Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, Baghdad. van de Mieroop, Marc 2004 A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323BC . Blackwell Publishing, Malden (MA). van Zeist, Willem 1970 The Oriental Institute Excavations at Mureybit, Syria: Preliminary Report on the 1965 Campaign Part III: The Paleobotany. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29(3):167-176. van Zeist, Willem 1976 On Macroscopic Traces of Food Plants in Southwestern Asia (with Some Reference to Pollen Data). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 275(936):27-41. van Zeist, Willem 1985 Pulses and Oil Crop Plants. Pp. 33-38 in The Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture Volume II. Aris & Phillips Ltd., Warminster.

161

van Zeist, Willem 1988 Some aspects of early Neolithic plant husbandry in the Near East. Anatolica 15:49-68. van Zeist, Willem 1993 Archaeobotanical Evidence of the Bronze Age Field-Weed Flora of Northern Syria. Pp. 499-511 in Festschrift Zoller: Beiträge zu Philosophie und Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Evolution und Systematik, Ökologie und Morphologie, Geobotanik, Pollenanalyse und Archäobotanik , edited by Christoph Brombacher, Stefanie Jacomet, and Jean Nicholas Haas. Dissertationes Botanicae Band 196. J. Cramer, Berlin/Stuttgart. van Zeist, Willem 2003a Reports on Archaeobotanical Studies in the Old World . Groningen. van Zeist, Willem 2003b The plant husbandry of Tell al-Raqa’i. In Reports on Archaeobotanical Studies in the Old World , by Willem van Zeist, pp. 7-32. Groningen. van Zeist, Willem 2003c Comments on plant cultivation at two sites on the Khabur, north-eastern Syria. In Reports on Archaeobotanical Studies in the Old World , by Willem van Zeist, pp. 33-60. Groningen. van Zeist, W. and J. A. H. Bakker-Heeres 1975a Evidence for Linseed Cultivation Before 6000bc. Journal of Archaeological Science 2:215-219.

van Zeist, Willem and J. A. H. Bakker-Heeres 1975b Prehistoric and early historic plant husbandry in the Altinova Plain, southeastern Turkey. In Korucutepe: Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia 1968-1970 Volume 1, edited by Maurits N. van Loon, pp. 223-257. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Oxford

van Zeist, Willem and J. A. H. Bakker-Heeres 1982 Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 1. Neolithic sites in the Damascus Basin: Aswad, Ghoraifé, Ramad. Palaeohistoria 24:165-256. van Zeist, Willem and J. A. H. Bakker-Heeres 1984a Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 2. Neolithic and Halaf levels at Ras Shamra. Palaeohistoria 26:151-170. van Zeist, Willem and J. A. H. Bakker-Heeres 1984b Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 3. Late Paleolithic Mureybit. Palaeohistoria 26:171-199.

162

van Zeist, Willem and J. A. H. Bakker-Heeres 1985 Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 4. Bronze Age sites on the north Syrian Euphrates. Palaeohistoria 27:247-316. van Zeist, W. and S. Bottema 1982 Vegetational history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the last 20,000 years. In Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory (part ii), edited by John L. Bintliff and Willem van Zeist, pp. 277-321. BAR, Oxford. van Zeist, W. and S. Bottema 1991 Late Quaternary Vegetation of the Near East . Weisbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. van Zeist, Willem and W. A. Casparie eds. 1984 Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in palaeoethnobotany . A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

van Zeist, Willem and G. J. de Roller 1991 The plant husbandry of aceramic Çayönü, E. Turkey. Palaeohistoria 33/34:65-96.

van Zeist, Willem and G. J. de Roller 1993 Plant remains from Maadi, a Predynastic site in Lower Egypt. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2:1-14.

van Zeist, Willem, P. E. L. Smith, R. M. Palfenier-Vegter, M. Suwijn, and W. A. Casparie 1984 An Archaeobotanical Study of Ganj Dareh Tepe, Iran. Palaeohistoria 26:201-224.

van Zeist, Willem, Krystyna Wasylikowa and Karl-Ernst Behre 1991 Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany: A retrospective view on the occasion of 20 years of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

van Zeist, Willem and W. Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1992 Two interesting floral finds from third millennium B.C. Tell Hammam et- Turkman, northern Syria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 1:157- 161.

van Zeist, Willem, W. Waterbolk-van Rooijen and Sytze Bottema 1988 Appendix 2: Some Notes on the Plant Husbandry of Tell Hammam et- Turkman. In Hammam et-Turkman I: Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations in Syria (2 vols), edited by Maurits N. van Loon, pp. 705-716. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden.

163

van Zeist, W. and H. Woldring 1980 Holocene Vegetation and Climate of Northwestern Syria. Palaeohistoria 22:111-125.

Verstraete, J. and Tony J. Wilkinson 2000 The Amuq Regional Archaeological Survey. In The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998, by K. Aslihan Yener, Christopher Edens, Timothy P. Harrison, J. Verstraete, and Tony J. Wilkinson, pp. 179-192. American Journal of Archaeology 104(2):163-220.

Wachter-Sarkady, Claudia 1998 Archaeobotanical Investigations. Pp. 451-480 in Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sull’ acropolis 1988-1992 , edited by S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni. Edizioni Ets, Pisa (Italy).

Wagenitz, G. 1986 Centaurea in South-West Asia: patterns of distribution and diversity. In Plant Life of South-West Asia: Second Plant Life of South West Asia Symposium , edited by I. C. Hedge, pp. 11-21. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section B vol 89. The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Wagner, Gail E. 1988 Comparability among Recovery Techniques. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 17-35. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Ward, William A. and Martha Sharp Joukowsky 1992 The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris . Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque (Iowa).

Warnock, Peter 1998 From Plant Domestication to Phytolith Interpretation: The History of Paleoethnobotany in the Near East. Near Eastern Archaeology 61(4):238- 252.

Watson, Patty Jo 1976 In pursuit of prehistoric subsistence: a comparative account of some contemporary flotation techniques. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):76-100.

Weiss, Barry 1982 The Decline of Late Bronze Age Civilization as a Possible Response to Climatic Change. Climatic Change 4:173-198.

Weiss, H., M.-A. Courty, W. Wetterstrom, F. Guichard, L. Senior, R. Meadow, and A. Curnow 1993 The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization. Science 261(5124):995-1004.

164

Welton, Lynn, Stephen Batiuk, and Timothy P. Harrison with Contributions by David R. Lipovitch and Mairi Capper 2011 Tell Tayinat in the Late Third Millennium. Recent investigations of the Tayinat Archaeological Project, 2008-2010. Anatolica 37: 147-185.

Wetterstrom, Wilma 2003 Agriculture at Tell Leilan: Preliminary Results. In The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society , edited by Elena Rova and Harvey Weiss, pp. 387-400. Brepols Publishers, Turnhout.

Wick, Lucia, Genry Lemcke and Michael Sturm 2003 Evidence of Lateglacial and Holocene climatic change and human impact in eastern Anatolia: high-resolution pollen, charcoal, isotopic and geochemical records from the laminated sediments of Lake Van, Turkey. Holocene 13(5):665-675.

Wigley, T. M. L. and G. Farmer 1982 Climate of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East. In Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory (part i), edited by John L. Bintliff and Willem van Zeist, pp. 3-37. BAR, Oxford.

Wilkinson, Tony J. 1986 Environmental Change and Local Settlement History. In The Chicago Euphrates Archaeological Project 1980-1984: An Interim Report , by G. Algaze, K. Ataman, M. Ingraham, L. Marfoe, M. McDonald, N. Miller, C. Snow, G. Stein, B. Verharen, P. Wattenmaker, T. Wilkinson, and A. Yener, pp. 38-46. Anatolica 13:37-148.

Wilkinson, Tony J. 1990 Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia Vol. I: Settlement and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and Other Sites in the Lower Karababa Basin . The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Volume 109. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.

Wilkinson, Tony J. 1997 Environmental Fluctuations, Agricultural Production and Collapse: A View from Bronze Age Upper Mesopotamia. In Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. NATO Advanced Research Workgroup on Third Millennium BC Abrupt Climate Change and Old World Social Collapse held at Kemer, Turkey Sept. 19-24, 1994. NATO ASI Series 1: Global Environmental Change Vol 49, edited by H. Nüzhet Dalfes, Goerge Kukla, and Harvey Weiss, pp. 67-106. Springer, Berlin/New York.

Wilkinson, Tony J. 2000 Geoarchaeology of the Amuq Plain. In The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998, by K. Aslihan Yener, Christopher Edens, Timothy P. Harrison, and Tony J. Wilkinson, pp. 168-179. American Journal of Archaeology 104(2):163-220.

165

Wilkinson, Tony J. 2004 On the Margin of the Euphrates: Settlement and land use at Tell es- Sweyhat and in the Upper Lake Assad area, Syria. Oriental Institute Publications Vol. 124. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.

Willcox, George, Ramon Buxo and Linda Herveux 2009 Late Pleistocene and early Holocene climate and the beginnings of cultivation in northern Syria. The Holocene 19(1): 151-158.

Williams, David 1973 Flotation at Siraf. Antiquity 47:288-292.

Williams, David 1976 Preliminary observations on the use of flotation apparatus in Sussex. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 13:107-115.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets . The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1954 Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8:1-30.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1958 Abban and Alala?. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12:124-129.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1959a Ration Lists from Alalakh VII. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 13:19-33

Wiseman, Donald J. 1959b Ration Lists from Alalakh IV. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 13:50-62.

Woolley, Sir Leonard 1953 A Forgotten Kingdom . Melbourne: Penguin Books.

Woolley, Sir Leonard 1955 Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 . Report of the Research Committee 18. London: Society of Antiquaries.

Wright, Patti 2003 Preservation or destruction of plant remains by carbonization? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:577-583.

Yakar, Jak 1985 The Later Prehistory of Anatolia: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, Parts i and ii. BAR International Series 268(i&ii). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

166

Yasuda, Yoshinori 1991 Climatic Change at 5000 Years B.P. and the Birth of Ancient Civilizations. In Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium [sic] B.C ., edited by H.I.H Prince Takahito Mikasa, pp. 203- 218. Otto Harrassowitz, Weisbaden.

Yasuda, Yoshinori, Hiroyuki Kitagawa and Takeshi Nakagawa 2000 The earliest record of major anthropogenic deforestation in the Ghab Valley, northwest Syria: a palynological study. Quaternary International 73/74:127-136.

Yener, K. A. 2010 Introduction. In Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh Volume 1: The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons , edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 1-9. Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Yener, K. A., T. Wilkinson, S. Branting, E. Friedman, J. Lyon, and C. Reichel 1996 The 1995 Oriental Institute Amuq Regional Projects. Anatolica 22:49-84.

Yener, K. A., Christopher Edens, Timothy P. Harrison, J. Verstraete, and Tony J. Wilkinson 2000 The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998. American Journal of Archaeology 104(2):163-220.

Yener, K. A. ed. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, vol. 1: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002 . Oriental Institute Publications 131. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Yon, Marguerite 1992 Chapter 14: The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit. In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris , edited by William A. Ward and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, pp. 111-122. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque IA.

Zeder, Melinda, Daniel G. Bradley, Eve Emshwiller and Bruce D. Smith eds. 2006 Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Zeven, A. C. and J. M. J. de Wet 1982 Dictionary of cultivated plants and their regions of diversity. Excluding most ornamentals, forest trees and lower plants . Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.

Zohary, Daniel 1972 The Wild Progenitor and the Place of Origin of the Cultivated Lentil: Lens culinaris. Economic Botany 26(4):326-332.

Zohary, Daniel 1973 Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East . 2 vols. Gustav Fischer Verlag/Swets & Zeitlinger, Stuttgart/Amsterdam.

167

Zohary, Daniel 1996 The Domestication of the Grapevine Vitis vinifera L. in the Near East. In The Origins and Ancient History of Wine , edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming and Solomon H. Katz, pp. 23-30. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

Zohary, Daniel 1999 Domestication of the Neolithic Near Eastern Crop Assemblage. In Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches , edited by Patricia C. Anderson, pp. 42-50. Monograph 40. The Institute of Archaeology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Zohary, Daniel and M. Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Zohary, Daniel and Pinhas Spiegel-Roy 1975 Beginnings of Fruit Growing in the Old World. Science 187(4174):319- 327.

Zürcher, E. J. 2004 Turkey: A Modern History . I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., London/New York.

168

Appendices

169

Appendix A

Sample Contexts, Volumes, and Charcoal Quantities

This table presents the basic context information, sample types, volumes, and charcoal weights from samples analyzed in this thesis. Charcoal weights are for all charcoal recovered from the 1.4mm screen. Soil volume is measured to the nearest 0.25L, unless the samples are very small, in which case they are measured to the nearest 0.10L. The information contained in the Field and Square columns combine to give the 10x10 excavation unit that each sample came from (e.g., G4.56). All of the Early Bronze Age material analyzed came from G4.55. All Iron Age I material came from G4.56. The temple material was recovered in G4.28, G4.38 and G4.48. The Courtyard Building was represented in F5.98, F5.99 and G5.08. All midden-surface material came from F5.99.

Table A.1

Field Square Locus Pail Context Volume (L) Wood Charcoal (g)

F5 98 13 38 Fill/Soil Layer 4 0.12 F5 98 13 49 Surface 4.5 0.02 F5 98 13 53 Fill/Soil Layer 3.75 0.02 F5 98 14 39 Fill/Soil Layer 3.75 0.03 F5 98 14 44 Surface 3.75 0.05 F5 98 14 52 Fill/Soil Layer 3.5 0.05 F5 98 14 53 Fill/Soil Layer 3.75 0.05 F5 98 14 56 Fill/Soil Layer 3.75 0.11 F5 98 17 59 Fill/Soil Layer 4.5 0.18 F5 98 17 68 Surface 3.25 0.22 F5 98 18 60 Surface 3 0.34 F5 98 18 60 Surface 3.75 0.75 F5 98 18 67 Surface 4.25 0.31 F5 98 18 67 Surface 3.5 0.24 F5 98 23 81 Surface 10.25 4.85 F5 98 23 81 Surface 6.25 4.96 F5 98 23 82 Surface 6.75 3.62 F5 98 23 82 Surface 8 1.55 F5 98 23 82 Surface 6.75 3.74 F5 99 7 22 Vessel 14.5 0.36 F5 99 11 31 Fill/Soil Layer 4.5 0.08 F5 99 12 34 Fill/Soil Layer 4 0.04 F5 99 14 39 Fill/Soil Layer 10.25 0.14 F5 99 21 66 Surface 13 1.38 F5 99 21 66 Surface 4.25 0.13 F5 99 21 73 Surface 12.25 1.99 F5 99 24 106 Midden-surface 10 2.42

170

Table A.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail Context Volume (L) Wood Charcoal (g)

F5 99 28 88 Fill/Soil Layer 12.75 1.36 F5 99 29 114 Fill/Soil Layer 10.25 0.09 F5 99 38 158 Midden-surface 10.75 3.78 F5 99 38 178 Midden-surface 8 1.32 F5 99 46 147 Midden-surface 10 1.79 F5 99 50 177 Midden-surface 9.25 0.31 G4 28 4 38 Fill/Soil Layer 9 0.08 G4 28 4 39 Surface 2 0.02 G4 28 4 40 Surface 11 0.22 G4 28 4 56 Fill/Soil Layer 10.25 1.47 G4 28 22 68 Fill/Soil Layer 10.5 11.78 G4 28 22 71 Ashy deposit 12.75 1.88 G4 28 26 78 Surface 12 0.06 G4 28 27 76 Fill/Soil Layer 10 0.04 G4 28 30 79 Surface 10.25 0.00 G4 38 4 14 Fill/Soil Layer 7.75 0.02 G4 38 4 15 Fill/Soil Layer 4 0.02 G4 38 4 15 Fill/Soil Layer 4.5 0.04 G4 38 4 27 Fill/Soil Layer 5.25 0.01 G4 38 7 16 Surface 4.5 0.12 G4 38 7 16 Surface 1 0.02 G4 38 7 17 Surface 3.25 0.42 G4 38 13 91 Surface 4.25 1.01 G4 48 11 35 Surface 7.75 0.27 G4 48 11 42 Surface 7 0.33 G4 55 209 383 Pit 3.75 2.23 G4 55 209 383 Pit 4 1.51 G4 55 226 364 Fill/Soil Layer 9.25 0.97 G4 55 226 367 Vessel 0.1 0.00 G4 55 227 373 Fill/Soil Layer 8.25 0.16 G4 55 228 374 Fill/Soil Layer 7.5 0.88 G4 55 228 376 Fill/Soil Layer 6.5 0.16 G4 55 231 380 Fill/Soil Layer 6 0.23 G4 55 231 382 Fill/Soil Layer 3.25 0.25 G4 55 231 382 Fill/Soil Layer 3 0.08 G4 55 231 382 Vessel 0.25 0.02 G4 55 232 384 Pit 3.25 0.43 G4 55 232 384 Vessel 0.25 0.02 G4 55 232 388 Pit 6 1.26 G4 55 232 389 Pit 7.75 0.92 G4 55 232 393 Pit 5.75 0.82 G4 55 232 401 Pit 5.75 0.24 G4 55 234 415 Vessel 3 0.76

171

Table A.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail Context Volume (L) Wood Charcoal (g)

G4 55 235 392 Fill/Soil Layer 5 0.59 G4 55 240 402 Fill/Soil Layer 6.5 0.39 G4 55 242 417 Fill/Soil Layer 3.75 0.19 G4 55 246 412 Pit 5.75 0.89 G4 55 246 457 Pit 5.5 0.66 G4 55 248 433 Fill/Soil Layer 6.75 0.73 G4 55 249 423 Vessel 15 1.78 G4 55 250 420 Pit 7 1.11 G4 55 250 421 Pit 5.5 1.11 G4 55 253 433 Fill/Soil Layer 4.75 0.09 G4 55 253 446 Vessel 8 0.62 G4 55 253 446 Vessel 6 0.25 G4 55 255 440 Installation 6.25 1.63 G4 55 255 444 Ashy deposit 5.75 1.63 G4 55 255 444 Vessel 0.1 0.07 G4 55 256 441 Fill/Soil Layer 5.75 0.16 G4 55 260 462 Other 7.5 1.38 G4 55 260 466 Fill/Soil Layer 9 0.86 G4 55 260 466 Other 7.75 0.39 G4 55 260 468 Fill/Soil Layer 7.75 0.27 G4 55 263 558 Vessel 3 0.35 G4 55 263 575 Fill/Soil Layer 12 2.41 G4 55 269 486 Fill/Soil Layer 11 0.54 G4 55 270 492 Fill/Soil Layer 12.75 1.12 G4 55 270 495 Fill/Soil Layer 13 0.58 G4 55 270 570 Vessel 0.5 0.02 G4 55 270 570 Vessel 0.25 0.02 G4 55 271 496 Fill/Soil Layer 12.25 0.61 G4 55 271 496 Surface 11.25 1.00 G4 55 271 507 Fill/Soil Layer 8 1.31 G4 55 271 514 Surface 8.5 2.09 G4 55 271 540 Surface 9.25 0.92 G4 55 271 542 Surface 9 0.82 G4 55 271 543 Surface 10.75 0.37 G4 55 271 557 Surface 10 0.37 G4 55 279 497 Ashy deposit 11.5 2.92 G4 55 282 528 Fill/Soil Layer 10 0.37 G4 55 282 551 Fill/Soil Layer 8.25 0.73 G4 56 154 285 Pit 4.5 0.22 G4 56 154 356 Pit 7 0.54 G4 56 154 357 Pit 7.5 1.67 G4 56 162 379 Ashy deposit 3.25 0.33 G4 56 165 300 Pit 6 0.18

172

Table A.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail Context Volume (L) Wood Charcoal (g)

G4 56 165 312 Pit 6.25 0.66 G4 56 165 319 Pit 8 0.22 G4 56 165 319 Pit 6.5 0.26 G4 56 165 327 Pit 5.5 0.21 G4 56 167 305 Pit 4.5 0.32 G4 56 167 308 Pit 5 0.20 G4 56 167 313 Pit 5.25 0.39 G4 56 167 317 Pit 7.25 0.51 G4 56 167 325 Pit 4.75 0.50 G4 56 167 325 Pit 4.25 0.43 G4 56 167 325 Pit 4.75 0.22 G4 56 167 393 Pit 5.25 0.52 G4 56 167 393 Pit 8 0.58 G4 56 167 406 Pit 2.25 0.03 Other - Post Hole G4 56 169 309 4.25 0.18 Fill G4 56 177 344 Pit 8.5 0.30 G4 56 178 347 Fill/Soil Layer 2.5 0.32 G4 56 179 338 Fill/Soil Layer 8 0.28 G4 56 185 355 Fill/Soil Layer 4 0.51 G4 56 186 364 Surface 4.75 0.48 G4 56 186 370 Surface 6.75 0.43 G4 56 186 370 Surface 7 0.39 G4 56 188 365 Surface 4.75 1.18 G4 56 193 376 Fill/Soil Layer 8 0.24 G4 56 194 377 Fill/Soil Layer 7.5 0.55 G4 56 194 381 Fill/Soil Layer 6.5 0.38 G4 56 196 382 Pit 6.75 1.09 G4 56 196 382 Pit 8 0.58 G4 56 196 382 Pit 7.75 0.35 G4 56 196 382 Pit 10 0.68 G4 56 196 386 Pit 8.5 0.19 G4 56 196 386 Pit 4.5 0.11 G4 56 196 386 Pit 6 0.32 G4 56 199 388 Pit 8.5 0.51 G4 56 203 399 Pit 3 0.37 G4 56 204 487 Installation 10.25 0.28 G4 56 206 410 Fill/Soil Layer 3 0.09 G4 56 214 435 Fill/Soil Layer 7.25 0.49 G4 56 216 443 Pit 10.5 0.63 G4 56 216 458 Pit 8.25 0.62 G4 56 223 470 Fill/Soil Layer 11.5 0.72 G4 56 227 476 Installation 10.25 2.95

173

Table A.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail Context Volume (L) Wood Charcoal (g)

G4 56 227 481 Fill/Soil Layer 8.25 1.56 G5 08 11 48 Surface 8 0.70 G5 08 11 48 Fill/Soil Layer 7.5 1.12 G5 08 11 48 Surface 7 0.66 G5 08 11 52 Surface 7.5 0.96

174

Appendix B

Macrobotanical Raw Data

These tables provide the raw macrobotanical counts for each sample analyzed. Any number marked with an asterisk (*) indicates a mineralized specimen. Table B.1 (F5.98.13.38 - F5.99.38.158) ? ? ? indet. sp. spikelet fork sp. Pail Field Locus Square Triticum Cerealindet. cf.Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum cf.Hordeum vulgare Hordeumcf. vulgare cf.Triticum dicoccum Triticummonococcum Hordeum/Triticum DOMESTICATED SPECIES Triticumaestivum/durum cf.Triticum aestivum/durum Triticumdicoccum

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 1 ------F5 98 17 68 2 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 1 ------F5 98 18 67 ------1 ------F5 98 23 81 - 5 - 3 - - 2 - 4 - 4 - - - - F5 98 23 81 - 2 - 1 - - 6 1 6 - 6 - - - - F5 98 23 82 ------5 - - - 1 - - - - F5 98 23 82 - 2 - - - - 2 - 6 ------F5 98 23 82 - 2 - - - - 13 - 3 - - - 1 - - F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------F5 99 12 34 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 - 3 - - - - 5 - 3 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 - 2 - 2 - - - - 1 ------F5 99 24 106 - 1 - - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - - F5 99 28 88 - - - 2 ------1 - - - - F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 4 1 ------1 ------

175

Table B.1 (continued) rachis ? rachis glumebase (pip) (fruit) (stem) sp. Rachis Pail Field Locus Square sp. glume base Vicia ervilia Vicia Vicia Vicia cf.ervilia Cicer arietinum Cicer cf.vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Cerealchaff indet. Triticum Vitis vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Linum usitatissimumLinum Linum usitatissimum Linum cf.usitatissimumLinum Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Triticumaestivum/durum

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 ------F5 98 17 68 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------1 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 18 67 ------1 ------F5 98 23 81 ------1 - 2 - 1 - - - - F5 98 23 81 - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 - F5 98 23 82 ------F5 98 23 82 ------1 - F5 98 23 82 ------1 ------F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------1 - - - F5 99 12 34 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 ------1 - F5 99 24 106 - - - - 1 - - - - 4 - 1 - - - - F5 99 28 88 ------F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 - - - 1 - - - - - 3 ------

176

Table B.1 (continued)

? sp. Pail Field Locus Square Adonis Ficuscarica Vicia/Pisum Lensculinaris cf.ervilia Vicia cf.Ficus carica Oleaeuropaea cf.Brassicaceae cf.Lens culinaris Oleaeuropaea cf.Olea europaea Prunusamygdalus Fabaceae(domes.) Brassicaceaeindet. Papaveraceaeindet. WEEDY/WILD SPECIES

F5 98 13 38 - - 1 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 ------F5 98 17 68 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 ------1 ------F5 98 18 67 ------1 - F5 98 23 81 - - - - - 1 1 ------F5 98 23 81 - - - - - 1 1 ------F5 98 23 82 ------1 - - 2 - - - - - F5 98 23 82 - - - - - 1 ------1 F5 98 23 82 - - 1 - - 1 - 1 ------F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------F5 99 12 34 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 - - 1 ------1 - F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 ------1 ------F5 99 24 106 - - - 1 - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - F5 99 28 88 ------1 - F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 ------

177

Table B.1 (continued) sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Rumex

Prosopis Silene

Rumex Fabaceae ? Stellaria Lepidium Rhamnus cf. Polygonum cf. Fabaceaeindet. Malvaceaeindet. Chenopodium Prosopiscf. farcta Polygonaceaeindet. Caryophyllaceaeindet. Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 ------1 ------F5 98 17 68 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 23 81 ------1 F5 98 23 81 ------1 - - - - - 1 - - - F5 98 23 82 ------1 ------F5 98 23 82 ------1 - - - F5 98 23 82 ------1 ------F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------1 - - - F5 99 12 34 ------F5 99 14 39 ------1 ------F5 99 21 66 ------1 ------F5 99 21 66 ------1 ------F5 99 21 73 ------1 ------F5 99 24 106 ------1 - F5 99 28 88 ------1 ------F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 ------3 - 1 - - - 2 - - -

178

Table B.1 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Trifolieae Square Vicieae Lens Vicia Lathyrus Trifolieae

Astragalus cf. Vicia Lathyrus

Coronilla cf. Trigonella Medicago Astragalus Vicia/Lathyrus cf. cf.Coronilla cf.Medicago cf.

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------1 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 ------F5 98 17 68 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 ------1 - - - F5 98 18 67 ------2 ------F5 98 23 81 ------4 ------F5 98 23 81 ------2 ------F5 98 23 82 ------2 ------F5 98 23 82 ------F5 98 23 82 ------2 ------F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------F5 99 12 34 ------1 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 ------F5 99 24 106 ------F5 99 28 88 ------F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 ------5 ------

179

Table B.1 (continued)

-type

-type -type

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Asteraceae Apiaceae? Apiaceae-type Valerianella

Scorpiurus Centaurea cf. Bupleurum Onobrychis Apiaceaeindet. cf.Cichorium cf.Scorpiurus cf. Asteraceaeindet. cf. Cephalariasyriaca Valerianelladentata Valerianellacoronata cf.Valerianella dentata

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 ------F5 98 17 68 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 23 81 - - - - 1 ------F5 98 23 81 - - - - 1 ------F5 98 23 82 ------1 - - - - F5 98 23 82 ------1 - - - - - F5 98 23 82 ------1 - - - F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------F5 99 12 34 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 - - - - 2 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 ------F5 99 24 106 ------1 - - - F5 99 28 88 ------F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 ------1 -

180

Table B.1 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Rubiaceae Picris Galium Asperula Solanaceae ? cf. cf.Galium Scrophulariaceae Thymelaea cf.Asperula ?Euphorbiaceae Rubiaceaeindet. Lamiaceae indet. Cyperaceaeindet. Sherardiaarvensis Boraginaceaeindet. cf. Euphorbiaceaeindet.

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------F5 98 13 53 ------F5 98 14 39 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------F5 98 14 53 ------1 F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 ------F5 98 17 68 ------F5 98 18 60 ------1 - - - - - F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 18 67 ------F5 98 23 81 ------3 - - - - - F5 98 23 81 ------1 - - - - - F5 98 23 82 ------F5 98 23 82 ------1 - - - - - F5 98 23 82 ------2 - - - - - F5 99 7 22 ------F5 99 11 31 ------F5 99 12 34 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 ------2 - - - - - F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 ------1 - - - - - F5 99 24 106 ------F5 99 28 88 ------F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 - - - - - 1 ------

181

Table B.1 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp.-type Pail Field Poaceae Locus Square Cyperaceae Carex Bromus cf. Triticum Aegilops Carex cf.Avena Hordeum Eleocharis cf. Poaceaeindet. cf.Aegilops cf.Hordeum cf.Eleocharis cf. Poaceae(embryo) Scirpuscf. maritimus

F5 98 13 38 ------F5 98 13 49 ------3 ------F5 98 13 53 ------1 ------F5 98 14 39 ------1 ------F5 98 14 44 ------F5 98 14 52 ------6 ------F5 98 14 53 ------1 ------F5 98 14 56 ------F5 98 17 59 - - - 1 - - 2 ------F5 98 17 68 ------1 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 60 ------F5 98 18 67 ------6 ------F5 98 18 67 ------2 ------F5 98 23 81 ------15 ------F5 98 23 81 - - - 1 - - 16 ------F5 98 23 82 ------7 ------F5 98 23 82 ------2 ------F5 98 23 82 ------18 - - - - - 2 - - - F5 99 7 22 ------5 ------F5 99 11 31 ------1 ------F5 99 12 34 ------1 ------F5 99 14 39 ------F5 99 21 66 ------4 ------F5 99 21 66 ------F5 99 21 73 - - - 1 - - 3 ------F5 99 24 106 - 1 - - - - 23 ------F5 99 28 88 ------4 ------F5 99 29 114 ------F5 99 38 158 - - - 2 - 1 95 ------

182

Table B.1 (continued) ? -type sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Unknown Lolium Phleum Phalaris TotalSeeds cf.Lolium cf.Phalaris Unidentifiable Setaria/Panicum TotalIdentified Seeds Loliumtemulentum Poaceae(chaff - wild/weedy)

F5 98 13 38 1 ------0 4 2 6 F5 98 13 49 ------0 1 3 4 F5 98 13 53 ------0 0 1 1 F5 98 14 39 ------0 0 1 1 F5 98 14 44 ------0 1 0 1 F5 98 14 52 ------0 0 6 6 F5 98 14 53 1 - - 1 - - - - 0 0 5 5 F5 98 14 56 ------0 0 0 0 F5 98 17 59 - - - 1 - - - - 0 8 6 14 F5 98 17 68 1 - - 2 - - - - 0 0 6 6 F5 98 18 60 ------0 3 1 4 F5 98 18 60 ------0 4 1 5 F5 98 18 67 - - - 2 - - - - 0 1 11 12 F5 98 18 67 ------0 6 7 13 F5 98 23 81 1 - - 8 - - - - 0 11 56 67 F5 98 23 81 3 - - 15 - - - - 0 43 68 111 F5 98 23 82 - - - 3 - - - - 1 6 23 30 F5 98 23 82 2 - - 3 - - - - 0 11 23 34 F5 98 23 82 - - - 9 1 - - - 0 21 59 80 F5 99 7 22 - - - 2 - - - - 0 1 7 8 F5 99 11 31 ------0 2 3 5 F5 99 12 34 ------0 2 2 4 F5 99 14 39 - - - 1 - - - - 0 3 2 5 F5 99 21 66 2 - - 1 - - - - 0 13 25 38 F5 99 21 66 ------0 0 1 1 F5 99 21 73 - - - 5 - - - - 0 8 18 26 F5 99 24 106 8 - - 14 - - - - 1 24 63 88 F5 99 28 88 - - - 4 - - - - 0 3 13 16 F5 99 29 114 ------0 0 0 0 F5 99 38 158 17 - - 48 - - - - 0 36 185 221

183

Table B.2 (F5.99.38.178 – G4.55.232.401) ? ? ? indet. sp. spikelet fork sp. Pail Field Locus Square Triticum Cerealindet. cf.Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum cf.Hordeum vulgare Hordeumcf. vulgare cf.Triticum dicoccum Triticummonococcum Hordeum/Triticum DOMESTICATED SPECIES Triticumaestivum/durum cf.Triticum aestivum/durum Triticumdicoccum

F5 99 38 178 - 3 ------3 ------F5 99 46 147 - 2 ------F5 99 50 177 ------1 - - - 1 - - - - G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 ------G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------1 - - - - G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 1 2 ------1 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 - 3 - - - - 15 - 8 5 - - 3 - - G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------1 ------G4 38 13 91 ------G4 48 11 35 ------G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 ------3 - - - 1 G4 55 209 383 3 2 ------5 - - - - G4 55 226 364 - 2 ------1 - 4 - - - - G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 - 11 ------2 - - - - G4 55 228 374 ------2 - - - - G4 55 228 376 ------G4 55 231 380 - 4 ------1 - - - - G4 55 231 382 - 3 ------2 - 1 - - - - G4 55 231 382 - 2 ------2 - 1 - - - - G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 232 384 - 5 - - - - 1 - 3 - 4 - - - - G4 55 232 384 ------1 - - G4 55 232 388 - 8 - 2 - - - - 2 - 6 - - - 2 G4 55 232 389 2 8 ------4 - - - - G4 55 232 393 4 10 - 3 - - 2 - 9 - 9 - - - 1 G4 55 232 401 - 7 - 4 - - 1 2 2 - 6 - - - 1

184

Table B.2 (continued) rachis ? rachis glumebase (pip) (fruit) (stem) sp. Rachis Pail Field Locus Square sp. glume base Vicia ervilia Vicia Vicia Vicia cf.ervilia Cicer arietinum Cicer cf.vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Cerealchaff indet. Triticum Vitis vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Linum usitatissimumLinum Linum usitatissimum Linum cf.usitatissimumLinum Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Triticumaestivum/durum

F5 99 38 178 - - - 1 - - - - - 3* ------F5 99 46 147 ------F5 99 50 177 - - - - 1 ------G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 ------1 - G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------3 ------G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------G4 38 13 91 ------12 - G4 48 11 35 ------G4 48 11 42 ------1 - G4 55 209 383 1 - - - - - 7 - - 2 - - - - 39 - G4 55 209 383 1 - - 1 - 1 15 - - 1 - - - - 61 - G4 55 226 364 ------G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 1 ------1 ------G4 55 228 374 ------1 ------G4 55 228 376 ------1 ------G4 55 231 380 - - - - - 1 - 1 ------G4 55 231 382 1 - - - 1 3 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 232 384 - - 2 - 1 - - - - 2 - - 1 - - - G4 55 232 384 - - 1 1 ------G4 55 232 388 2 - - - 2 - - - - 9 - 9 - - - - G4 55 232 389 - - - 2 - 2 - - - 6 - 4 - - 3 - G4 55 232 393 2 - 2 2 4 5 - - - - - 4 - 1 2 - G4 55 232 401 8 - 1 1 - 1 - - - 6 - 3 - - - -

185

Table B.2 (continued) ? sp. Pail Field Locus Square Adonis Ficuscarica Vicia/Pisum Lensculinaris cf.ervilia Vicia cf.Ficus carica Oleaeuropaea cf.Brassicaceae cf.Lens culinaris Oleaeuropaea cf.Olea europaea Prunusamygdalus Fabaceae(domes.) Brassicaceaeindet. Papaveraceaeindet. WEEDY/WILD SPECIES

F5 99 38 178 ------1 ------F5 99 46 147 - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 - - - - - F5 99 50 177 ------1 ------G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------1 - - - - - G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 ------G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------G4 38 13 91 ------G4 48 11 35 ------G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 ------G4 55 209 383 - 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 226 364 ------1 ------2 - G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 ------1 ------G4 55 228 374 ------G4 55 228 376 ------1 ------G4 55 231 380 ------G4 55 231 382 ------1 - - 1 - - - - - G4 55 231 382 ------1 - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 231 382 ------1 ------G4 55 232 384 ------1 ------G4 55 232 384 ------1 ------G4 55 232 388 - - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - - G4 55 232 389 ------12 - - 1 1 1 - - - G4 55 232 393 ------3 ------1 - G4 55 232 401 - - - 1 ------

186

Table B.2 (continued) sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Rumex

Prosopis Silene

Rumex Fabaceae ? Stellaria Lepidium Rhamnus cf. Polygonum cf. Fabaceaeindet. Malvaceaeindet. Chenopodium Prosopiscf. farcta Polygonaceaeindet. Caryophyllaceaeindet. Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae

F5 99 38 178 ------F5 99 46 147 ------2 - - - F5 99 50 177 ------G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 - - - - 1 ------G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------1 ------G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------G4 38 13 91 ------G4 48 11 35 ------1 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 - - - 10 ------2 - - - G4 55 209 383 - - - 11 - - 1 ------G4 55 226 364 ------2 - 1 - - - - - G4 55 226 367 ------1 G4 55 227 373 - - - 1 ------G4 55 228 374 ------1 ------G4 55 228 376 - - - 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 231 380 ------1 - G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 231 382 ------1 ------G4 55 231 382 ------1 - G4 55 232 384 - - - 2 - - 3 - - - 1 - 1 - - - G4 55 232 384 ------1 - G4 55 232 388 - - - 1 - - 3 - - 3 - 1 - - 1 - G4 55 232 389 - - - 2 - - 9 - 46 - - - 1 - 1 - G4 55 232 393 ------5 - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - G4 55 232 401 ------1 - 1 - - - - - 2 -

187

Table B.2 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Trifolieae Square Vicieae Lens Vicia Lathyrus Trifolieae

Astragalus cf. Vicia Lathyrus

Coronilla cf. Trigonella Medicago Astragalus Vicia/Lathyrus cf. cf.Coronilla cf.Medicago cf.

F5 99 38 178 ------1 ------F5 99 46 147 ------3 - - 1 - - - F5 99 50 177 ------1 ------G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 ------G4 28 22 71 - - - - 1 ------G4 28 26 78 ------G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 ------1 - - 1 - - - G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------1 - - - G4 38 13 91 ------1 ------G4 48 11 35 ------G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 ------14 - - - - 1 - G4 55 209 383 ------5 - - - - 3 - G4 55 226 364 1 ------4 ------G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 1 1 ------1 - - - - 1 - G4 55 228 374 ------4 ------G4 55 228 376 - - - - - 1 - - - 5 ------G4 55 231 380 ------5 ------G4 55 231 382 ------5 ------G4 55 231 382 1 ------4 ------G4 55 231 382 ------1 - - - - 1 - G4 55 232 384 1 - 1 ------3 - - - - 2 - G4 55 232 384 ------G4 55 232 388 - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 3 - G4 55 232 389 4 - - - - 1 - - 1 23 - - 1 - 5 - G4 55 232 393 - - - - - 1 - - - 27 - - - - 2 - G4 55 232 401 1 ------14 - - - - 1 -

188

Table B.2 (continued)

-type

-type -type

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Asteraceae Apiaceae? Apiaceae-type Valerianella

Scorpiurus Centaurea cf. Bupleurum Onobrychis Apiaceaeindet. cf.Cichorium cf.Scorpiurus cf. Asteraceaeindet. cf. Cephalariasyriaca Valerianelladentata Valerianellacoronata cf.Valerianella dentata

F5 99 38 178 1 ------F5 99 46 147 ------F5 99 50 177 ------1 - - - G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 ------G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 - - - 1 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------G4 38 13 91 ------G4 48 11 35 ------G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 - - 1 - - - - - 1 ------G4 55 209 383 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 226 364 ------G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 ------G4 55 228 374 ------G4 55 228 376 1 ------1 - - - G4 55 231 380 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 231 382 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 232 384 ------1 ------G4 55 232 384 ------G4 55 232 388 4 - - - 1 - 1 ------1 - G4 55 232 389 - - - - 1 ------6 - 2 - G4 55 232 393 - - 1 ------3 - - - G4 55 232 401 3 - - - - - 1 - 1 ------

189

Table B.2 (continued)

F5 99 38 178 ------F5 99 46 147 ------F5 99 50 177 ------G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 ------G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------G4 28 27 76 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------1 G4 38 13 91 ------G4 48 11 35 ------1 - - - G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 ------G4 55 209 383 - - - - - 2 ------G4 55 226 364 - - - - - 1 ------G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 ------1 - - 1 - - G4 55 228 374 - - - - - 1 ------G4 55 228 376 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - G4 55 231 380 ------G4 55 231 382 - - - - - 3 ------G4 55 231 382 ------1 - - - - - G4 55 231 382 ------G4 55 232 384 - - - - - 2 - - - - 3 - 2 - - - G4 55 232 384 ------1 - - - G4 55 232 388 ------8 - 1 - - - G4 55 232 389 - - 2 1 - 1 - - - - 8 - - 2 - 2 G4 55 232 393 - - - - - 1 - - - - 19 - 1 1 - - G4 55 232 401 - 1 - - - 4 - - - - 7 - 2 - - -

190

Table B.2 (continued)

F5 99 38 178 ------15 ------F5 99 46 147 ------4 ------F5 99 50 177 ------2 ------G4 28 4 38 ------G4 28 4 39 ------G4 28 4 40 ------G4 28 4 56 ------G4 28 22 68 - - - 2 ------G4 28 22 71 ------G4 28 26 78 ------G4 28 27 76 - - - 1 ------G4 28 30 79 ------G4 38 4 14 ------1 ------G4 38 4 15 ------G4 38 4 15 ------1 ------G4 38 4 27 ------G4 38 7 16 ------6 ------G4 38 7 16 ------G4 38 7 17 ------G4 38 13 91 ------G4 48 11 35 ------G4 48 11 42 ------G4 55 209 383 ------17 ------G4 55 209 383 ------27 ------G4 55 226 364 ------10 ------G4 55 226 367 ------G4 55 227 373 - - - - - 1 27 ------G4 55 228 374 - - - 1 - - 8 ------G4 55 228 376 1 - - - - - 9 ------G4 55 231 380 ------5 ------G4 55 231 382 - - - - - 1 12 ------G4 55 231 382 ------3 ------G4 55 231 382 ------2 ------G4 55 232 384 ------20 ------G4 55 232 384 ------3 ------G4 55 232 388 - - - - - 1 36 1 ------1 - G4 55 232 389 ------69 2 1 - - - - - 2 - G4 55 232 393 - - - 2 - 1 49 - - 1 - - 1 - 2 - G4 55 232 401 - - - 1 - - 78 - - - - - 1 - 2 -

191

Table B.2 (continued) ? -type sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Unknown Lolium Phleum Phalaris TotalSeeds cf.Lolium cf.Phalaris Unidentifiable Setaria/Panicum TotalIdentified Seeds Loliumtemulentum Poaceae(chaff - wild/weedy)

F5 99 38 178 2 - - 7 - - - - 0 8 36 44 F5 99 46 147 2 - - 6 - - - - 0 9 23 32 F5 99 50 177 - - - 4 - - - - 0 3 11 14 G4 28 4 38 ------0 0 0 0 G4 28 4 39 ------0 0 1 1 G4 28 4 40 ------0 0 0 0 G4 28 4 56 ------0 2 0 2 G4 28 22 68 ------0 1 4 5 G4 28 22 71 ------0 0 1 1 G4 28 26 78 2 - - 1 - - - - 0 1 8 9 G4 28 27 76 ------0 0 1 1 G4 28 30 79 ------0 0 0 0 G4 38 4 14 1 ------0 1 2 3 G4 38 4 15 ------0 2 7 9 G4 38 4 15 ------0 1 1 2 G4 38 4 27 ------0 0 0 0 G4 38 7 16 1 ------0 19 41 60 G4 38 7 16 ------0 0 0 0 G4 38 7 17 ------0 1 3 4 G4 38 13 91 ------0 0 13 13 G4 48 11 35 ------0 4 3 7 G4 48 11 42 ------0 4 1 5 G4 55 209 383 - - - 17 - - - - 0 86 114 200 G4 55 209 383 5 - - 19 - - - - 0 36 166 202 G4 55 226 364 2 - - 8 - - - - 0 20 39 59 G4 55 226 367 ------0 0 1 1 G4 55 227 373 - - - 12 - - - - 0 28 63 91 G4 55 228 374 1 - - 5 - - - - 0 15 24 39 G4 55 228 376 3 - - 4 - - - - 0 18 31 49 G4 55 231 380 - - - 14 - - - - 1 16 32 49 G4 55 231 382 3 - - 3 - - - - 0 7 38 45 G4 55 231 382 3 - - 4 - - - - 0 6 24 30 G4 55 231 382 ------0 4 6 10 G4 55 232 384 19 - - 10 - - - - 0 41 88 129 G4 55 232 384 - - - - - 1 - - 1 3 8 12 G4 55 232 388 26 - - 21 - - - - 4 56 147 207 G4 55 232 389 51 - - 26 - - - - 4 120 308 432 G4 55 232 393 41 - - 32 - - - - 2 100 241 343 G4 55 232 401 6 - 1 35 - - - 3 0 57 192 249

192

Table B.3 (G4.55.234.415 – G4.55.282.551) ? ? ? indet. sp. spikelet fork sp. Pail Field Locus Square Triticum Cerealindet. cf.Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum cf.Hordeum vulgare Hordeumcf. vulgare cf.Triticum dicoccum Triticummonococcum Hordeum/Triticum DOMESTICATED SPECIES Triticumaestivum/durum cf.Triticum aestivum/durum Triticumdicoccum

G4 55 234 415 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - G4 55 235 392 - 6 - 1 - - - - 2 - 1 - - - 1 G4 55 240 402 ------1 G4 55 242 417 - 4 ------2 ------G4 55 246 412 - 1 ------2 G4 55 246 457 ------1 ------G4 55 248 433 - 5 - 1 - - 1 1 2 - 2 - - - 1 G4 55 249 423 - 18 - 2 - - 1 - 4 - 3 - - - - G4 55 250 420 1 9 - 4 - - 2 - 4 - 2 - - - - G4 55 250 421 - 7 1 4 - - 2 - 6 - 6 - - - - G4 55 253 433 - 3 ------1 ------G4 55 253 446 4 4 - 2 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 G4 55 253 446 5 4 - - - - 2 - - - 2 - - - 1 G4 55 255 440 4 6 ------4 - - - - G4 55 255 444 2 11 - - 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - - 1 G4 55 255 444 ------3 - - - - G4 55 256 441 - 9 - 2 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - G4 55 260 462 - 2 - - - - 1 - - - 3 - - 1 2 G4 55 260 466 1 8 - - - 1 7 - 8 3 11 - - - 1 G4 55 260 466 2 7 - 1 ------1 - - - - G4 55 260 468 1 6 ------1 - 1 - - - - G4 55 263 558 1 3 - 2 - - - - 4 - 5 - - - 1 G4 55 263 575 - 4 - - - - 11 - 16 - 14 - - - 4 G4 55 269 486 - 9 - 2 - - 3 - 4 - 5 - - - 2 G4 55 270 492 1 9 - 1 - - 1 - 6 - 2 - - - 1 G4 55 270 495 - 6 - 4 - - 2 - 5 - 5 - - - - G4 55 270 570 - - - 1 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 271 496 - 6 - 2 - - 2 - 6 - 2 - - - 3 G4 55 271 496 1 2 - 2 - - 2 - - - 5 - - - 1 G4 55 271 507 - 2 - - - - 4 - 4 - 7 - - 1 - G4 55 271 514 - 3 - 3 - - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - 2 G4 55 271 540 2 10 - 1 - - - - 4 - 9 - - - 1 G4 55 271 542 3 5 - - - - 2 - 3 - 4 - - - 2 G4 55 271 543 - 1 - 1 ------6 - - - 1 G4 55 271 557 - 6 ------1 G4 55 279 497 - 19 ------11 - 1 - - - 1 G4 55 282 528 - 1 ------1 ------G4 55 282 551 - 3 - 2 - - 1 - 5 - 3 - 1 - 2

193

Table B.3 (continued) rachis ? rachis glumebase (pip) (fruit) (stem) sp. Rachis Pail Field Locus Square sp. glume base Vicia ervilia Vicia Vicia Vicia cf.ervilia Cicer arietinum Cicer cf.vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Cerealchaff indet. Triticum Vitis vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Linum usitatissimumLinum Linum usitatissimum Linum cf.usitatissimumLinum Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Triticumaestivum/durum

G4 55 234 415 ------1 - - - - 5 - G4 55 235 392 - - - 2 1 2 - - - 2 - - - - 1 3 G4 55 240 402 2 - 1 1 - 1 - - - 2 ------G4 55 242 417 - - 1 ------1 - - 1 - G4 55 246 412 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - 62 - G4 55 246 457 - - - - - 1 ------3 - G4 55 248 433 - - - 1 - 3 ------1 - G4 55 249 423 8 - 3 2 2 1 - - - 2 - 3 1 - 4 - G4 55 250 420 2 - - 1 1 6 - - - - - 1 - - - - G4 55 250 421 2 - 2 4 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 7 - G4 55 253 433 - - - 1 ------2 - G4 55 253 446 1 - 1 2 1 1 - - - 2 - 1 - - 1 - G4 55 253 446 1 - 3 1 - 2 - - - 1 - - - - 2 - G4 55 255 440 - - 2 - 2 ------1 - G4 55 255 444 ------4 - G4 55 255 444 - - 1 ------1 - G4 55 256 441 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 ------G4 55 260 462 2 - 1 2 2 ------1 - G4 55 260 466 1 - 1 1 3 - - - - 1 - - - - 5 1 G4 55 260 466 - - - - - 1 ------1 3 G4 55 260 468 - - - - - 3 ------G4 55 263 558 2 2 - 1 3 ------3 - G4 55 263 575 18 1 10 15 10 - - - - 4 - 3 - - 11 - G4 55 269 486 3 - 3 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - 4 - G4 55 270 492 4 - - 1 3 4 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - G4 55 270 495 3 - 1 3 2 - - - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - G4 55 270 570 - - - 1 1 ------G4 55 270 570 - 1 ------G4 55 271 496 7 1 11 6 2 2 - - - - - 1 - - 3 - G4 55 271 496 - - 2 2 - 3 - - - - - 2 - - 8 - G4 55 271 507 3 - 7 7 - 2 - - 1 1 - - - - 2 - G4 55 271 514 22 - 4 15 6 - - - - 4 - - - - 6 - G4 55 271 540 2 - 1 4 - - - - - 1 - - - - 3 - G4 55 271 542 2 - 1 - - 3 ------G4 55 271 543 3 - 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - 3 - G4 55 271 557 2 - 3 - - 2 ------3 - G4 55 279 497 5 1 5 4 1 1 - - - 2 - - - - 13 - G4 55 282 528 5 - 1 1 1 ------1 - - 2 - G4 55 282 551 3 - 2 - 1 - - - - 2 - 4 - - 8 -

194

Table B.3 (continued) ? sp. Pail Field Locus Square Adonis Ficuscarica Vicia/Pisum Lensculinaris cf.ervilia Vicia cf.Ficus carica Oleaeuropaea cf.Brassicaceae cf.Lens culinaris Oleaeuropaea cf.Olea europaea Prunusamygdalus Fabaceae(domes.) Brassicaceaeindet. Papaveraceaeindet. WEEDY/WILD SPECIES

G4 55 234 415 ------1 ------G4 55 235 392 - - 1 - - - 2 ------G4 55 240 402 ------1 ------G4 55 242 417 ------1 ------1 - G4 55 246 412 ------1 ------1 - G4 55 246 457 ------G4 55 248 433 - - 3 - - - 2 ------G4 55 249 423 ------1 - - 1 - - - 1 - G4 55 250 420 ------2 ------G4 55 250 421 ------2 ------G4 55 253 433 ------G4 55 253 446 ------1 ------G4 55 253 446 ------1 ------3 - G4 55 255 440 ------1 ------1 - G4 55 255 444 ------1 1 ------G4 55 255 444 ------G4 55 256 441 ------1 1 G4 55 260 462 - - - - 1 - 1 ------1 - G4 55 260 466 - - - 1 - - 2 - - 2 - 3 - 1 - G4 55 260 466 - - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - G4 55 260 468 - - 1 - - - 2 ------G4 55 263 558 - - - 1 1 - 1 ------G4 55 263 575 - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - 3 - G4 55 269 486 - - 1 1 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 2 - G4 55 270 492 ------1 ------1 - G4 55 270 495 ------1 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 271 496 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - G4 55 271 496 ------2 ------G4 55 271 507 - - 3 - - - 2 - - - - - 1 3 - G4 55 271 514 - - - - 2 - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - G4 55 271 540 2 - - - 1 - 1 ------G4 55 271 542 1 - 1 ------1 - - 2 - G4 55 271 543 ------G4 55 271 557 ------1 ------G4 55 279 497 - - 2 - - - 5 - - - - 1 - 1 - G4 55 282 528 - - - - 2 ------G4 55 282 551 ------2 ------2

195

Table B.3 (continued) sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Rumex

Prosopis Silene

Rumex Fabaceae ? Stellaria Lepidium Rhamnus cf. Polygonum cf. Fabaceaeindet. Malvaceaeindet. Chenopodium Prosopiscf. farcta Polygonaceaeindet. Caryophyllaceaeindet. Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae

G4 55 234 415 ------G4 55 235 392 - - - 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 240 402 - - - 1 ------3 - 1 - G4 55 242 417 ------1 - G4 55 246 412 ------G4 55 246 457 ------G4 55 248 433 - - - 2 - - 1 ------2 - G4 55 249 423 - - - 3 - - 5 ------3 - G4 55 250 420 - - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - 1 - G4 55 250 421 ------2 ------G4 55 253 433 ------G4 55 253 446 - - - 1 ------1 - - - G4 55 253 446 - - - 1 ------2 - G4 55 255 440 - - - 3 - - 1 ------G4 55 255 444 ------1 ------9 - G4 55 255 444 ------1 - G4 55 256 441 ------1 - - - - - G4 55 260 462 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 2 - 3 - G4 55 260 466 - - - 1 - - 2 - 2 - - - 4 - 3 - G4 55 260 466 ------1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - G4 55 260 468 ------1 G4 55 263 558 - - - 1 ------2 - - - G4 55 263 575 - 10 1 1 - - 4 - 14 - 1 - 3 - 6 - G4 55 269 486 ------3 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 270 492 ------1 2 - - - 1 - 3 - G4 55 270 495 ------2 - - - - - 1 - 1 - G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 271 496 ------3 - G4 55 271 496 - - - 4 ------1 - 2 - G4 55 271 507 - - - 3 - - 9 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 271 514 - - - 6 - - 3 - 18 - - - - - 8 - G4 55 271 540 - - - 2 ------1 - 2 - G4 55 271 542 - - - 3 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 271 543 - - - 1 - - 1 - 2 - 1 - - - 1 - G4 55 271 557 ------1 - - - - - 3 2 1 - G4 55 279 497 1 - - 14 - - 12 - 1 - - - 1 - 4 - G4 55 282 528 ------1 ------G4 55 282 551 - - - 3 - - 1 ------1 -

196

Table B.3 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Trifolieae Square Vicieae Lens Vicia Lathyrus Trifolieae

Astragalus cf. Vicia Lathyrus

Coronilla cf. Trigonella Medicago Astragalus Vicia/Lathyrus cf. cf.Coronilla cf.Medicago cf.

G4 55 234 415 1 ------1 - G4 55 235 392 1 ------8 ------G4 55 240 402 ------4 ------G4 55 242 417 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 ------G4 55 246 412 ------3 - - - - 1 - G4 55 246 457 1 ------6 ------G4 55 248 433 1 ------7 - - - - 1 - G4 55 249 423 4 1 ------17 1 - - - 4 - G4 55 250 420 ------14 - - - - 1 - G4 55 250 421 3 ------6 ------G4 55 253 433 4 ------2 ------G4 55 253 446 1 ------11 - - 1 - 4 - G4 55 253 446 2 ------G4 55 255 440 1 ------17 - - - - 4 - G4 55 255 444 5 ------15 - - - - 12 - G4 55 255 444 ------4 ------G4 55 256 441 1 ------13 ------G4 55 260 462 1 1 ------5 - - - - 3 - G4 55 260 466 1 ------19 - - - - 7 - G4 55 260 466 ------9 - - - - 2 - G4 55 260 468 ------5 - - - - 2 - G4 55 263 558 - - - - - 1 - - - 15 - - - - 1 - G4 55 263 575 4 - - - - 1 - - - 39 - - 2 - 8 - G4 55 269 486 1 ------15 - - 1 1 1 - G4 55 270 492 ------11 - - - - 6 - G4 55 270 495 - - - - - 1 - - - 14 - - - - 4 - G4 55 270 570 ------4 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 271 496 2 - - - - - 1 1 - 12 - - 1 - 2 - G4 55 271 496 2 - - - - 2 1 - - 17 - - - - 2 - G4 55 271 507 - 1 - - - 5 - - - 13 - - - - 3 - G4 55 271 514 5 ------39 - - 1 - 7 - G4 55 271 540 2 ------9 - - 1 - 2 - G4 55 271 542 2 ------3 - - - - 1 - G4 55 271 543 4 ------10 - - - - 1 1 G4 55 271 557 ------11 - - 2 - 1 - G4 55 279 497 3 - - - 1 2 - - - 24 - 1 1 - 6 - G4 55 282 528 ------6 - - - - 1 - G4 55 282 551 ------16 - - - - 4 -

197

Table B.3 (continued)

-type

-type -type

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Asteraceae Apiaceae? Apiaceae-type Valerianella

Scorpiurus Centaurea cf. Bupleurum Onobrychis Apiaceaeindet. cf.Cichorium cf.Scorpiurus cf. Asteraceaeindet. cf. Cephalariasyriaca Valerianelladentata Valerianellacoronata cf.Valerianella dentata

G4 55 234 415 ------1 ------G4 55 235 392 3 1 ------G4 55 240 402 1 ------G4 55 242 417 ------1 ------G4 55 246 412 ------G4 55 246 457 ------1 ------G4 55 248 433 ------G4 55 249 423 - - 1 ------G4 55 250 420 ------G4 55 250 421 2 - - - 1 ------1 G4 55 253 433 - 1 ------G4 55 253 446 ------1 - - - 1 - - - G4 55 253 446 1 ------G4 55 255 440 ------1 - - - G4 55 255 444 - - 1 - - - 1 ------1 - - G4 55 255 444 ------G4 55 256 441 ------1 - - - G4 55 260 462 - - 4 - 1 - 2 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 260 466 3 - 3 - - - - 2 2 - - - 4 - 2 - G4 55 260 466 2 ------1 ------G4 55 260 468 1 ------G4 55 263 558 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 ------G4 55 263 575 1 - 3 - 5 ------1 - 1 - G4 55 269 486 ------G4 55 270 492 - - - - 2 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - G4 55 270 495 - - - - 1 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 271 496 1 ------3 ------G4 55 271 496 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 ------G4 55 271 507 3 - 2 ------3 - - - G4 55 271 514 - - - - 2 ------9 - 3 - G4 55 271 540 ------1 - - - 1 - - - G4 55 271 542 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - - - - 1 - 1 - G4 55 271 543 - - 1 ------1 - - - G4 55 271 557 ------G4 55 279 497 4 - 4 - 2 2 - - 1 - - - 2 - 1 - G4 55 282 528 ------G4 55 282 551 2 ------

198

Table B.3 (continued)

G4 55 234 415 ------2 - - - - - G4 55 235 392 ------1 - - - G4 55 240 402 - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 - - - 1 - G4 55 242 417 ------1 - - - - - G4 55 246 412 ------G4 55 246 457 ------G4 55 248 433 - - - - - 1 - - - - 4 - - - - - G4 55 249 423 - - - - - 2 - - - - 2 - 2 - - - G4 55 250 420 ------1 - 1 - - - G4 55 250 421 - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 - 1 - - 1 G4 55 253 433 ------2 - - - - - G4 55 253 446 - - - - - 2 - - 1 - 4 - - 1 - - G4 55 253 446 - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - G4 55 255 440 - - - - - 2 - - - - 4 - 1 - - 1 G4 55 255 444 - - - - - 3 - - - 1 7 - - 1 - - G4 55 255 444 ------G4 55 256 441 ------5 - - - - - G4 55 260 462 - - - - - 3 - - 1 - 3 - 2 - - - G4 55 260 466 - - - - - 3 - - 3 - 4 - - 6 - - G4 55 260 466 - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - G4 55 260 468 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - G4 55 263 558 - - - - - 2 ------1 - - G4 55 263 575 - 1 - - - 2 - - - - 4 - 1 6 - - G4 55 269 486 - 2* - - - 2 - - - - 1 - - 4 - - G4 55 270 492 - - - - - 3 - 3 - - 6 - - 1 - - G4 55 270 495 ------7 1 1 1 - - G4 55 270 570 ------1 - - - - - G4 55 270 570 ------G4 55 271 496 ------1 - - - 1 1 1 3 - - G4 55 271 496 - - - - - 1 - - - - 2 - 2 - - - G4 55 271 507 - - - - - 3 - - - - 6 - - - - - G4 55 271 514 - - - - - 2 - - - - 5 - 3 - - - G4 55 271 540 ------2 - 1 3 - - G4 55 271 542 - - - - - 3 - - 2 - 3 - - 3 - - G4 55 271 543 ------8 - - - - - G4 55 271 557 ------2 - - - - - G4 55 279 497 2 - - - - 3 - - - - 26 - 2 8 - - G4 55 282 528 - 1* ------2 - - - - - G4 55 282 551 ------3 1 - 1 - -

199

Table B.3 (continued)

G4 55 234 415 ------13 ------G4 55 235 392 ------31 ------G4 55 240 402 ------14 ------G4 55 242 417 ------5 ------G4 55 246 412 - - - - - 1 2 ------

G4 55 246 457 - - - - - 2 ------G4 55 248 433 ------18 ------G4 55 249 423 ------66 1 ------G4 55 250 420 - - - 3 - - 68 - - - 1 - - - - - G4 55 250 421 - - - 3 - 3 44 - - - - - 1 - - 2 G4 55 253 433 ------7 ------G4 55 253 446 - - - - - 1 24 ------G4 55 253 446 ------18 ------G4 55 255 440 ------25 ------G4 55 255 444 ------26 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 255 444 ------2 ------G4 55 256 441 ------17 ------G4 55 260 462 ------34 ------1 - G4 55 260 466 ------6------1 - 2 - G4 55 260 466 ------14 ------G4 55 260 468 ------18 ------G4 55 263 558 - - - 1 - - 16 ------2 - G4 55 263 575 - - - 1 - 1 46 - - - - - 4 - 1 - G4 55 269 486 ------18 - - - 1 - - - 1 - G4 55 270 492 ------25 ------1 - G4 55 270 495 - - - 1 - - 25 ------2 - G4 55 270 570 ------1 - 1 ------G4 55 270 570 ------1 - G4 55 271 496 ------43 - - - - - 1 - 1 - G4 55 271 496 ------25 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 55 271 507 - - - 1 - - 5------1 - 2 - G4 55 271 514 - - - - - 4 39 ------1 - G4 55 271 540 ------19 ------G4 55 271 542 - - - 1 - - 25 ------G4 55 271 543 ------7 ------G4 55 271 557 - - - - - 1 22 ------G4 55 279 497 - - - - - 2 58 - - - - 1 1 1 2 - G4 55 282 528 ------11 ------1 - G4 55 282 551 - - - 2 - - 20 ------

200

Table B.3 (continued) ? -type sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Unknown Lolium Phleum Phalaris TotalSeeds cf.Lolium cf.Phalaris Unidentifiable Setaria/Panicum TotalIdentified Seeds Loliumtemulentum Poaceae(chaff - wild/weedy)

G4 55 234 415 4 - - 14 - - - - 0 12 46 58 G4 55 235 392 11 - - 10 - - - - 0 44 87 131 G4 55 240 402 5 - - 12 - - - - 0 24 48 72 G4 55 242 417 4 - - 21 - - - - 1 17 45 63 G4 55 246 412 5 - - 2 - - - - 0 16 81 97 G4 55 246 457 3 - - 6 - - - - 0 11 23 34 G4 55 248 433 21 - - 21 - - - - 3 45 97 145 G4 55 249 423 20 - - 48 - - - - 3 102 220 325 G4 55 250 420 18 - - 29 - - - - 1 37 165 203 G4 55 250 421 37 - - 31 - - - - 2 58 179 239 G4 55 253 433 4 - - 14 - - - - 0 18 40 58 G4 55 253 446 9 - - 34 - - 1 - 0 40 114 154 G4 55 253 446 - - - 15 - - - - 2 41 62 105 G4 55 255 440 19 - - 14 - - - - 2 50 110 162 G4 55 255 444 7 - - 41 - - - - 1 76 157 234 G4 55 255 444 1 - - 5 - - - - 0 9 17 26 G4 55 256 441 7 - - 25 - - 1 - 1 29 87 117 G4 55 260 462 20 - - 33 - - - - 0 61 133 194 G4 55 260 466 77 - - 39 - - - - 4 80 297 381 G4 55 260 466 9 - - 17 - - - - 0 26 78 104 G4 55 260 468 11 - - 22 - - - - 0 22 74 96 G4 55 263 558 8 - - 18 - - - - 1 27 92 120 G4 55 263 575 27 - - 7- - - - - 4 151 334 489 G4 55 269 486 9 - - 39 - - - - 1 47 135 183 G4 55 270 492 17 - - 53 - - - - 0 64 161 225 G4 55 270 495 9 - - 53 - - - - 1 36 150 187 G4 55 270 570 2 - - 6 - - - - 0 4 16 20 G4 55 270 570 - - - 1 - - - - 0 3 2 5 G4 55 271 496 28 - - 42 - - - - 4 92 173 269 G4 55 271 496 20 - - 36 - - - - 1 57 146 204 G4 55 271 507 26 3 - 20 - - - - 5 46 186 237 G4 55 271 514 41 - - 41 - - - - 0 145 264 409 G4 55 271 540 24 - - 23 - - - - 5 41 127 173 G4 55 271 542 19 - - 37 - - - - 1 48 132 181 G4 55 271 543 10 - - 4- - - - - 0 29 104 133 G4 55 271 557 11 - - 11 - - - - 0 23 78 101 G4 55 279 497 38 - 2 84 - - - - 2 84 372 458 G4 55 282 528 4 - - 35 - - - - 0 35 69 104 G4 55 282 551 13 - - 48 - - - - 1 39 146 186

201

Table B.4 (G4.56.154.285 – G4.56.199.388) ? ? ? indet. sp. spikelet fork sp. Pail Field Locus Square Triticum Cerealindet. cf.Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum cf.Hordeum vulgare Hordeumcf. vulgare cf.Triticum dicoccum Triticummonococcum Hordeum/Triticum DOMESTICATED SPECIES Triticumaestivum/durum cf.Triticum aestivum/durum Triticumdicoccum

G4 56 154 285 - - - 2 - - - - 2 ------G4 56 154 356 8 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - 6 - - - - G4 56 154 357 - 11 - - - - 6 - - - 3 - - - - G4 56 162 379 - 1 ------1 G4 56 165 300 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - G4 56 165 312 - 1 ------2 ------G4 56 165 319 ------1 - - - - G4 56 165 319 - 2 ------1 ------G4 56 165 327 1 ------G4 56 167 305 - 1 ------1 - - - - G4 56 167 308 ------G4 56 167 313 ------1 - - - - G4 56 167 317 2 2 ------1 ------G4 56 167 325 - 2 - - - - 1 - 1 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - G4 56 167 393 1 ------G4 56 167 393 ------2 ------G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 1 ------G4 56 177 344 1 3 ------1 - - - - G4 56 178 347 1 1 - 1 ------G4 56 179 338 - 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 56 185 355 - 1 ------G4 56 186 364 1 2 ------G4 56 186 370 2 1 ------G4 56 186 370 ------G4 56 188 365 - - - 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 56 193 376 ------G4 56 194 377 1 ------G4 56 194 381 - - - 2 - - - - 2 - 1 - - - - G4 56 196 382 - 3 ------G4 56 196 382 ------1 - 1 - - - - G4 56 196 382 - 1 ------G4 56 196 382 3 ------G4 56 196 386 - - - 1 ------G4 56 196 386 - 1 ------G4 56 196 386 - 2 ------G4 56 199 388 ------2 - - - - 1 - - -

202

Table B.4 (continued) rachis ? rachis glumebase (pip) (fruit) (stem) sp. Rachis Pail Field Locus Square sp. glume base Vicia ervilia Vicia Vicia Vicia cf.ervilia Cicer arietinum Cicer cf.vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Cerealchaff indet. Triticum Vitis vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Linum usitatissimumLinum Linum usitatissimum Linum cf.usitatissimumLinum Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Triticumaestivum/durum

G4 56 154 285 ------2 - 1 - - - - G4 56 154 356 ------G4 56 154 357 ------3 1 G4 56 162 379 ------1 ------G4 56 165 300 ------G4 56 165 312 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 327 ------1 - G4 56 167 305 ------G4 56 167 308 ------1 ------G4 56 167 313 ------1 ------G4 56 167 317 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 - - - 1 ------G4 56 167 393 ------G4 56 167 393 - - - - - 1 ------G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 - - - - - 1 ------G4 56 177 344 ------G4 56 178 347 ------G4 56 179 338 ------1 ------G4 56 185 355 ------G4 56 186 364 ------1 ------G4 56 186 370 ------1 - G4 56 186 370 ------1 - - - - 1 - G4 56 188 365 ------G4 56 193 376 ------2 - G4 56 194 377 - - - - - 1 ------G4 56 194 381 ------1 - - - - 1 - G4 56 196 382 ------2 - - - - - G4 56 196 382 ------1 - - - - G4 56 196 382 ------1 - - - - 1 - G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 196 386 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 ------G4 56 199 388 ------

203

Table B.4 (continued) ? sp. Pail Field Locus Square Adonis Ficuscarica Vicia/Pisum Lensculinaris cf.ervilia Vicia cf.Ficus carica Oleaeuropaea cf.Brassicaceae cf.Lens culinaris Oleaeuropaea cf.Olea europaea Prunusamygdalus Fabaceae(domes.) Brassicaceaeindet. Papaveraceaeindet. WEEDY/WILD SPECIES

G4 56 154 285 ------2 - - - 1 - G4 56 154 356 ------G4 56 154 357 - - 5 ------G4 56 162 379 ------G4 56 165 300 - - - 1 ------G4 56 165 312 ------1 - G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 319 ------1 - - - 1 - G4 56 165 327 ------1 - G4 56 167 305 ------G4 56 167 308 ------1 - G4 56 167 313 ------G4 56 167 317 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 393 ------G4 56 167 393 ------1 ------G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 ------G4 56 177 344 ------2 - G4 56 178 347 ------G4 56 179 338 ------G4 56 185 355 ------1 - - 1 - - - 1 - G4 56 186 364 ------1 - G4 56 186 370 ------G4 56 186 370 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 188 365 ------G4 56 193 376 ------1 - G4 56 194 377 ------1 ------G4 56 194 381 ------1 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------1 ------G4 56 196 386 ------1 ------2 - G4 56 196 386 ------1 ------G4 56 196 386 - - - 1 ------G4 56 199 388 ------1 -

204

Table B.4 (continued) sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Rumex

Prosopis Silene

Rumex Fabaceae ? Stellaria Lepidium Rhamnus cf. Polygonum cf. Fabaceaeindet. Malvaceaeindet. Chenopodium Prosopiscf. farcta Polygonaceaeindet. Caryophyllaceaeindet. Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae

G4 56 154 285 ------G4 56 154 356 ------G4 56 154 357 ------1 ------1 - G4 56 162 379 - - - - - 1 - - 7 ------1 G4 56 165 300 ------1 - 1 ------G4 56 165 312 ------1 - G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 327 ------1 - - - 1 - - - G4 56 167 305 ------1 ------G4 56 167 308 ------G4 56 167 313 ------1 ------G4 56 167 317 ------G4 56 167 325 ------2 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 393 ------1 - G4 56 167 393 ------G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 ------G4 56 177 344 ------2 ------G4 56 178 347 ------1 ------G4 56 179 338 ------2 ------G4 56 185 355 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 186 364 ------1 - 1 ------1 G4 56 186 370 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 186 370 ------3 - 2 ------G4 56 188 365 ------G4 56 193 376 ------2 ------G4 56 194 377 ------1 - - - 2 - - - G4 56 194 381 ------G4 56 196 382 - - - 1 - - 1 ------G4 56 196 382 - - - 1 - - 1 ------G4 56 196 382 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 196 382 ------3 ------G4 56 196 386 ------1 - 1 - - - - - G4 56 196 386 ------1 - - - 1 - - - - - G4 56 196 386 ------2 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 56 199 388 ------3 ------

205

Table B.4 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Trifolieae Square Vicieae Lens Vicia Lathyrus Trifolieae

Astragalus cf. Vicia Lathyrus

Coronilla cf. Trigonella Medicago Scorpiurus Astragalus Vicia/Lathyrus cf. cf.Coronilla cf.Medicago cf.

G4 56 154 285 ------3 ------G4 56 154 356 ------8 ------G4 56 154 357 ------G4 56 162 379 ------G4 56 165 300 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 ------G4 56 165 312 ------1 ------G4 56 165 319 ------1 ------G4 56 165 319 - - - - - 1 - - - 3 ------G4 56 165 327 ------2 ------G4 56 167 305 ------2 ------G4 56 167 308 ------5 ------G4 56 167 313 ------1 ------G4 56 167 317 ------1 ------G4 56 167 325 ------1 - - - - 1 - 1 G4 56 167 325 ------1 - - - - 1 - - G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 393 ------3 ------G4 56 167 393 - - 1 ------4 - - - - 1 - - G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 ------3 ------G4 56 177 344 - - - 1 - - 1 - - 3 ------G4 56 178 347 ------G4 56 179 338 ------8 ------G4 56 185 355 ------6 ------G4 56 186 364 ------2 ------G4 56 186 370 ------G4 56 186 370 ------2 ------G4 56 188 365 ------2 ------G4 56 193 376 ------3 ------G4 56 194 377 ------3 ------G4 56 194 381 ------1 ------G4 56 196 382 ------3 - - - 1 2 - - G4 56 196 382 ------3 - - 1 - - - - G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------4 ------G4 56 196 386 ------10 ------G4 56 196 386 ------5 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 199 388 ------1 - -

206

Table B.4 (continued)

-type

-type -type

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Asteraceae Apiaceae? Apiaceae-type Valerianella

Centaurea cf. Bupleurum Onobrychis Apiaceaeindet. cf.Cichorium cf.Scorpiurus cf. Asteraceaeindet. cf. Cephalariasyriaca Valerianelladentata Valerianellacoronata cf.Valerianella dentata

G4 56 154 285 - 1 ------G4 56 154 356 ------G4 56 154 357 ------G4 56 162 379 ------G4 56 165 300 ------G4 56 165 312 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 327 ------G4 56 167 305 ------G4 56 167 308 ------1 ------G4 56 167 313 ------G4 56 167 317 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 393 ------G4 56 167 393 ------G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 ------G4 56 177 344 ------G4 56 178 347 ------G4 56 179 338 ------G4 56 185 355 ------G4 56 186 364 ------G4 56 186 370 ------G4 56 186 370 ------G4 56 188 365 ------G4 56 193 376 ------G4 56 194 377 - 1 ------1 - - - G4 56 194 381 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 386 1 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 199 388 ------

207

Table B.4 (continued)

G4 56 154 285 ------G4 56 154 356 ------G4 56 154 357 ------G4 56 162 379 ------G4 56 165 300 ------G4 56 165 312 - - - - - 1 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 319 ------G4 56 165 327 ------G4 56 167 305 ------G4 56 167 308 ------G4 56 167 313 ------1 - - - 1 - - - G4 56 167 317 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 325 ------G4 56 167 393 - - 1 ------G4 56 167 393 ------G4 56 167 406 ------G4 56 169 309 ------G4 56 177 344 ------G4 56 178 347 - - - - - 1 ------G4 56 179 338 ------G4 56 185 355 ------G4 56 186 364 ------G4 56 186 370 ------2 - - - - - G4 56 186 370 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 188 365 ------G4 56 193 376 ------1 G4 56 194 377 ------1 G4 56 194 381 ------G4 56 196 382 - - - - 1 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 ------G4 56 196 382 - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - G4 56 196 386 1 - - - - 1 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 196 386 ------G4 56 199 388 ------

208

Table B.4 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp.-type Pail Field Poaceae Locus Square Cyperaceae Carex Bromus cf. Phalaris Triticum Aegilops Carex cf.Avena Hordeum Eleocharis cf. Poaceaeindet. cf.Aegilops cf.Hordeum cf.Eleocharis cf. Poaceae(embryo) Scirpuscf. maritimus

G4 56 154 285 ------3 ------2 G4 56 154 356 ------9 ------2 G4 56 154 357 ------14 ------5 G4 56 162 379 ------19 ------2 G4 56 165 300 ------2 ------1 G4 56 165 312 ------3 ------1 G4 56 165 319 - - - 2 ------3 G4 56 165 319 ------3 ------G4 56 165 327 ------10 ------G4 56 167 305 - - - 4 - - 7 ------1 G4 56 167 308 ------4 ------G4 56 167 313 ------18 ------1 G4 56 167 317 - - - 2 - - 15 ------3 G4 56 167 325 ------4 ------1 G4 56 167 325 ------1 ------G4 56 167 325 ------1 G4 56 167 393 ------3 ------1 G4 56 167 393 ------6 ------1 G4 56 167 406 ------1 ------4 G4 56 169 309 ------5 ------G4 56 177 344 ------2 ------1 G4 56 178 347 ------2 ------10 G4 56 179 338 ------4 ------G4 56 185 355 ------3 ------1 G4 56 186 364 ------4 ------3 G4 56 186 370 ------12 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 G4 56 186 370 - - - - 1 - 9 ------1 G4 56 188 365 ------5 ------2 G4 56 193 376 ------10 ------7 G4 56 194 377 ------6 ------5 G4 56 194 381 ------5 ------G4 56 196 382 ------11 ------1 G4 56 196 382 ------9 ------1 G4 56 196 382 ------5 ------2 G4 56 196 382 ------2 ------1 G4 56 196 386 - - - - - 3 7 ------6 G4 56 196 386 ------6 ------1 G4 56 196 386 - - - 1 - - 11 - - - - - 1 - - - 2 G4 56 199 388 - - - 2 - - 1 ------1

209

Table B.4 (continued) ? -type sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Unknown Lolium Phleum TotalSeeds cf.Lolium cf.Phalaris Unidentifiable Setaria/Panicum TotalIdentified Seeds Loliumtemulentum Poaceae(chaff - wild/weedy)

G4 56 154 285 - - 5 1 - - - 1 27 24 52 G4 56 154 356 - - 1 - - - - 0 13 37 50 G4 56 154 357 - - 1 - - - - 0 23 51 74 G4 56 162 379 - - 8 - - - - 0 23 40 63 G4 56 165 300 ------0 1 12 13 G4 56 165 312 - - 3 - - - - 0 3 14 17 G4 56 165 319 - - 4 - - - - 0 9 11 20 G4 56 165 319 - - 4 - - - - 0 4 16 20 G4 56 165 327 ------0 14 17 31 G4 56 167 305 - - 1 - - - - 0 6 18 24 G4 56 167 308 - - 8 - - - - 0 17 20 37 G4 56 167 313 - - 3 - - - - 0 6 28 34 G4 56 167 317 - - 4 - - - - 0 10 30 40 G4 56 167 325 - - 3 - - - - 0 8 17 25 G4 56 167 325 ------0 2 3 5 G4 56 167 325 - - 1 - - - - 1 2 7 10 G4 56 167 393 ------0 3 10 13 G4 56 167 393 - - 2 - - - - 0 14 18 32 G4 56 167 406 - - 2 - - - - 0 2 7 9 G4 56 169 309 - - 2 - - - - 0 10 11 21 G4 56 177 344 ------0 19 17 36 G4 56 178 347 ------0 17 17 34 G4 56 179 338 - - 3 - - - - 0 12 20 32 G4 56 185 355 ------0 18 15 33 G4 56 186 364 - - 2 - - - - 0 54 19 73 G4 56 186 370 ------2 29 21 52 G4 56 186 370 - - 7 - - - - 0 40 30 70 G4 56 188 365 - - 2 - - - - 0 21 13 34 G4 56 193 376 - 1 8 - - - - 0 31 35 66 G4 56 194 377 - - 1 - - - - 1 34 23 58 G4 56 194 381 ------0 19 14 33 G4 56 196 382 - - 5 - - - - 2 11 31 44 G4 56 196 382 - - 6 - - - - 0 18 26 44 G4 56 196 382 - - 6 - - - - 1 4 17 22 G4 56 196 382 - - 15 - - - - 0 9 31 40 G4 56 196 386 - - 8 - - - - 1 16 43 60 G4 56 196 386 - - 1 - - - - 0 2 17 19 G4 56 196 386 - - 8 - - - - 0 6 30 36 G4 56 199 388 ------0 6 12 18

210

Table B.5 (G4.56.203.399 – G5.08.11.52) ? ? ? indet. sp. spikelet fork sp. Pail Field Locus Square Triticum Cerealindet. cf.Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum cf.Hordeum vulgare Hordeumcf. vulgare cf.Triticum dicoccum Triticummonococcum Hordeum/Triticum DOMESTICATED SPECIES Triticumaestivum/durum cf.Triticum aestivum/durum Triticumdicoccum

G4 56 203 399 ------G4 56 204 487 - 2 ------1 ------G4 56 206 410 ------G4 56 214 435 - 3 ------G4 56 216 443 - 1 ------2 ------G4 56 216 458 ------2 ------G4 56 223 470 ------2 ------G4 56 227 476 2 10 - 1 - - - - 2 ------G4 56 227 481 - 12 - - - - 2 - 7 - 18 - - - - G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 - 1 ------G5 08 11 48 ------1 ------G5 08 11 52 ------1 ------

rachis ? rachis glumebase (pip) (fruit) (stem) sp. Rachis Pail Field Locus Square sp. glume base Vicia ervilia Vicia Vicia Vicia cf.ervilia Cicer arietinum Cicer cf.vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Cerealchaff indet. Triticum Vitis vinifera Vitis Vitis vinifera Vitis Linum usitatissimumLinum Linum usitatissimum Linum cf.usitatissimumLinum Triticum Hordeumvulgare Triticumdicoccum Triticumaestivum/durum

G4 56 203 399 ------G4 56 204 487 ------2 - 2 - - - - G4 56 206 410 ------1 ------G4 56 214 435 ------1 ------G4 56 216 443 ------2 ------G4 56 216 458 ------1 - - - - G4 56 223 470 ------1 - - - - 1 - G4 56 227 476 - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - G4 56 227 481 - - - - - 2 - - - 2 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 - - - - 1 ------G5 08 11 52 ------

211

Table B.5 (continued) ? sp. Pail Field Locus Square Adonis Ficuscarica Vicia/Pisum Lensculinaris cf.ervilia Vicia cf.Ficus carica Oleaeuropaea cf.Brassicaceae cf.Lens culinaris Oleaeuropaea cf.Olea europaea Prunusamygdalus Fabaceae(domes.) Brassicaceaeindet. Papaveraceaeindet. WEEDY/WILD SPECIES

G4 56 203 399 ------1 - G4 56 204 487 ------1 G4 56 206 410 ------G4 56 214 435 ------1 ------2 - G4 56 216 443 - - - - 1 ------G4 56 216 458 ------1 ------G4 56 223 470 ------G4 56 227 476 ------G4 56 227 481 ------G5 08 11 48 ------1 - G5 08 11 48 - - - - - 1 ------1 - G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 52 ------

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Rumex

Prosopis Silene

Rumex Fabaceae ? Stellaria Lepidium Rhamnus cf. Polygonum cf. Fabaceaeindet. Malvaceaeindet. Chenopodium Prosopiscf. farcta Polygonaceaeindet. Caryophyllaceaeindet. Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae

G4 56 203 399 ------1 - - 1 G4 56 204 487 ------4 - 1 ------G4 56 206 410 ------G4 56 214 435 ------2 - - - 1 - - - G4 56 216 443 ------1 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 56 216 458 ------1 ------G4 56 223 470 ------1 - 1 - 1 - G4 56 227 476 ------4 ------G4 56 227 481 ------1 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 52 ------2 ------

212

Table B.5 (continued)

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Trifolieae Square Vicieae Lens Vicia Lathyrus Trifolieae

Astragalus cf. Vicia Lathyrus

Coronilla cf. Trigonella Medicago Astragalus Vicia/Lathyrus cf. cf.Coronilla cf.Medicago cf.

G4 56 203 399 ------G4 56 204 487 ------1 ------G4 56 206 410 ------G4 56 214 435 ------G4 56 216 443 ------2 ------G4 56 216 458 ------2 ------G4 56 223 470 ------2 ------G4 56 227 476 ------2 ------G4 56 227 481 ------1 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 52 ------

-type

-type -type

sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Asteraceae Apiaceae? Apiaceae-type Valerianella

Scorpiurus Centaurea cf. Bupleurum Onobrychis Apiaceaeindet. cf.Cichorium cf.Scorpiurus cf. Asteraceaeindet. cf. Cephalariasyriaca Valerianelladentata Valerianellacoronata cf.Valerianella dentata

G4 56 203 399 ------G4 56 204 487 ------G4 56 206 410 ------G4 56 214 435 ------G4 56 216 443 ------G4 56 216 458 ------G4 56 223 470 1 ------G4 56 227 476 ------G4 56 227 481 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 52 ------

213

Table B.5 (continued)

G4 56 203 399 ------G4 56 204 487 - - - - - 1 ------G4 56 206 410 ------G4 56 214 435 ------1 - - - - - G4 56 216 443 ------G4 56 216 458 ------G4 56 223 470 ------G4 56 227 476 ------G4 56 227 481 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------G5 08 11 48 ------1 - - - - - G5 08 11 52 ------

G4 56 203 399 ------G4 56 204 487 ------8 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 56 206 410 ------2 ------G4 56 214 435 ------5 ------G4 56 216 443 - - - 1 - - 4 ------G4 56 216 458 ------5 ------G4 56 223 470 - - - 1 - - 3 ------G4 56 227 476 - - 1 1 - 1 13 - - - - - 1 - - - G4 56 227 481 - - - 1 - - 46 ------G5 08 11 48 ------5 ------G5 08 11 48 ------4 ------G5 08 11 48 - - - 1 - - 5 ------G5 08 11 52 ------3 ------

214

Table B.5 (continued) ? -type sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pail Field Locus Square Unknown Lolium Phleum Phalaris TotalSeeds cf.Lolium cf.Phalaris Unidentifiable Setaria/Panicum TotalIdentified Seeds Loliumtemulentum Poaceae(chaff - wild/weedy)

G4 56 203 399 1 ------0 4 4 8 G4 56 204 487 23 - - 6 - - - - 1 16 51 68 G4 56 206 410 1 ------0 2 4 6 G4 56 214 435 6 - 1 3 - - - - 1 15 26 42 G4 56 216 443 3 - - 6 - - - - 0 24 24 48 G4 56 216 458 2 - - 6 - - - - 0 6 20 26 G4 56 223 470 5 - - 2 - - - - 0 22 21 43 G4 56 227 476 5 - - 12 - - - - 1 42 58 101 G4 56 227 481 15 - - 46 - - - - 0 36 151 187 G5 08 11 48 - - - 2 - - - - 0 2 8 10 G5 08 11 48 - - - 2 - - - - 0 6 9 15 G5 08 11 48 3 - - 2 - - - - 0 12 13 25 G5 08 11 52 1 - - 1 - - - - 0 1 8 9

215

Appendix C

Hand-Picked Macroremains

These olive ‘pits’ (endocarps) were collected by hand when noticed during excavation, and submitted as samples. Only samples that also have analyzed flotation samples from the same excavation pails have been presented here. The SA number is the sample number assigned to each submitted sample (as they were not from the flotation sample taken from the same pail).

Table C.1

SA Number Field Square Locus Pail Contents 3982 G4 55 226 364 2 olive pits 3979 G4 55 227 373 1 olive pit 3975 G4 55 232 393 11 olive pits 4172 G4 55 250 421 2 olive pits 4378 G4 55 255 440 2 olive pits 4376 G4 55 255 444 1 olive pit 4377 G4 55 256 441 1 olive pit 4773 G4 55 260 466 1 olive pit 5308 G4 55 270 495 1 olive pit 5307 G4 55 271 496 2 olive pits 5339 G4 55 271 507 3 olive pits 5113 G4 56 214 435 1 olive pit

216

Appendix D

Chronologically and Geographically Proximal Sites: Approximate Locations and Published Sources

These sites were used throughout the analysis section for comparison to the results achieved for Tell Tayinat. The references do not include sources that do not provide archaeobotanical information.

Table D.1 Turkish Sites

Turkish Sites Sources Location Amuq (general) Helbaek 1960b Amuq Plain Gre Virike Oybak Dönmez 2006 Euphrates River, southern Turkey Colledge 2001a; Bending and S. Turkey near the Mediterranean Kilise Tepe Colledge 2007 coast Nesbitt and Samuel 1996b; Hynd Kinet Hoyuk 1997; Çizer 2006 Northeastern Mediterranean coast Kurban Hoyuk Miller 1986; Wilkinson 1990 Euphrates River, southern Turkey Mezraa Hoyuk Oybak Dönmez 2006 Euphrates River, southern Turkey Tell Atchana Çizer 2006; Riehl 2010a Amuq Plain Tell Kurdu Ekstrom 2000, 2004 Amuq Plain Tille Hoyuk Nesbitt and Summers 1988 Euphrates River, southern Turkey Algaze et al . 1995; Matney 2002; Titris Hoyuk Schlee 1995 Near modern Gaziantep Yarim Hoyuk Miller 1998 Euphrates River, southern Turkey

217

Table D.2 Syrian Sites

Syrian Sites Sources Location Ain Dara Crawford 1999 NE of the Amuq Plain Emar Deckers and Riehl 2007; Riehl 2010b Euphrates River, north-central Syria Habuba Kabira Bahnassi 1980 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Hajji Ibrahim Miller 1997 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Rifa'at Hillman 1981c North of Aleppo (NW Syria) Tell Afis Wachter-Sarkady 1998 Near Aleppo (NW Syria) van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985; Tell es-Sweyhat Hide 1990; Miller 1997; Miller 2004 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Bahnassi 1980; Dornemann 1980; Tell Hadidi van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Tell Ilbol Hillman 1981a Qoueiq River (near Aleppo, NW Syria) Deckers and Riehl 2007; Murray Tell Jerablus Tahtani 1995; Murray 1996 Near modern Carchemish Tell Jouweif Miller 2004 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Peña-Chocarro and Rottoli 2007; Tell Mishrifeh Riehl 2007 Orontes River, W. Syria Tell Munbaqa Küster 1989 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Tell Nebi Mend Moffett 1989 W. Syria Tell Qaramel Hillman 1981a W. Syria Matilla Séiquer and Rivera Nuñez Tell Qara Qūzāq-I 1993 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Tell Qarqur Smith 2005 W. Syria Bahnassi 1980; Meijer 1980; van Tell Selenkahiye Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985 Euphrates River, north-central Syria Umm el-Marra Miller 2000; Schwartz et al 2000 Between Aleppo and the Euphrates River

Many of the landmarks mentioned here appear on Figure 1.1. All of the sources listed here appear in the Bibliography.

218

Appendix E

Flotation Sample Numbers Analyzed

The following table presents the provenance information for each Flotation Sample (FS) number analyzed.

Table E.1

Field Square Locus Pail FS #

G4 38 4 14 2008-042

G4 38 4 15 2008-055, 2008-060

G4 38 4 27 2008-063

G4 28 4 38 2009-127

G4 28 4 39 2009-133

G4 28 4 40 2009-142

G4 28 4 56 2009-162

G4 38 7 16 2008-044, 2008-054

G4 38 7 17 2008-070

F5 99 7 22 2008-030

F5 99 11 31 2008-098

G4 48 11 35 2008-041

G4 48 11 42 2008-071

G5 08 11 48 2009-165, 2009-166

G5 08 11 48 2009-167

G5 08 11 52 2009-183

F5 99 12 34 2008-067

F5 98 13 38 2008-112

F5 98 13 49 2008-117

F5 98 13 53 2008-132

G4 38 13 91 2008-167

F5 99 14 39 2008-099, 2008-106

F5 98 14 44 2008-118

F5 98 14 52 2008-142

F5 98 14 53 2008-141

F5 98 14 56 2008-138

F5 98 17 59 2008-147

F5 98 17 68 2008-156

F5 98 18 60 2008-148, 2008-149

219

Table E.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail FS #

F5 98 18 67 2008-155, 2008-157

F5 99 21 66 2008-159, 2008-160

F5 99 21 73 2008-163

G4 28 22 68 2009-175

G4 28 22 71 2009-188

F5 98 23 81 2009-149, 2009-151

F5 98 23 82 2009-158, 2009-159, 2009-160

F5 99 24 106 2009-064

G4 28 26 78 2009-192

G4 28 27 76 2009-191

F5 99 28 88 2009-021

F5 99 29 114 2009-074

G4 28 30 79 2009-200

F5 99 38 158 2009-139

F5 99 38 178 2009-171

F5 99 46 147 2009-132

F5 99 50 177 2009-172

G4 56 154 285 2008-075

G4 56 154 356 2008-029

G4 56 154 357 2008-091

G4 56 162 379 2008-104

G4 56 165 300 2008-012

G4 56 165 312 2008-032

G4 56 165 319 2008-047, 2008-052

G4 56 165 327 2008-082

G4 56 167 305 2008-069

G4 56 167 308 2008-007

G4 56 167 313 2008-043

G4 56 167 317 2008-058

G4 56 167 325 2008-049, 2008-051, 2008-072

G4 56 167 393 2008-150, 2008-151

G4 56 167 406 2008-162

G4 56 169 309 2008-009

G4 56 177 344 2008-034

G4 56 178 347 2008-045

G4 56 179 338 2008-037

G4 56 185 355 2008-081

220

Table E.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail FS #

G4 56 186 364 2008-086

G4 56 186 370 2008-100, 2008-116

G4 56 188 365 2008-095

G4 56 193 376 2008-105

G4 56 194 377 2008-113

G4 56 194 381 2008-111 2008-120, 2008-125, 2008-126, 2008- G4 56 196 382 136 G4 56 196 386 2008-128, 2008-131, 2008-134

G4 56 199 388 2008-133

G4 56 203 399 2008-153

G4 56 204 487 2009-164

G4 56 206 410 2008-168

G4 55 209 383 2008-074, 2008-089

G4 56 214 435 2009-059

G4 56 216 443 2009-087

G4 56 216 458 2009-120

G4 56 223 470 2009-137

G4 55 226 364 2008-011

G4 55 226 367 2008-124

G4 55 227 373 2008-013

G4 56 227 476 2009-076

G4 56 227 481 2009-077

G4 55 228 374 2008-014

G4 55 228 376 2008-008

G4 55 231 380 2008-050

G4 55 231 382 2008-080, 2008-083, 2008-108

G4 55 232 384 2008-059, 2008-109

G4 55 232 388 2008-088

G4 55 232 389 2008-035

G4 55 232 393 2008-073

G4 55 232 401 2008-094

G4 55 234 415 2008-103

G4 55 235 392 2008-057

G4 55 240 402 2008-102

G4 55 242 417 2008-114

G4 55 246 412 2008-093

G4 55 246 457 2008-154

221

Table E.1 (continued)

Field Square Locus Pail FS #

G4 55 248 433 2008-122

G4 55 249 423 2008-115

G4 55 250 420 2008-101

G4 55 250 421 2008-107

G4 55 253 433 2008-123

G4 55 253 446 2008-139, 2008-140

G4 55 255 440 2008-143

G4 55 255 444 2008-144, 2008-145

G4 55 256 441 2008-129

G4 55 260 462 2008-158

G4 55 260 466 2008-161, 2008-164

G4 55 260 468 2008-169

G4 55 263 558 2009-195

G4 55 263 575 2009-201

G4 55 269 486 2009-028

G4 55 270 492 2009-043

G4 55 270 495 2009-049

G4 55 270 570 2009-204, 2009-205

G4 55 271 496 2009-056, 2009-057

G4 55 271 507 2009-099

G4 55 271 514 2009-108

G4 55 271 540 2009-145

G4 55 271 542 2009-157

G4 55 271 543 2009-156

G4 55 271 557 2009-189

G4 55 279 497 2009-072

G4 55 282 528 2009-129

G4 55 282 551 2009-178

222