STUDI ARCHEOLOGICI 01 SU QATNAhumanidades.cchs.csic.es/ih/grupos/pe%f1achocarro_QATNA.pdfNeolithic....

FORUM

URBAN AND NATURAL LANDSCAPES OF AN ANCIENT SYRIAN CAPITALSETTLEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAT TELL MISHRIFEH/QATNA ANDIN CENTRAL-WESTERN SYRIAEDITED BY DANIELE MORANDI BONACOSSI

STUDI ARCHEOLOGICI SU QATNA

01

DirettoriMichel al-Maqdissi

Daniele Morandi Bonacossi

Università degli studi di UdineDipartimento di Storia e tutela dei beni culturali

Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de SyrieMissione archeologica italo-siriana a Mishrifeh

STUDI ARCHEOLOGICI SU QATNA

Risultati delle ricerche archeologiche italo-siriane in Siria centrale

SAQ 1DOCUMENTS D’ARCHÉOLOGIESYRIENNE (SAQ 1 = DAS XII)

La presente pubblicazione è stata realizzata anche grazie al contributo di

e del Dipartimento di Storia e tutela deibeni culturali dell’Università degli studi di Udine

In copertinaPorta, terrapieno e fossato orientale di Qatna (foto di Daniele Morandi Bonacossi)

Progetto grafico della copertinacdm/associati

RedazionePaola Iannuzziello e Luigi Turri

ImpaginazioneGrafikesse, Tricesimo (Ud)

StampaPoligrafiche San Marco, Cormons (Go)

© FORUM 2007Editrice Universitaria Udinese srlVia Palladio, 8 – 33100 UdineTel. 0432 26001 / Fax 0432 296756www.forumeditrice.it

ISBN 978-88-8420-418-9

Università degli studi di Udine

Direction Générale des Antiquitéset des Musées de Syrie

La serie ‘Studi Archeologici su Qatna’ è pubblicata in coedizione con la serie ‘Documents d’Archéologie Syrienne’ (SAQ 1 = DAS XII)

URBAN AND NATURAL LANDSCAPES OF AN ANCIENT SYRIAN CAPITALSETTLEMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

AT TELL MISHRIFEH/QATNA AND IN CENTRAL-WESTERN SYRIA

EDITED BYDANIELE MORANDI BONACOSSI

Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine9-11 December 2004

FORUM

5

Contents

Preface p. 9

Editorial Note » 11

Foreword » 13

Abbreviations » 15

The Archaeology of Mishrifeh and its Region during the Bronze and Iron Ages

Michel al-MaqdissiNotes d’archéologie levantine X. Introduction aux travaux archéologiques syriens à Mishirfeh/Qatna au nord-est de Homs (Émèse) » 19

Peter PfälznerArchaeological Investigations in the Royal Palace of Qatna » 29

Daniele Morandi BonacossiQatna and its Hinterland during the Bronze and Iron Ages. A Preliminary Reconstruction of Urbanism and Settlement in the Mishrifeh Region » 65

The Environment of Mishrifeh and its Region during the Bronze and Iron Ages

Mauro CremaschiQatna’s Lake: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Bronze Age Capital » 93

Verushka ValsecchiVegetation and Environmental Changes during the Middle-Late Holocene at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna: Climate Versus Land-Use » 105

Luca TrombinoMicromorphological Reconstruction of the Archaeological Land Use and Palaeoenvironment of Tell Mishrifeh: Evidence from the Sinkhole South of the Site » 115

6

Contents

Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro RottoliCrop Husbandry Practices during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrifeh (Central-Western Syria) » 123

Simone RiehlPreliminary Archaeobotanical Results from the Palace at Qatna (Tell Mishrifeh) » 145

Girolamo Fiorentino and Valentina CaracutaPalaeoclimatic Signals Inferred from Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of Qatna/Tell Mishrifeh Archaeological Plant Remains » 153

Emmanuelle Vila et Lionel GourichonApport de l’étude de la faune mammalienne et de l’avifaune à la réflexion sur l’environnement de Qatna à l’Age du Bronze et à l’Age du Fer » 161

Alessandro Canci and Fulvio BartoliFood in Ancient Qatna: The Results of Palaeopathological Examination and Trace Element Analysis on Human Bones » 169

Carsten Witzel and Kerstin KreutzFirst Results of the Anthropological and Palaeopathological Examination of the Human Skeletal Remains Recovered from the Royal Tomb of Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna » 173

Anna J. Mukherjee, Matthew A. James, Peter Pfälzner and Richard P. EvershedBiomolecular Analysis of Ceramic Containers, Skeletal Remains, Anthropogenic Sediments and Organic Artefacts from the Royal Tomb at Qatna » 189

Christine PümpinMicromorphological Analyses of the Soil from the Royal Tomb of Qatna » 199

Lara Maritan, Claudio Mazzoli and Fabio SperanzaArchaeometrical Study of Bronze and Iron Age Pottery from Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and Archaeomagnetic Data » 207

Settlement and Landscape in Central-Western Syria:The Archaeological Evidence

Jean-Paul ThalmannSettlement Patterns and Agriculture in the Akkar Plain during the Late Early and Early Middle Bronze Ages » 219

Graham PhilipNatural and Cultural Aspects of the Development of the Marl Landscape East of Lake Qatina during the Bronze and Iron Ages » 233

Karin Bartl and Michel al-MaqdissiAncient Settlements in the Middle Orontes Region between

ar-Rastan and Qalcat Shayzar. First Results of Archaeological Surface Investigations 2003-2004 » 243

Michel FortinLa vallée du Ghab: nouvelle prospection archéologique » 253

Bernard Geyer, Mohamed al-Dbiyat, Nazir Awad, Olivier Barge, Jacques Besançon, Yves Calvet and Ronald JaubertThe Arid Margins of Northern Syria: Occupation of the Land and Modes of Exploitation in the Bronze Age » 269

Corinne CastelStratégies de subsistance et modes d’occupation de l’espace dans la micro-région d’Al-Rawda au Bronze ancien final (Shamiyeh) » 283

Settlement and Landscape in Central-Western Syria:The Textual Evidence

Jesper EidemNotes on the Topography of Late Bronze Age Qatna. New Evidence from the ‘Lower City Palace’ Tablets » 297

Thomas RichterTopographical Names in Late Bronze Age Texts Unearthed in Misrife/Qa#na » 305

Nele ZieglerLes données des archives royales de Mari sur le milieu naturel et l’occupation humaine en Syrie centrale » 311

Cinzia PappiThe Religious Landscape of Qatna during the Mari Period » 319

Towards a First Reconstruction

Mauro Cremaschi (with comments by Alessandro Canci, Lionel Gourichon, Leonor Peña-Chocarro, Christine Pümpin, Simone Riehl and Emmanuelle Vila)The Environment of Ancient Qatna. Contributions from Natural Sciences and Landscape Archaeology » 331

Bernard GeyerQuelques réflexions en guise de synthèse » 337

Index » 341

7

Contents

123

1 Laboratorio de Arqueobotánica. Dept. Prehistoria, Instituto de Historia, CSIC, Madrid.2 Laboratorio di Archeobiologia. Musei Civici, Como.

Crop Husbandry Practices during the Bronzeand Iron Ages in Tell Mishrifeh (Central-Western Syria)Leonor Peña-Chocarro1 and Mauro Rotto l i 2

ر�� ، أآ�� ا��را�� ا��ر�� ت � �� ا�� %�#� ا�$��#� �130"�م � &��$� و�.�� - درا�� +�*� وا/J/ ��ل �' . ا��+�*�ت ا��#� وا�� 94 �� %8*�دة %��ء ا��+�ت ا��#� و��5"� �24#� ا�/$�م

�#� - ا�+��ن -�C& ا��$#� ا�Bي �$�� ا��4@ل ا?ول ��$< ا�"�= ا��روس ، زرا*� ا��"ل �� %��$�س C� �Fو�� ا�� G�4ا� - دة أ�2�I� J�$ن وا��Kوا� .

ل ��'ل و�IهK وه �� ا�'/ات ا?و�L و%$@4� Lم إ��O لة �$��#� �24#� ا��4@ل، �� 4@/O ص�O �F�% �� ?ا Q4�� ا��4ب إ�L 5$�م�� .

K�'5$�م �� ا� �.�� S�C �T ب�U ��"% K#�� أن �F< �� ا��أ � �VW�%.

��ا�S ا��4ب �- ��4#�.�، ا��C ع�T �� ذةOZ� ذج��د*�ت��"�#� *Kل ا�@ا�S و�"�#� �U �#�Z^[ ا��+�ت ا�'�2اء � ا��\� -. � �"�م .

ABSTRACT

We present the results of the archaeobotanical study from Tell Mishrifeh (Syria). More than 130 samples coming fromdifferent structures from Operation J have been studied producing an interesting and wide-ranging botanical assem-blage which has allowed to reconstruct aspects of agricultural production and food preparation. Two-row barley isthe main crop followed by emmer and free-threshing wheats. Cultivated legumes are represented by lentils, vetches,grass peas and possible broad beans. Both olives and grapes are also present. Some of the samples represent particular crop-processing steps such as coarse and fine sieving which correspond tothe first steps towards the transformation of cereals into food. In addition, it has been possible to identify remains ofcereal based foods such as bread. Samples from the bottom part of silos have been also analyzed. The results havecontributed to understand some of the techniques used to insulate the silos and ensure the conservation of the veg-etable products stored.

1. Introduction

Several decades of excavations in Syria have pro-duced an interesting corpus of plant remains fromdifferent periods and areas of the country. Forlong, most of the research has been concentratedon the origins of agriculture with particularemphasis on the Epipalaeolithic and the earlyNeolithic. Sites like Abu Hureyra3, Mureybit4,Ramad and Aswad5 among others have producedinteresting data on cereal domestication and firstfarming practices.For later periods, and particularly for the BronzeAge, archaeobotanical research seems to havebeen mostly concentrated on the north andnorth-eastern part of the country, along the val-leys of two Euphrates tributaries, the Khaburand the Balikh6.From the archaeobotanical point of view, thewestern part of the country is largely unknown.Plant remains from the Bronze Age period fromthis area are very little as only a few sites havebeen investigated: Tell Afis7, al-Rawda8, TellNebi Mend9, Umbashi10 and Tell ShiukhFawqani11. Therefore, this study, together withthe one carried out by S. Riehl12 in the Palace ofQatna, is of great importance to understand thedevelopment of agriculture in this part of thecountry.In this report we present the results of the plantremain study of 130 samples containing seedscoming from different types of structures. Most ofthe samples have been taken from storage facilitiesbut there are also samples from other structuresfrom Operation J, excavated in three different sea-sons from 2002 to 2004 by D. Morandi Bonacossiand his team. Although some of the samples con-tained just a few plant remains, e.g. olive stones, ora small concentrations of grape pips, there wereseveral characterized by a high density of remainsand diversity of species.The main objectives of this study are:– to determine the richness of the deposits exca-

vated as well as the variety and frequency of theremains;

– to obtain information on the array of plantsboth domesticated and wild used by the inhab-itants of the site;

– to investigate the range of agricultural activi-ties, e.g. crop processing, practiced during theBronze Age and the Iron Age in the site;

– to analyze the evolution of agriculture duringthe period of occupation of the site.

2. Methodology

During the different seasons of excavation around400 samples were taken for botanical analysis.Some of them were randomly collected and float-ed, whereas others were gathered on the spotwhen seeds were visible to the naked eye. Contextsinclude different layers of silos, granaries, ovens,hearths and other structures and features relatedto crop processing. Once in the lab, and in order to make sorting eas-ier, large samples with high concentrations of plantremains were sieved through a column of 2 to 0.25mm meshes. Then, identification was carried outwith the aid of the reference collection of the Lab-oratorio di Archeobiologia of the Museum ofComo and several seed atlases currently used inarchaeobotany.Most of the botanical material from Tell Mishrifeh,which comprises wood fragments, seeds, weedheads, fruits, chaff, straw, tubers and foodremains, has been preserved by charring. In addi-tion, in some samples, particularly from the IronAge, there is a fairly great number of un-charredgrape-vine pips. According to Wachter-Sarkady13,Iron Age pips may have survived for a long time inthe soil. Grape pips have been also preserved bypartial or complete mineralization. Un-charredsilicified seeds of Boraginaceae (Lithospermum) arealso common in the site. According to van Zeistand Buithenhuis14, nutles of this family, due to thepresence of silica, may become grey or white whenburned and be preserved in the soil. The interpre-tation of such seeds is always very complicated aswe do not really know whether they are modern orcontemporary to the material under analysis.However, a recent study from Jordan15, involvingthe dating of the carbonate contained in Lithos-

124

Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli

3 HILLMAN et al. 1989: 240-268; id. 2000: 327-399.4 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1986: 171-199.5 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.6 MCCORRISTON 1992: 315-333; MCCORRISTON - SANFORD 2002:

485-498; VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256; VAN

ZEIST 1999: 350-372; id. 2001: 111-125.7 WACHTER-SARKADY 1998: 451-480.8 HERVEUX 2004: 79-91.9 MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.10 WILLCOX 1999: 711-716.11 KLESLY 2005: 1051-1060.12 See this volume.13 WACHTER-SARKADY 1998: 451-480.14 VAN ZEIST - BUITHENHUIS 1983: 47-89.15 PUSTOVOYTOV - RIEHL - MITTMANN 2004: 207-212.

permum seeds, has proved the antiquity of many ofthese seeds.

3. Results

3.1 Early Bronze Age III (EBA III)

Several storage structures (silos, pits, floors, basinsand small storage spaces), soils of occupation,basins, a hearth and accumulations of plantremains from this period have been sampled pro-ducing a total of 19 samples. In general, the num-ber of remains is limited (Table 1), apart from astorage pit which produced a larger amount ofitems. Seven silos (6249, 6259, 6428, 6432, 6444, 6445,6446 and 6495) have been examined showing avery similar plant assemblage. Barley is the maincereal whereas hulled wheats, free-threshingwheats and legumes are testimonial (Table 2).Chaff is completely absent and wild plants are justrepresented by two indeterminate seeds.A single sample (6483) was recovered from a smallspace interpreted as a little cell for storage. Theassemblage of plant remains was extremelyreduced producing only two wheat grains and oneolive stone. This scarcity of material makes diffi-cult to confirm the function given to this structure.Samples from the remaining structures (basin,hearth and floors) have yielded small amounts ofseeds. In any case, the composition of the plantassemblages is very similar: cereal grains, a fewlegumes and some olive stones.

3.2 Early Bronze Age IV (EBA IV)

A total of 61 samples from different structureshave been studied (10 silos, 8 granaries, 4 basins,2 storage pits, different fills from floors and ahearth) giving a total of almost 10000 seeds(Table 3).

Silos– Silo 2184. Only one sample has been examinedfrom this silo which contained very few remains(Table 4) consisting of cereal grains and legumes.

– Silo 2442. A total of nine samples has been stud-ied. Samples 2957-701, 704, 705, and 708 havebeen counted together (Table 5). Samples con-tained basically cereal grains (mainly barley, hulledwheat grains and a few free-threshing wheatgrains) and a few grape pips and legumes. Wild

plant seeds were absent apart from a single Loliumsp. seed.

– Silos 3061 and 3063. Silo 3061 produced a verysmall amount of seeds (Table 6) represented bycereals (wheat and barley) and grape pips. Twosamples have been examined producing a limit-ed number of specimens represented by a mix-ture of cereals (barley, free-threshing and hulledwheats) together with some olive and grape remains(Table 6).

– Silo 3303. Eight samples from five different sub-phases have been studied. Table 7 shows thespecies present in each sub-phase. Sample 3302-701, 704, 705 and 709 have been joined as all camefrom the same sub-phase b. The same has beendone with samples 3691 and 3695. It is clear thatsub-phase c has produced the largest amount ofplant remains as well as the greatest diversity ofspecies. The main cereal crop is barley whichappears in all samples in large numbers, but thereare also other cereals represented such as hulledwheats (mostly emmer wheat) represented by bothcaryopses and chaff and free-threshing wheatswhich correspond to the group T. aestivum/durumwhich includes both hard (T. durum) and breadwheat (T. aestivum). Cereal chaff from barley,hulled wheats and free-threshing wheats has beenidentified. Cereal culm nodes are also frequent.Wild plants are present in high numbers showinga great diversity of species.

– Silos 3763, 4053 and 5129. Two samples fromsilo 3763 have been analyzed showing a limitednumber of remains consisting of cereal grains andsome legume seeds (Table 8). Instead, silo 4053(Table 8) which corresponds to the great roundsilo and silo 5129 (Table 8) are represented by agreater number of remains including many seedsfrom wild plants and numerous cereal culm nodes.In both cases, the main cereal is barley but thereare also remains of hulled wheats (both caryopsesand chaff), free-threshing wheats and legumes

– Silos 6245 and 5127. Contrary to the examplesdiscussed above, these two silos show a limitednumber of plant remains. In silo 5127, barley is themain component, followed by indeterminate cere-al grains. Cyperus sp. is the only wild plant present(Table 9). From silo 6245, three samples belongingto sub-phase 39 have been studied. The composi-tion is very uniform with just barley and wheatgrains (Table 9). Again, Cyperus sp. is the only wild

125

Crop Husbandry Pract ices dur ing the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tel l Mishr i f eh

species present. In both cases (apart from sample6252 from silos 6245), samples contain lessremains that the samples discussed above. Thereare not remains of chaff (apart from a single culmnode in silo 5127) nor of weed seeds.

– Storage pit 3084. Two samples from two differ-ent sub-phases have been studied (Table 10). Thenumber of remains is limited. Cereal grains are themain elements. Chaff is absent.

GranariesA total of seven granaries from different sub-phas-es of the site has been analyzed. Of these, only fourhave yielded a reasonable number of remains(3763, 3773, 3935 and 3937). The remaining ones(3310, 2184, 3670 together with sample 5637 froma granary within Building 10) have produced asmall number of seeds.

Granaries 3763, 3935, 3937 and 3773Three samples from granary 3763 belonging tosub-phases 31b, 31d and 36b have been examined(Table 11). Samples from phase 31 show a similarcomposition whereas the earliest phase 36b hasproduced less items. Barley is the better represent-ed crop followed by hulled wheats and free-threshing wheats which are present in lower num-bers. Chaff is also represented, particularly in theearliest phase. The main differences between themis the massive presence of wild plant seeds in thesub-phase 31d whereas in 31b and 36b these arealmost absent. In addition, in sub-phase 31d thereis an important amount of culm nodes. The com-position of granary 3935 (Table 11) and 3937(Table 11) is very similar to that of 3763. Granary3773 (Table 11) shows a similar composition butthe number of remains is lower.

Granaries 2184, 3310, 3670 and storage structurefrom Building 10This group of granaries (Table 12) as well as thestorage structure from Building 10 has yielded avery limited number of plant remains.

BasinsThis is a type of structure thought to have beenused for grain cleaning-processing. Two basinshave been analyzed (3927 and 5145).

Basin 3927Three samples were studied, two of which (3899and 3900) came from the same sub-phase and,therefore, were amalgamated. The third sample is

3925 from sub-phase 31c. This basin has yielded afair amount of plant remains whose compositionand percentages are very similar to that found inthe silos and granaries (Table 13).

Basin 5145Two samples from basin 5145 have been analyzed.Both of them belonged to the same sub-phase 34band therefore they have been joined together. Thenumber of remains is relatively low and they arecharacterized by the presence of cereal grains. Thepresence of chaff and weed seeds is testimonial(Table 13).

Samples from different floor fillsSamples from four different floors and phases (27,30, 31 and 33) have been studied. The most inter-esting one is sample 3764 (Table 14) which hasyielded a great amount of seeds. Its composition isvery similar to that from silos with a dominance ofbarley grains, followed by hulled and free-thresh-ing wheats. Legumes are represented by lentils.Wild plants and chaff are very abundant.The remaining samples (2678, 3752 and 5100)contained less remains, mostly cereal grains. Wildplants and chaff are almost absent.

Building Four samples from a building containing severalbasins identified as areas of cereal processing havebeen analyzed. Samples came from a hearth andthree of the basins. Samples did not yield manyseeds (Table 15). The assemblages contained mainlycereal grains, a few legumes and some grape pips.

3.3 Middle Bronze Age (MBA II)

Two samples from the Middle Bronze Age II havebeen examined. They come from a tannur (sample5668) and from a basin thought to have containedthe ashes of a nearby tannur (sample 5670). Theanalysis revealed the presence of a very scarcenumber of items which are represented by cerealgrains (barley and free-threshing wheats). No evi-dence of chaff has been detected, whereas wildplants seem to be represented by a single indeter-minate seed (Table 16).

3.4 Late Bronze Age I (LBA I)

Five samples from this period have been studied, twofrom a pottery oven, one from a pit and two from afloor. In all cases remains are scant (Table 17).

126


3.5 Iron Age II-III (IA II-III)

Most of the samples analyzed from the 43 Iron AgeII-III samples (Table 18) come from storage pitsalthough there are also some coming from hearths,basins and floors. A total of 36 storage pits hasbeen sampled. Iron Age samples, as it was also thecase for the EBA III, have yielded a considerableless amount of seeds (ca. 2100) than those from theEBA IV. As far as plant composition is concerned,cereal taxa remain unchanged: barley (predomi-nant) followed by hulled wheats and free-threshingwheats, but these are only present in some of thesamples. Several species of legumes are present:lentil (predominant), grass pea and bitter vetch anda possible broad bean. Wild plants are very scarce,represented by a few seeds of several families inonly nine samples. Chaff is absent apart from a sin-gle cereal culm node. The new aspect of this peri-od is the relative frequency of grape pips and olivestones which appear in almost all samples. In addi-tion, sample 2656 contains ca. 50 seeds of saffron(Carthamus cf. tinctorius).

4. Plant husbandry at Tell Mishrifeh

4.1 Crops

The crop plant record from Tell Mishirife is char-acterized by presence of several cereals andlegumes. Cereals are represented by two-rowhulled barley (Hordeum vulgare distichum) fol-lowed by emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) where-as free-threshing wheats (T. aestivum/durum) andeinkorn (T. monococcum) are present in muchlower numbers. Two-row hulled barley is the predominant crop.Although some grains have been badly affected bycharring, most of the specimens were well pre-served, showing symmetrical and straight grains.There are however, a limited number of twistedgrains which could be either examples of the six -rowtype or just deformations of the two-row type kernelsduring carbonization. Chaff, on the contrary, wasseriously damaged, so it has been impossible toidentify the characteristic stalks from the lateralspikelets of the two-row barley. This dominance seems to match the patternobserved in other Bronze Age sites from the northSyrian Euphrates16, as well as that from other near-by Syrian sites such as Tell Nebi Mend17 and al-Rawda18. As already pointed out by otherauthors19, in terms of climate and soil require-

ments, barley is less demanding than wheat, andtherefore it adapts better to drought and extremeconditions, so this may point to its predominancein the area. Regarding uses, barley could have beenused for both human and animal consumption,and this may perhaps account for its prevalence inthe archaeobotanical record. Together with barley, emmer (T. dicoccum), einko-rn (T. monococcum) and free-threshing wheats (T.aestivum/durum) are also part of the crop assem-blage. Emmer appears frequently in the sampleswhereas free-threshing wheats and particularlyeinkorn are present in lower numbers. The latterseems to be residual. According to van Zeist andBakker-Heeres20, emmer would disappear fromthe crop assemblages of northern sites after theEarly Bronze Age. For Tell Mishrifeh, the samplesexamined from this period seem to point to thesame pattern. In fact, during the Early Bronze AgeIV emmer appears in almost every sample withboth grains and chaff whereas in later periods, thisspecies is greatly reduced being represented byonly a few grains and not in all samples. Einkornseems to be present in just a few samples duringthe EBA IV. As for the free-threshing wheats, dis-tinction between the two species involved (T.durum and T. aestivum) on the base of grains aloneis not possible. Only the presence of rachis intern-odes can help to separate both species. Rachis ofboth the hexaploid T. aestivum (bread wheat) andof the tetraploid T. durum (hard wheat) have beenidentified for the EBA IV while in later periodschaff is absent. Legumes must have also played a role within theeconomy of the site even if, as it usually happens,they are underrepresented in the archaeologicalrecord. At Tell Mishrifeh, different species havebeen identified: lentil (Lens culinaris), grass pea(Lathyrus sativus), pea (Pisum sativum), bittervetch (Vicia ervilia, probably broad beans (cf. Viciafaba) and common vetch (cf. Vicia sativa). Lentil isthe commonest legume throughout all periodswhereas the other legumes appear in both theBronze and the Iron Age. However, the only bittervetch identified comes from the Iron Age. It is

127


16 MC CORRISTON 1992: 315-333; MCCORRISTON - SANFORD 2002:485-498; VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256; VAN

ZEIST 1999: 350-372; id. 2001: 111-125.17 MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.18 HERVEUX 2004: 79-91.19 VAN ZEIST 1999: 350-372.20 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.

likely that legumes were part of the vegetal diet ofthe inhabitants of Tell Mishrifeh even if the evi-dence is little. The tendency of lentil being themost abundant legume crop is also evidenced atother sites such as Tell Shiukh Fawqani21 but inthis site other legume species are much moreabundant than at Tell Mishrifeh.

4.2 Fruits

The plant assemblage from the site has yieldedgrape pips, remains of grapes and olive stones.From the Early Bronze Age grape pips (Vitisvinifera) appear in almost every level of the site,but it is during the Iron Age that higher concentra-tions occurred. The identification of remains of Vitis(seeds, fruits and wood charcoal) outside the naturalarea of distribution of this species (e.g. at the Chal-colithic site of Thell Shuna in Jordan, and at the EarlyBronze Age sites of Jericho and Arad) suggests thecultivation of this species already during the secondhalf of the fourth millennium BC22.Distinction between wild and cultivated species isbased on morphological traits. The use of the Stum-mer index in charred material needs to be particular-ly cautious as charring tends to produce shorter andplumper pips which resemble the wild specimens23.No statistical analysis have been applied to thesamples from Tell Mishrifeh, but some of the pipshave been carefully measured (10 pips from theIron Age sample 6421, two from the EBA IV fromsample 3062 and one from sample 3757). In gen-eral, the specimens from the earliest phases showsimilarities with the wild types, whereas thosefrom the most recent period (IA II) exhibit char-acteristics compatible with the domesticatedgrape. The presence of morphological traits char-acteristic of the wild type does not necessarily indi-cate that cultivation was not practised. In fact, thewide morphological variability of the wild typeproves that cultivated specimens can either main-tain ancestral traits or secondarily acquire a mor-phology very close to the wild type24. In addition,the measurements carried out on severaluncharred pips from the IA II (sample 2892.701)confirms the preservation of ancestral morpholog-ical traits. All the pips measured showed an indexlower than 76 but always above 66 (wild index: 76-83; cultivated index: 44-53; index between wildand cultivated: 54-75). The pips exhibit, however,morphological features which resemble the culti-vated form.

Grapes could have been already cultivated duringthe EBA. Cultivated grapes are present too in con-temporaneous sites in the northern part of thecountry25 as well as in the nearby site of Tell NebiMend26. Apart from the pips, the site has alsoyielded grape fruits which perhaps suggests theconsumption of dried raisins. One of the samples(sample 6421 from phase 8H) has yielded a con-centration of pips collected from a round basin.This concentration could perhaps indicate somekind of processing, but evidence is still limited.The palynological study27 shows a limited presenceof Vitis pollen at the beginning of the sequenceduring the Middle Bronze Age which became lesssignificant in later periods. Valsecchi indicates thatthe characteristics of the basin where the sampleswere taken from (a narrow basin surrounded by ahigh rampart) may have determined the pollen rep-resentation. In other words, the pollen samples ana-lyzed may just represent the local past vegetation.As for the olive, the remains from Tell Mishrifehare scarce during the Bronze Age whereas duringthe Iron Age, remains of olive stones are muchmore abundant. Valsecchi’s study of the pollenremains shows the presence of Olea pollen in lowpercentages along the sequence, which does notconfirm with accuracy its cultivation. As in the caseof the Vitis, it should be remembered that thepollen analysis may just reflect the local vegetation.In terms of charred macro-remains, olive stonesappear across the site with high frequency suggest-ing a strong use of this resource which could havebeen locally cultivated, and perhaps not properlyregistered in the pollen analysis. Further palynolog-ical research would certainly help to throw somelight into the subject of olive cultivation. Other pos-sibilities to explain the frequency of olive stones isthe possibility of Olea being the product of com-mercial exchanges with the Mediterranean area.A few remains of fig (Ficus sp.) have been identi-fied in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. It islikely that it is a cultivated form as fig cultivation is

128


21 KLESLY 2005: 1051-1060.22 ZOHARY - SPIEGEL-ROY 1975: 319-327; HOPF 1978: 64-82; id.

1983: 576-621; ZOHARY - HOPF 2000.23 SMITH - JONES 1990: 317-327.24 JACQUAT - MARTINOLI 1999: 25-30; LEVADOUX 1956: 59-116;

PERRET 1997; CASTELLETTI - DI VORA 1995: 333-358.25 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256; WACHTER SARKADY

1998: 451-480.26 MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.27 Cf. VALSECCHI, this volume.

well documented in Syria from the third millenni-um BC onwards28. Other Bronze Age Syrian sitessuch as al-Rawda29, Tell Nebi Mend30 and TellShiukh Fawqani31 as well as some sites in the northof the country32 have also produced fig seeds.

4.3 Other possible cultivated plants

Several achenes of saffron (Carthamus tinctorious)have been found in a few samples from both theEarly Bronze and the Iron Ages. The water insolu-ble dye extracted from its red flowers has beenused in the past for dyeing textiles. Only recently,Carthamus has been used for oil extraction and so,it is possible than in the past it was also an oil crop.Carthamus cf. tinctorius has been also identified innorthern Syria at the site of Selenkahiye33, as wellas in other sites such as Tell Shiukh Fawqani34.In addition, a possible single coriander fruit (cf.Coriandrum sativum) has been also identified froman Early Bronze Age sample. The presence ofcoriander in the archaeobotanical record goesback as far as the PPNB when some remains wereretrieved from Nahal Hemar Cave in Israel35.

4.4 Wild plants: weeds of arable fields or naturalvegetation?

For agrarian sites, such as Tell Mishrifeh, whoseeconomy is largely based on the exploitation ofcultivated plants, it is very difficult to asses the roleof wild plants. Based on numerous ethnographicexamples36, it is reasonable to presume that theplant-based subsistence included a wide range ofwild plant foods. Gathering was certainly a com-mon activity, and it probably included manyspecies for which evidence is not provided by thearchaeological record. Many different parts of theplants such as seeds, fruits, leaves, tubers, roots,rhizomes, bulbs, stems etc. were involved. Thesecould be edible and/or palatable at differentmoments of their growth period. Two main ele-ments make difficult the interpretation of wildspecies: on the one hand, the diversity of uses thata single species may have had, and on the other,the limits imposed by identification. In otherwords, as it has happened in Tell Mishirifeh, iden-tification to species level has not been always pos-sible, and this poses an important constraint to theinterpretation of the wild plant assemblage. VanZeist and Bakker-Heeres37 highlight the fact thatin sites situated in steppe environments, as it is thecase of our concern, it is very difficult to distin-

guish between species occurred as field weeds andthose typical of the natural steppe vegetation.The samples from Tell Mishrifeh, particularlythose from the Early Bronze Age, have yieldedhigh numbers of seeds from wild plants. Many fam-ilies are present such as Caryophyllaceae, Rubiaceae,Ranunculaceae, Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceaeetc., but those better represented are the grasses(Poaceae) and the small seeded legumes(Fabaceae). Although some of the families identified includeedible or useful species, their clear association tocereal remains points to a more probable role ascrop weeds. In most cases, weeds appear togetherwith cereal grains and chaff remains suggesting aclear relationship between them. The followinggenera are the main small seeded legumes at thesite: Astragalus, Coronilla, Medicago, Melitotus andScorpiurus species. All of them are common weedsof cereal fields across the Levant, and what ismore, they are currently identified in Bronze Ageplant assemblages in Syria. In many cases, speciesbelonging to these genera are part of the steppevegetation, but there are also species typical ofarable fields. As for the grasses, Lolium is one ofthe few identified. There is a high percentage ofgrasses which has not been identified due to thelack of reference material, but which probablyinclude many of the species usually identified inother Syrian sites. Members of the segetal present-day communities are Adonis dentata, Fumariaparviflora, Malva aegyptia38, genera which are allpresent at Tell Mishrifeh. Compositae such as Cen-taurea or Hippocrepis as well as Rubiaceae such asGalium are also definitely arable weeds. The lattershows a great variability in sizes which probablyreflects the presence of several species. Some of the samples containing abundant remainsof cereals and weed seeds have also produced seedsof the genera Rumex and Cyperus which commonlygrow in damp areas. The palynological study39 sug-

129


28 ZOHARY - SPIEGEL-ROY 1975: 319-327.29 HERVEUX 2004: 79-91.30 MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.31 KLESLY 2005.32 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985.33 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.34 KLESLY 2005: 1051-1060.35 KISLEV 1988: 76-81.36 ERTUG-YARAS 1997.37 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.38 VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.39 Cf. VALSECCHI, this volume.

gests that there was a trend towards lower waterlevels and a possible extinction of the existingpond lake around 1550 cal. BC, even if afterwardsthere were two episodes of lake regeneration. Thisimplies that, at least during the EBA IV water wasrelatively available and therefore these speciescould develop in the area. Based on the charred plant assemblage, there isnot indication of irrigation.As has been already stated by many authors40,weed seeds provide with an invaluable informationregarding agrarian practices and crop husbandryregimes. Weed ecology can theoretically give infor-mation on the array of operations involved in thegrowth of a particular crop and its management41.However, caution should be taken when extrapo-lating modern analogues to prehistoric situations.A further limitation is imposed by the problemsencountered in identifying the remains. Asdescribed above, only in a few cases the precisespecies identification has been achieved whereasin most cases identification has only occurred atgenus level. In some of the samples, the importantpresence of culm nodes and low-growing taxasuch as Androsace maxima, Coronilla scorpioides,Trigonella, Fumaria etc. suggests the practice of alow harvesting. In other words, cereals were prob-ably harvested by cutting low in the culm. Strawwas probably an important product not only foranimal fodder but also for other purposes such astempering, fuel, bedding etc.

4.5 Crop processing

Based on ethnographic studies of traditional farm-ing systems42, it has been possible to establish thatmore than 30 distinct operations are involved inthe growing and processing of any crop. After har-vesting, crops are processed following a series ofsteps which include threshing, several rounds ofwinnowing and sieving with meshes of differentsizes to remove contaminants (straw, chaff frag-ments, weed seeds, etc.) from the crop. Most ofthese operations produce samples with a specificand unique composition which correspond to par-ticular activities that can be recognized in thearchaeological record. Crop processing is, there-fore, one of the main factors that influence varia-tion in plant assemblages from agrarian sites43. Along the sequence, a few products and by-prod-ucts come in contact with fire and then becomecharred and eventually appear in the archaeolog-

ical record44. The early stages of the crop pro-cessing sequence such as threshing and winnow-ing are rarely represented. Instead, later stagessuch as cereal cleaning (sieving) are frequentlydocumented. In present-day traditional agriculture, sieving iscarried out at several points along the crop pro-cessing sequence to eliminate contaminants suchas chaff and weed seeds from the grain45. Differentmesh sizes are then used according to the stage ofthe sequence when sieving is applied. Coarse siev-ing using a medium/large mesh is applied afterwinnowing to remove the coarser contaminants(e.g. weed heads, rachis segments and strawnodes). A fine sieve mesh is used to eliminate con-taminants smaller than prime grain, i.e. small weedseeds, small rachis segments, awn fragments andtail grain (grain smaller than prime grain). Thisactivity could be carried out prior to bulk storageor just on piecemeal basis.Some of the samples studied from EBA IV (sam-ples from silos 3303, 4053 and 5129, granaries3763, 3935 and 3937, basin 3927 and one of thefloors corresponding to sample 3764) show a sim-ilar composition characterized by the presence ofhigh numbers of cereal grains (different speciesdominated by barley), large numbers of weedsseeds (in most cases smaller than prime grain orsimilar in size to cereals) and cereal chaff. Thistype of composition is compatible to the productoriginated after coarse sieving using a large-middleriddle which leaves grain and items smaller thangrain to pass through. Samples showing this com-position coming from storing structures represent,probably, the storage of a semi-cleaned barleycrop. The presence of different wheat species within thesamples can be explained as a result of some mix-ing occurred after processing. This is particularlytrue for the hulled wheats (einkorn and emmer) asthese species require a processing different fromthat of the free-threshing cereals such as barley orthe naked wheats. This different processing

130


40 HILLMAN 1973: 241-244; JONES 1992: 133-143; VAN DER VEEN

1992.41 CHARLES - BOGAARD 2001: 301-326.42 HILLMAN 1981: 123-162; id. 1984a: 1-41; id. 1984b: 114-152;

id. 1985: 1-31; JONES 1984: 43-61.43 DENNEL 1974: 275-284.44 HILLMAN 1981: 123-162; id. 1984a: 1-41.45 HILLMAN 1981: 123-162; id. 1984a: 1-41; id. 1984b: 114-152;

id. 1985: 1-31; JONES 1984: 43-61; PEÑA-CHOCARRO 1999.

involves the dehusking of the hulled grains beforeconsumption. It is also possible that some mixingoccurred within the storage structures between thecrop being stored and remains of the previouslystored product. Even if evidence is scant, we can-not rule out that some mixcropping may have alsoexisted. For example, different legumes couldhave grown together or even barley could developtogether with naked wheat.Regarding the dehusking of hulled wheats, it isinteresting to note that both spikelet forks andglume bases of both einkorn and emmer have beenidentified at the site. Dehusking is an operationintended to eliminate the tough glumes thatenclose the grain of the hulled wheat species. Suchan operation can be performed in several ways, butthe commonest one is the use of mortars and pes-tles. By pounding, the spikelets break up freeingthe grain from the glumes and produce the char-acteristic spikelet forks frequently identified in thearchaeological record. In many cases the spikeletforks break up as well and we then only recoverthe glume bases. The presence of both spikeletforks and glume bases indicates that some dehusk-ing was carried out on site.One interesting aspect of these weed rich samplesis the abundance of cereal culm nodes. Strawnodes are generally eliminated after winnowing bycoarse sieving together with the largest items suchas weed heads, awns, weed seeds, etc. By-productsfrom winnowing and coarse-sieving are character-ized by the richness of culm nodes. One couldthink that the presence of straw nodes togetherwith prime grain and small weed seeds could bethe result of some mixing between different prod-ucts and by-products originated along the cropprocessing sequence. However, the archaeologicalevidence suggests another explanation. During the excavation, fragments of a kind of plas-ter with clear impressions of straw were retrieved.These remains were clearly associated to the bot-tom layers of the silos as if at the base of the stor-age pits there had been some kind of straw accu-mulation. Ethnographic data from Morocco46

regarding the construction and use of silos in tra-ditional communities, show that after digging thepit, farmers generally insulate the walls and thefloor by placing a carpet of cereal straw, which inthe specific case of the Moroccan Rif is fromeinkorn (T. monococcum). Einkorn straw is partic-ularly indicated for this operation due to its insu-lating properties47. The walls of the pit are also

wrapped up with a layer of einkorn straw fixed tothe sides with a series of belts made with the stemsof a reed species (Arundo donax). Thus, the abun-dance of cereal straw nodes can be also related tothe presence of straw within the silo in order toinsulate the harvest from the floor. The charring ofthe straw or part of it may have caused its occur-rence in the archaeobotanical record.Several samples of the sediment from the bottompart and from the walls of the silos have been ana-lyzed. This analysis has helped to understand someof the techniques used to insulate the silos andensure the conservation of the product stored. Thestudy of samples 3691.701 and 5524.701 hasrevealed the presence of a mixture of earth andstraw. The straw has been preserved in minusculewhite and fragile fragments partially mineralized.The SEM analysis has been particularly difficult dueto the fragility of the remains and the difficulties toinsulate these fragments. Therefore, it has not beenpossible to identify with precision the speciesinvolved. The material analyzed resembles, however,barley straw. This obviously would match with thehigh presence of this species across the site. A second sample from one of the above silos(3691.701) shows the presence of a mixture ofearth and tiny fragments of thin wood branches(diameter between 0,5 and 3-5 mm) from a nonidentified species. The wood has been preservedby desiccation and appears little mineralized.Other samples have been studied such as sample5545.701 which did not produce any plant mater-ial. In other cases such as in sample 3768.701 thesediment has preserved only the straw imprints.The presence of such material poses the questionof the differential preservation of the botanicalmaterial. In other words, how can we explain thepresence of mineralized and/or desiccated materi-al together with charred plant remains? One pos-sible explanation is that the charred remains com-ing from another area/structure were only secon-darily deposited in these silos. An additional rea-son could be that the fire event that occurredinside the silo was relatively brief and therefore,enough to burn the remains recovered but insuffi-cient for the straw mixed with the sediment to becharred. The ethnographic study carried out in

131


46 PEÑA-CHOCARRO et al. 2000: 403-420; GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO etal. 2005: 21-32.

47 PEÑA-CHOCARRO et al. 2000: 403-420; PEÑA-CHOCARRO - ZAP-ATA 2003: 99-113.

Morocco48 shows that after preparing with clayand straw the walls and floors of the silos, a fire islighted inside to dry up the surface of the silo.Such an event could perhaps help to understandthe remains of Tell Mishrifeh. However, only fur-ther research and perhaps bigger samples will helpthrow light into this interesting subject.Apart from the silos and granaries, this type ofsample characterized by the large quantity of weedseeds, chaff and cereal grains has been also foundin one of the EBA IV basins studied. One of thesamples from basin 3927 from sub-phase 31c hasproduced a very rich assemblage. Contrary, a sam-ple from a later sub-phase has yielded a clean bar-ley cereal sample (mixed with some wheat grainsand legume seeds). This difference can beexplained as the evidence of crop processing activ-ities taking place in these structures, in particularfine-sieving to eliminate the smaller contaminants(those items smaller than prime grain) from thecereal crop. Sample 3925 from sub-phase c couldthen represent the crop just extracted from storagewith all the contaminants mixed together with thegrain, while sample 3900 from phase 31a could beinterpreted as the product resulting from fine siev-ing where no chaff remains nor weed seeds arepresent. The presence of wheat and legumes islikely the result of mixing episodes as describedabove. These elements are only removed by handsorting as they are more or less the same size as theprime grain. The second basin studied (5145)shows a clean product.Similar situation has been also found in some of thesamples (3764) from a floor from sub-phase 31.Assemblages containing weed seeds in such num-bers have not been found in samples from theEBA III, MBA, LBA and Iron Age. First of all, thetotal number of items identified is much lower,and the remains consist basically of cereal grainsand legume seeds. In some cases, as for exampleduring the Iron Age, samples contained just a fewwild species. This difference is difficult to explain.On the one hand, sample size may account for thisdifference between periods, but it is also possiblethat a change in storing practices may haveoccurred. It is also significant that none of thesamples from silos from the EBA III and the IronAge contained cereal culm nodes.

5. Foods

Although today in the Near East, most the barleyis grown as fodder, particularly for sheep and

goats, there is a small part used for human con-sumption. Before barley is prepared into food, ithas to be hummeled, in other words, it is necessaryto remove the basal bit of the awn. This operationis applied to both the barley used for fodder andthe barley used as human food. Hummelling isdone with a mortar and a pestle, and then the cropis cleaned by winnowing or sieving. Another oper-ation related to the preparation of barley foods forhuman consumption is the removal of the adher-ent paleas and lemmas by dehusking. Barley can be prepared in different ways: as roast-ed grains or as porridge. In the first case, dehusk-ing is not necessary whereas in the second barley isfirst dehusked and then milled or crushed. Plinymentions that the Greeks used to eat barley por-ridge mixed up with coriander (an anti-flatulant)and in the form of bread. The documentary sourcesand the ethnographic record show that barley breadwas very popular. Barley flour generally can bemixed with other flours (from cereals or legumes)and baked into bread. Barley could also be used inthe preparation of fermented drinks.Several samples from Tell Mishirife have yieldedremains of what has been identified as some kindof ‘food’. Some of these remains have been studiedwith the SEM and it has been possible to identifythe presence of cereal-based food remains, frag-ments of bread and of a kneaded food with eitherflour or semolina. Some of these fragments displaya high porosity which would indicate that thedough was leavened prior to be accidentallycharred. In some cases fragments of broken cerealgrains are visible.Cereal grain outer layers, the pericarp andperisperm, enclose the endosperm which is theproteinaceous storage tissue of the grain. Whenthe grains are milled, the pericarp is removed pro-ducing what is commonly known as bran. Thisfraction is usually removed from the flour by siev-ing, and depending on the amount of bran pre-sent, the flour can be more or less fine. The exam-ples examined from Tell Mishrifeh show the pres-ence of a very coarse flour in which fragments ofcereal grains are noticeable. In many cases, thepericarp of the grain is still present. However, ithas not been possible to distinguish the species(wheat or barley) involved in the production ofthese ‘foods’.

132


48 PEÑA-CHOCARRO et al. 2000: 403-420; PEÑA-CHOCARRO - ZAP-ATA 2003: 99-113.

6. Concluding remarks

The site of Tell Mishrifeh has produced a mostinteresting botanical dataset characterized by bothrichness and diversity of species which has allowedto reconstruct interesting aspects of the agricultur-al production of the site. In terms of crop diversity, the site has yielded a rel-atively large array of cultivated plants even if someof the species documented appear in very smallnumbers. Two-row barley is the main crop, whichcould have been used for both human and animalconsumption. In addition, it is likely that its strawwas used for tempering. The fact that this speciesappears as the predominant crop throughout theperiods indicates that barley was a major crop.This is also the case of other sites in the area.Emmer wheat seems to be also relatively impor-tant, even if all the remains identified are alwaysmixed with barley. Emmer looses its importanceafter the Early Bronze Age as it is shown by thesamples from later periods. The presence of glume bases and spikelet forkspoint to dehusking activities on site even if the evi-dence is still very thin. Free-threshing wheats arepresent in low numbers. Cultivated legumes are attested but the archaeob-otanical record does not provide with much data.Several species are represented: lentil, vetches,grass pea, possible broad beans, but all apart fromlentils are testimonial. Lentils are frequentthroughout all periods.Both olives and grapes are represented in the listof edible plants from the site but the archaeob-otanical study has given as yet only limited infor-mation about these two species. Olives are littlerepresented during the Bronze Age whilst duringthe Iron Age are quite frequent. Grapes are pre-sent from the beginning with both charred andmineralized speciments. In both cases it is possibleto speak of local cultivation even if the palynolog-ical record does not seem to confirm it. As sug-gested by the palynologist49, this relatively low per-centages could be determined by the characteris-tics of the sampling area. Figs are also representedby very few remains. No evidence of other fruits isavailable from the site. Several seeds of saffron have been also retrievedwhich could be tentatively indicate its use and per-haps its cultivation. Saffron has been also identi-fied in other Syrian sites. Summarizing, the assem-blage of plant remains identified in Tell Mishrifeh

follows the pattern found in other contemporane-ous Syrian sites.Some of the samples represent particular crop-processing steps such as coarse and fine sieving.Barley was probably stored in a semi-cleanedstage after coarse-sieving while fine-sieving toremove small contaminants from prime grainwas probably performed on piecemeal basis. Themixing of different products and byproductsduring the crop processing sequence is clear.Different crops unlikely to have been growntogether (emmer and barley) appear oftentogether in the same sample suggesting the mix-ing of products.This study has demonstrated that the variety ofcrops throughout time has remained more or lessinvariable even if the amounts of remains recov-ered are much lower for later periods. Barley wasthe main crop from the EBA III to the Iron Age,and only emmer seems to have decreased duringlater periods. It is interesting to note that after theEBA IV, weed seeds and chaff fragments disap-peared from the storage structures as did the culmnodes. This difference may be related to the dif-ferent function of the storage structures analyzedor to a change in the storage practice. During theEBA IV, the site appears to be an urban site withlarge scale storage facilities50, perhaps dependingon a public institution, whereas later (Iron Age)the silos and other structures for cereal storingwere used at smaller scale. This study has focused in only one of the areas ofthe site (Operation J) from which a great amountof information has been obtained. However,future work on other operations will certainly helpto complete our knowledge on the subsistence ofthe site as well as to get a better understanding ofthe ancient agronomy of Tell Mishrifeh.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank D. Morandi Bonacossi for the oppor-tunity of studying the material from the site as well as forproviding a great deal of information. Simone Reihl hasshared with us her results from the Palace and V. Valsec-chi her palynological results. L. Peña-Chocarro hasworked with a post-doctoral contract within the Ramóny Cajal Program, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Edu-cation and Science.

133


49 Cf. VALSECCHI, this volume.50 MORANDI BONACOSSI et al. 2003: 65-120.


134

Tabl

e 1.

Tabl

e sh

owin

g th

e pl

ant r

emai

ns fr

om th

e Ea

rly B

ronz

e Ag

e II

I.

Pha

se 4

1b

Pha

se 4

1

Pha

se 4

1

Pha

se 4

1

Pha

se 4

2

Pha

se 4

2

Pha

se 4

2 b

P

hase

44c

P

hase

40b

P

hase

42

P

hase

44a

P

hase

44c

P

hase

42

P

hase

44c

P

hase

44c

P

hase

39

P

hase

45

E

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

EB

A II

IE

BA

III

6426

6427

6430

6431

6443

6445

6485

6494

6257

-625

864

8365

4065

6264

3665

6565

9862

3865

9962

6570

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

170

370

1si

lo

silo

si

lo

silo

silo

silo

si

lo

silo

st

orag

est

orag

eEB

Asi

nEB

Asi

n ro

omro

om62

4964

2862

5964

3264

4464

4664

9964

95pi

tro

om65

6365

63flo

orflo

orflo

orw

all

hear

thTO

TAL

Cer

eals

Cf.

Triti

cum

mon

ococ

cum

grai

n1

1Tr

iticu

m d

icoc

cum

grai

n1

23

132

38

32C

f.Tr

iticu

m d

icoc

cum

grai

n1

12

4Tr

iticu

m a

estiv

um/d

urum

grai

n1

1C

f.Tr

iticu

m a

estiv

um/d

urum

grai

n1

1Tr

iticu

m s

p.gr

ain

11

2Tr

iticu

m/H

orde

umgr

ain

33

Hor

deum

vul

gare

stra

ight

gra

in74

2034

1329

1728

105

92

82

937

1440

1H

orde

um v

ulga

reun

deci

ded

grai

n26

718

71

117

422

513

414

3H

orde

um v

ulga

regr

ain

frags

.15

411

414

421

78

110

7C

erea

l ind

etgr

ain

21

32

41

32

48

30C

erea

l ind

etgr

ain

frags

.13

22

17C

erea

l ind

etcu

lm n

odes

11

Legu

mes

Vici

a/La

thyr

us s

p.se

ed2

35

Lens

cul

inar

isse

ed1

1C

f.Fa

bace

aese

ed

22

Frui

tsO

lea

euro

paea

seed

22

11

24

315

Ole

a eu

ropa

ease

ed fr

agm

ents

73

10Vi

tis v

inife

rapi

p1

45

Wild

pla

nts

Gra

min

eae

seed

11

Inde

t.se

ed2

13

TOTA

L11

645

5738

3422

367

197

346

1322

1213

6037

785

Tabl

e 2.

Tabl

e sh

owin

g th

e pl

ant c

ompo

sitio

n of

the

EBA

III s

ilos.

Pha

se 4

1b

Pha

se 4

1

Pha

se 4

1

Pha

se 4

1

Pha

se 4

2

Pha

se 4

2

Pha

se 4

2 b

P

hase

44c

P

hase

40b

EB

A I

IIE

BA

III

EB

A I

IIE

BA

III

EB

A I

IIE

BA

III

EB

A I

IIE

BA

III

EB

A I

II

6257

-625

8

6426

6427

6430

6431

6443

6445

6485

6494

6265

701

701

701

701

701

701

701

701

701

silo

624

9si

lo 6

428

silo

625

9si

lo 6

432

silo

644

4si

lo 6

446

silo

649

9si

lo 6

495

stor

age

pit

TOTA

L

Hul

led

whe

at g

rain

s1

13

49

Free

-thr

eshi

ng w

heat

gra

ins

11

Bar

ley

grai

ns10

032

5425

3118

150

160

471

Cer

eal i

ndet

gra

ins

81

32

24

20

Lent

il se

eds

11

Cf.

Fab

acea

e2

2

Oliv

e st

ones

22

4

Gra

pe

pip

s1

1

Wild

pla

nts

21

3

TOTA

L10

935

5532

3222

358

166

512

135


Pha

se 2

5P

hase

26

P

hase

27

Pha

se 2

8

Pha

se29

Pha

se 3

0

Pha

se 3

1

Pha

se 3

2

Pha

se 3

3P

hase

34

P

hase

38

Pha

se 3

9

EB

A I

VE

BA

IV

EB

A I

VE

BA

IV

EB

A I

VE

BA

IV

EB

A I

VE

BA

IV

EB

A I

VE

BA

IV

EB

A I

VE

BA

IV

Num

ber

of

sam

ple

s1

313

123

311

14

41

3TO

TAL

Cer

eals

Triti

cum

mon

ococ

cum

grai

n1

1815

42

33

147

Triti

cum

mon

ococ

cum

chaf

f22

11

24Tr

iticu

m d

icoc

cum

grai

n3

855

645

897

445

2831

7Tr

iticu

m d

icoc

cum

chaf

f1

670

151

93Tr

iticu

m m

onoc

occu

m/d

icoc

cum

grai

n15

375

33

164

Triti

cum

mon

ococ

cum

/dic

occu

mch

aff

232

126

Triti

cum

aes

tivum

/dur

umgr

ain

16

3957

73

113

244

125

289

Triti

cum

aes

tivum

/dur

umch

aff

52

7Tr

iticu

m a

estiv

umch

aff

2222

Triti

cum

dur

umch

aff

262

11

30Tr

iticu

m/H

ord

eum

grai

n3

3121

129

3530

5110

3543

5H

ord

eum

vul

gare

gr

ain

557

357

527

5414

719

2195

462

181

325

940

68H

ord

eum

vul

gare

ch

aff

5171

55

113

3C

erea

liagr

ains

44

521

494

410

919

229

3C

erea

liacu

lm n

odes

118

734

249

8827

694

Cer

ealia

chaf

f2

2Le

gum

esLa

thyr

us s

ativ

us/c

icer

ase

ed1

cf1

12+

1cf

Lath

yrus

/V

icia

sp

.se

ed1

1Le

ns c

ulin

aris

seed

310

624

321

114

4013

360

Pis

um s

ativ

um?

seed

11

cf1

2+1c

fLe

gum

inos

aese

ed f

rags

22

Vic

ia c

f. sa

tiva

seed

11

Cf

Vic

ia f

aba

seed

11

Frui

tsV

itis

vini

fera

pip

s3

28+

2min

277+

1min

2314

39

1714

127

2+3m

inV

itis

vini

fera

grap

es3

710

Ole

a eu

rop

aea

seed

33

6O

lea

euro

pae

ase

ed f

ragm

ents

411

41

47W

ild p

lant

sA

don

is s

pse

ed5

316

345

Aeg

ilop

s sp

.sp

ikel

et f

ork

11

Alk

anna

sp

seed

11

13

And

rosa

ce m

axim

ase

ed3

71

11A

stra

galu

s ty

pe

seed

3516

116

2817

257

Atr

iple

x sp

.se

ed1

1B

rom

us t

ype

seed

112

114

Cf

Bro

mus

typ

ese

ed2

2C

arex

sp

.se

ed1

1C

aryo

phi

llace

aese

ed1

23

6C

arth

amus

sp

seed

21

25

Cen

taur

ea s

p.

seed

258

25

269

Cer

astiu

m s

p.

seed

22

Che

nop

odia

ceae

seed

44

Com

pos

itae

seed

11

24

Com

pos

itae

head

flo

wer

18

211

Tabl

e 3.

Plan

t rem

ains

from

the

Early

Bro

nze

Age

IV.

136


Cor

onill

a ty

pe

seed

4457

+4

fr11

57

124+

4fr

Cf.

Cor

onill

ase

ed1

1C

oron

opus

sq

uam

atus

seed

22

Cf.

Cor

iand

rum

sat

ivum

seed

11

Cru

cife

rae

seed

11

Cyp

erus

sp

.se

ed4

26+

2 fr

26

21

41+

2fr

Cf.

Cyp

erus

sp

.se

ed1

1Fu

mar

ia

seed

523

29

39G

aliu

m s

p.

seed

989

643

147

Gal

ium

sp

.fr

ags.

34

7C

f. G

aliu

m s

p.

seed

11

2G

ram

inac

eae

tipo

Pha

laris

grai

n4

91

216

Gra

min

eae

ind

etgr

ain

451

722

84G

ram

inea

e in

det

frag

s.18

18G

ram

inea

e in

det

(min

ute)

seed

11

Hel

iotr

opiu

m s

p.

sem

e3

152

222

Cf.

Hel

iotr

opiu

mse

me

11

Hip

poc

rep

is s

p.

sem

e42

7110

119

143

Hip

poc

rep

is s

p.

frag

s.19

19H

ord

eum

sp

.gr

ain

366

244

Hyp

eric

um s

pca

psu

le2

13

Legu

min

osae

(sm

all s

eed

ed)

seed

430

1824

76Li

naria

typ

ese

ed1

1Li

num

sp

seed

22

3 cf

4+3c

fLi

num

sp

cap

sule

fra

g.?

11

Lith

osp

erm

umse

ed5

352

143

Loliu

m s

p.

grai

n2

818

4+8

fr27

3851

310+

8fr.

Cf.

Loliu

m s

p.

grai

n12

12M

alva

sp

.se

ed3

912

Med

icag

o sp

seed

1110

211

143

141

Cf.

Med

icag

o sp

.se

ed2

2M

elito

tus

typ

ese

ed16

382

56P

egan

um h

arm

ala

seed

11

Pol

ygon

um s

p.

seed

11

Rum

ex s

pse

ed22

7212

83

117

Rum

ex s

pfr

uit

11

2S

corp

iuru

s m

uric

atus

seed

2345

2010

1211

0C

f. S

corp

iuru

sse

ed7

310

Sile

ne s

pse

ed3

14

Sta

chys

sp

seed

11

Stip

a sp

.gr

ain

22

Teuc

rium

sp

.se

ed2

42

19

Trifo

lium

sp

.se

ed6

111

119

Trig

onel

la a

stro

ites

seed

11

Trig

onel

la t

ype

seed

181

1130

Vale

riane

lla d

enta

tase

ed5

38

Verb

ascu

m s

p.

seed

88

Verb

ascu

m s

p.

cap

sule

44

Ind

eter

min

ate

seed

637

156

1748

1527

9In

det

erm

inat

efr

uits

43

22

213

Ind

eter

min

ate

ped

icel

s3

301

34In

det

erm

inat

erh

izom

e2

23+

7 cf

18+

7cf

“bre

ad”

frag

.1

51

7TO

TAL

1212

081

9+2

min

1490

124+

1 m

in23

2+7

cf46

28+

14fr

356

1161

516+

3 cf

626

597

56

Tabl

e 3.

Cont

inue

d.

137


Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase27BEBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV2812 2814 2846 2957 3070 3692701 703 703 701-704

705-708 701 701silo silo silo silo silo silo

2442 2442 2442 2442 2442 2442 TOTALHulled wheat grains 12 1 4 23 6 46Hulled wheat chaff 1 1Free-threshing wheat grains 8 1 5 14Free-threshing wheat chaff 26 26Wheat/Barley grains 8 96 2 106Barley grains 26 3 33 111 1 23 197Cereal indet. grains 4 4Cereal indet. culm nodes 1 1Legumes 2 1 2 2 7Grape pips 1 1 1 min 9 1+1min 14Wild plants 1 1

TOTAL 49 5 43 278 2 40 416

Table 4. Plant remains from Silo 2184.


Phase 26EBA IV2698702silo

2184Hulled wheat grains 3Free-threshing wheat grains 3Wheat/Barley grains 11Barley grains 6Legumes 4

Phase 28 Phase 28c Phase 28d Phase 28e EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV

36913302 3695 3695 3698

701-704705-709 704 702 701

silo silo silo silo3303 3303 3303 3303 TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 44 50 3 5 102Hulled wheat chaff 26 26Free-threshing wheat grains 14 31 3 4 52Free-threshing wheat chaff 7 7Wheat/Barley grains 11 11Barley grains 238 133 42 50 463Barley chaff 50 1 51Cereal indet. Grains 13 25 2 40Cereal indet. culm nodes 176 11 187Legumes 7 47 6 60 120Grape pips 13 3 3 3 22Olive stones 1 1Wild plants 5 260 67 332

TOTAL 346 808 138 122 1414

Table 6. Plant remains from Silos 3061 & 3063.

Phase 27 Phase 27EBA IV EBA IV3060 3062703 702-703silo silo

3061 3063 TOTALHulled wheat grains 4 32 36Free-threshing wheat grains 4 19 23Wheat/Barley grains 8 83 91Barley grains 10 129 139Legumes 7 7Grape pips 5 12 17Olive stones 18 18Wild plants 2 2

TOTAL 31 302 333


138


Phase31 Phase 32 Phase 34 EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV37573761

4052 5129

701 701 701silo round silo

3763 4053silo TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 12 7 7 26Hulled wheat chaff 1 3 4Free-threshing wheat grains 10 2 7 19Wheat/Barley grains 14 15 29Barley grains 96 95 71 262Barley chaff 5 1 6Cereal indet. Grains 4 10 14Cereal indet. culm nodes 49 25 74Legumes 6 14 13 33Grape pips 2 9 2 13Grape fruits 2 2Wild plants 2 166 172 340

TOTAL 144 352 326 822

Table 8. Plant remains from Silos 3763, 4053 and sample 5129.

Phase 34 Phase 39 EBA IV EBA IV

62435347 6244

6252701 701silo silo

5127 6245 TOTALFree-threshing wheat grain 5 5Wheat/Barley 14 14Barley grain 58 258 316Cereal indet. grain 3 3Cereal indet. culm nodes 1 1Grape pips 11 11Wild plants 1 1 2

TOTAL 88 264 352

Table 9. Plant remains from Silos 5127 & 6245.

Phase 25EBA IV3084701

storage pitHulled wheat grains 5Free-threshing wheat grains 1Wheat/Barley grains 23Barley grains 10Wild plants 6

Table 10. Plant remains from a storage pit (sample 3084).

139


Phase 31b Phase 31d Phase 36b Phase 33 Phase 33 Phase 30bEBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV3915 4004 5579 3934 3936 3891701 701 701 701 701 701

granary granary granary granary granary granary3763 3763 3763 3935 3937 3773 TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 9 16 6 15 30 6 82Hulled wheat chaff 34 9 8 51Free-threshing wheat grains 11 21 4 34 10 1 81Free-threshing wheat chaff 4 1 5Wheat/Barley grains 17 10 30 57Barley grains 104 100 26 313 130 89 762Barley chaff 22 3 2 27Cereal indet. Grains 6 35 3 39 70 153Cereal indet. culm bases 1 103 35 52 36 227Cereal indet chaff 2 2Laegumes 4 27 3 28 14 2 78Grape pips 26 4 9 7 21 67Grapes 4 4Olive stones 2 7 9Wild plants 4 255 17 244 62 582

TOTAL 184 621 94 765 370 153 2187

Table 11. Plant remains from granaries 3763, 3935, 3937 and 3773.

Phase 26 Phase 28 Phase 28c Phase 29a Phase 38b EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV3618 3316 3310 3689 5637703 701 701 701 701

granary granary granary granary storage2184 3310 3310 3670 room TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 4 6 1 11Fre-threshing wheat grains 3 2 1 6Wheat/Barley grains 6 17 23Barley grains 46 3 15 3 67Cereal indet. Grains 4 6 1 2 13Grape pips 2 1 1 4

TOTAL 57 3 37 21 6 124

Table 12. Plant remains from granaries 2184, 3310, 3670 and storage room.

Phase 31 a Phase 31c J Phase 31 J Phase 34b JEBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV3899 51443900 3925 3894 5423701 701 701 701

basin basin basin basin3927 3927 3927 5145 TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 19 19 2 22 62Hulled wheat chaff 18 18Free-threshing wheat grains 24 7 5 36Free-threshing wheat chaff 1 1Wheat/Barley grains 16 1 6 23Barley grains 109 145 32 52 338Barley chaff 16 16Cereal indet. Grains 7 12 1 6 26Cereal indet. culm nodes 1 68 1 70Legumes 9 16 1 1 27Grape pips 34 25 1 1 61Wild plants 1 262 3 100 366

TOTAL 204 605 41 194 1044

Table 13. Plant remains from basins 3927 & 5145.

140


Phase 31 Phase 27 Phase 30 Phase33EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV3764 2678 3752 5100

701-703704 701 701 701 TOTAL

floor floor floor floorHulled wheat grains 26 10 6 5 47Hulled wheat chaff 41 41Free-threshing wheat grains 40 1 2 43Free-threshing wheat chaff 20 20Wheat/Barley grains 3 14 58 75Barley grains 1335 21 19 1375Barley chaff 33 33Cereal indet. Grains 33 4 37Cereal indet. culm nodes 169 169Legumes 150 1 151Grape pips 51 2 1 54Grapes 1 1Olive stones 1 1Wild plants 789 1 790

TOTAL 2692 46 74 25 2837

Table 14. Plant remains from various floors (samples 3764, 2678, 3752, 5100).

Phase28b Phase29 Phase 29 Phase 28bEBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV3620 3666 3672 3622701 702 701 702

basin basin basin hearth TOTAL3621 3667

Hulled wheat grains 8 13 21Free-threshing wheat grains 3 6 9Wheat/Barley grains 12 33 2 47Barley grains 45 30 7 1 83Cereal indet. grains 6 6Legumes 3 4 7Grape pips 2 5 +1 min 1 1 10Wild plants 2 2TOTAL 73 94 10 8 185

Table 15. Plant remains from a building from phase 29.

Phase 11 Phase 11 BM BM

5669 5670

701 701

tannur basin for ashes

5668 from tannur TOTAL

Triticum aestivum/durum grain 2 2

Hordeum vulgare straight grain 2 1 3

Hordeum vulgare undecided grain 3 2 5

Cerealia grain fragments 16 16

Indeterminate seed 1 1

TOTAL 24 3 27

Table 16. Plant remains from the Middle Bronze Age II.

141


Phase 7 Phase 7 Phase 7 Phase 5 Phase 6LBA I LBA I LBA I LBA I LBA I3087 3059 2994 2849718 702 701 702

pit fill pottery oven pottery oven fill floor TOTAL3056 3056

CerealsTriticum aestivum/durum grain 1 4 5Hordeum vulgare straight grain 1 1 2Hordeum vulgare undecided grain 1 1 2Hordeum vulgare grain fragments 1 1Triticum/Hordeum grain fragments 1 1FruitsOlea europaea stone 5 6 1 12Olea europaea stone fragments 31 45 12 88Olea europaea seed 1 1cfr. Ficus sp. fruit (fragments) 3 3Indeterminate fruits 1 1

TOTAL 36 58 6 15 1 116

Table 17. Plant remains from the Late Bronze Age I.

Table 18. Plant remains from the Iron Age II-III.

Phase 1 Phase 5 Phase 6b H Phase 8HIron Age II Iron Age II Iron Age II Iron Age II

Number of samples 4 37 1 1 TOTALCerealsTriticum dicoccum grain 1 14 15Triticum cf dicoccum grain 2 1 3Triticum aestivum/durum grain 5 5Triticum/Hordeum grain 7 19 26Hordeum vulgare twisted grains 1 1Hordeum vulgare straight grains 68 68Hordeum vulgare undecided grains 3 34 1 38Hordeum vulgare grain fragments 53 53Triticum sp. grain 1 4 5Cerealia grains 3 2 5Cerealia grain fragments 6 19 25Cerealia culm nodes 1 1LegumesLathyrus/Vicia sp. seed 2 2Lens culinaris seed 1 13 14Lens culinaris frags. 3 3Pisum sativum? seed 3 3Vicia ervilia seed 3 3Cf. Vicia faba seed 1 1FruitsVitis vinifera pips 2 11 1 112 126Vitis vinifera pip fragments 32 15 47Olea europaea stone 10 234 3 247Olea europaea stone fragments 75 990 1065Olea europaea seed 2 41 43Carthamus cfr. tinctorius seed 41 41Carthamus cfr. tinctorius seed fragments 11 11Cf. Ficus sp. seed 1 1Wild plants seedAdonis sp seed 2 1 3Cf. Adonis sp. seed 1 1Astragalus type seed 2 2Fumaria sp. seed 1 1Galium sp. seed 4 4Gramineae indet grain 4 4 8Leguminosae(small seeded) seed 3 3Lithospermum sp. seed 7 33 40Cf. Malva sp. seed 2 2Medicago sp seed 4 4Scorpiurus muricatus seed 4 4Indeterminate seed 21 21Indeterminate fruits 1 55 56Indeterminate spine 1 1“bread” fragments 133 133

TOTAL 180 1823 1 131 2135

142


CASTELLETTI L. - DI VORA A. 1995: Indagine preliminare sul-l’archeologia della vite (Vitis vinifera L.) in base aicaratteri diagnostici del vinacciolo. Rivista Archeologi-ca dell’Antica Provincia e Diocesi di Como (RAC), 176,333-358.

CHARLES, M. - BOGAARD, A. 2001: Third millennium BCcharred plant remains from Tell Brak, in: D. Oates, J.Oates, H. McDonald (eds.): Excavations at Tell Brak.Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC, McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research/British School ofArchaeology, Cambridge, 301-326.

DENNEL, R.J. 1974: Botanical evidence for prehistoric cropprocessing activities, JAS 1, 275-284.

ERTUG-YARAS, F. 1997: An ethnoarchaeological study of sub-sistence and plant gathering in Central Anatolia,Unpublished PhD Thesis Washington University.

GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO, J.E. - IBÁÑEZ ESTÉVEZ, J.J. - MORENO GAR-CÍA, M. - PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. - ZAPATA, L. 2005: An eth-noarchaeological project in the western Rif (northernMorocco): first results, in: Laboratorio di Archeobiolo-gia. Ricerche e Studi 1998-2000 = Archeologia dell’Italiasettentrionale 9: 21-32.

HERVEUX, L. 2004: Étude archéobotanique préliminaire detell al-Rawda, site de la fin du Bronze ancien en Syrieintérieure, Akkadica 125: 79-91.

HILLMAN, G.C. 1973: Crop husbandry and food produc-tion: modern basis for the interpretation of plantremains, AnSt 23, 241-244.

HILLMAN, G.C. 1981: Reconstructing crop husbandry prac-tices from charred remains of crops, in: R. Mercer(ed.), Farming Practice in Prehistoric Britain, Edin-burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 123-162.

HILLMAN, G.C. 1984a: Interpretation of archaeologicalplant remains: the application of ethnographic modelsfrom Turkey, in: W. van Zeist, K. Casparie (eds.), Plantsand ancient man: studies in palaeoethnobotany, Rotter-dam: A.A. Balkema, 1-41.

HILLMAN, G.C. 1984b: Traditional husbandry and process-ing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations,products and equipment which might feature inSumerian texts. Part I: the glume wheats, BSA 1, 114-152.

HILLMAN, G.C. 1985: Traditional husbandry and processingof archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, prod-ucts and equipment which might feature in Sumeriantexts. Part 2: the free-threshing wheats, BSA 2, 1-31.

HILLMAN, G.H.C. 2000: Abu Hureyra 1: The Epipalaeolith-ic, in: A.M.T. Moore, G.H.C. Hillman, A.J. Legge(eds.), Village in the Euphrates. From Foraging to farm-ing at Abu Hureyra, Oxford: Oxford University Press,327-399.

HILLMAN, G.H.C. - COLLEDGE, S. - HARRIS, D.R. 1989: Plantfood economy during the Epipalaeolithic period at TellAbu Hureyra, Syria: dietary diversity, seasonality andmodes of exploitation, in: D.R. Harris, G.H.C. Hill-man (eds.), Foraging and farming: the evolution of plantexploitation, London: Unwin Hyman, 240-268.

HOPF, M. 1978: Plant remains, Strata V-I, in R. Amiran(ed.), Early Arad, IES, Jerusalem, 64-82.

HOPF, M. 1983: Jericho plant remains, in: K.M. Kenyon,

T.A. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, BritishSchool of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London, 576-621.

JACQUAT, C. - MARTINOLI, D. 1999: Vitis vinifera L.: wild orcultivated? Study of the grape pips found at Petra (Jor-dan); 150 BC-AD 40, Vegetation History and Archaeob-otany 8, 25-30.

JONES, G.E.M. 1984: Interpretation of archaeological plantremains: Ethnographic models from Greece, in: W. vanZeist, K. Casparie (eds.), Plants and ancient man: stud-ies in palaeoethnobotany, Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema,43-61.

JONES, G.E.M. 1992: Weed phytosociology and crop hus-bandry: identifying a contrast between ancient andmodern practice, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynol-ogy 73, 133-143.

KISLEV, M. 1988: Nahal Hemar cave: desiccated plantremains, an interim report, ‘Atiqot 38, 76-81.

KLESLY, G. 2005: Analyse des macro-restes végétaux du sitede Tell Shiukh Fawqani, Syrie. Premiers résultants, in:L. Bachelot, F.M. Fales (eds.), Tell Shiukh Fawqani1994-1998, HANE/M 6, Padova, 1051-1060.

LEVADOUX, L. 1956: Les populations sauvages et cultivéesde Vitis vinifera L., Annales de l’Amélioration desPlantes 1, 59-116.

MCCORRISTON, J. 1992: The Halaf environment and humanactivities in the Khabur drainage, Syria, JFA 19, 315-333.

MCCORRISTON, J. - SANFORD, W. 2002: Spatial and temporalvariation in Mesopotamian agricultural practices in theKhabur Basin, Syrian Jazira, JAS 29, 485-498.

MOFFETT, L. 1989: Appendix. Early Bronze Age plantremains from Tell Nebi Mend. A preliminary report,Levant 21: 29-32.

MORANDI BONACOSSI, D. - LUCIANI, M. - BARRO, A. - CANCI, A.- CREMASCHI, M. - DA ROS, M. - EIDEM, J. - FINZI CONTINI,I. - IAMONI, M. - INTILIA, A. - TROMBINO, L. - SALA, A. -VALSECCHI, V. 2003: Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna 1999-2002. Apreliminary report of the Italian component of the jointSyrian-Italian-German Project, Akkadica 124, 65-120.

PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. 1999: Prehistoric agriculture in SouthernSpain during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age; theapplication of ethnographic models, BAR Int. Series 818,Oxford: Archaeopress.

PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. - ZAPATA, L. - GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO, J.E. -IBÁÑEZ ESTÉVEZ, J.J. 2000: Agricultura, alimentación yuso del combustible: aplicación de modelos etnográfi-cos en arqueobotánica, Saguntum. Extra 3, 403-420.

PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. - ZAPATA, L. 2003: Post-harvesting pro-cessing of hulled wheats. An ethnoarchaeologicalapproach, in: P.C. Anderson, L.S. Cummings, T.K.Schippers, B. Simonel (eds.), Le traitement des récoltes:un regard sur la diversité, du Néolithique au présent.Actes des XXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéolo-gie et d’histoire d’Antibes (2002), Antibes: EditionsApdca, 99-113.

PERRET, M. 1997: Charactérisation et évaluation du polymor-phisme des génotypes sauvages et cultivés de Vitisvinifera L. à l’aide de marqueurs RAPD et de certainstraits morphologiques, Travail de Diplôma, Universitéde Neuchâtel.

Bibliography

PUSTOVOYTOV, K.E. - RIEHL, S. - MITTMANN, S. 2004: Radio-carbon age of carbonate in fruits of Lithospermumfrom the early Bronze Age settlement of Hirbet ez-ZeraqÙn (Jordan), Vegetation History and Archaeob-otany 13/3, 207-212.

SMITH, H. - JONES, G. 1990: Experiments on the effects ofcharring on cultivated grapes, JAS 17, 317-327.

VAN DER VEEN, M. 1992: Crop husbandry regimes. Anarchaeobotanical Study of farming in northern England,Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 3, Sheffield:Sheffield University Press.

VAN ZEIST, W. 1999: Evidence for agricultural change in theBalikh basin, northern Syria, in: C. Gosden, J. Hather(eds.), The Prehistory of Food. Appetites for change,New York / London: Routledge, 350-372.

VAN ZEIST, W. 2001: Third to first millennium BC plantremains on the Khabur, North-eastern Syria, Palaeohis-toria 41/42, 111-125.

VAN ZEIST, W. - BAKKER-HEERES, J.A.H. 1985: Archaeolotan-

ical studies in the Levant 1. Neolithic sites in the Dam-ascus Basin: Aswad, Ghoraifé, Ramad, Palaeohistoria24, 165-256.

VAN ZEIST, W. - BAKKER-HEERES, J.A.H. 1986: Archaeobotan-ical studies in the Levant 3. Late Palaeolithic Mureybit,Palaeohistoria 26, 171-199.

VAN ZEIST, W. - BUITHENHUIS, H. 1983: A palaeobotanicalstudy of Neolithic Erbaba, Turkey, Anatolica 10, 47-89.

WACHTER-SARKADY, C. 1998: Archaeobotanical investigations,in: S.M. Cecchini, S. Mazzoni (eds.), Tell Afis (Siria). Scavisull’acropoli 1988-1992, Pisa, Edizioni ETS, 451-480.

WILLCOX, G. 1999: Charcoal analysis and Holocene vegeta-tion history in southern Syria, Quaternary Science ReviewsINQUA symposium Ankara, The Late Quaternary in theEastern Mediterranean (Special issue), 711-716.

ZOHARY, D. - SPIEGEL-ROY, P. 1975: Beginnings of fruit grow-ing in the Old World, Science 187, 319-27.

ZOHARY, D. - HOPF, M. 2000: Domestication of plants in theOld World, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

143


331

1 University of Milan. The present paper takes into consider-ation discussion, criticism and suggestions from A. Canci,L. Gourichon, L. Peña-Chocarro, Ch. Pümpin, S. Riehl,and E. Vila. To each of them my sincere thanks.

2 Cf. MUKHERJEE et al., in this volume.3 Cf. PÜMPIN, in this volume.4 Cf. MARITAN et al., in this volume.5 Cf. CREMASCHI, in this volume.6 Cf. VILA - GOURICHON, in this volume. 7 Cf. RIEHL, in this volume.8 Cf. CREMASCHI, in this volume.9 Further evidence of water bodies in the region during the

MBA-LBA is provided by the recent dating of the lacus-trine deposits at Lake Qatina. Cf. PHILIP et al., in this vol-ume.

The Environment of Ancient Qatna. Contributions from Natural Sciences and Landscape ArchaeologyMauro Cremaschi1

(with comments by Alessandro Canci , L ionel Gourichon, Leonor Peña-Chocarro, Chr ist inePümpin, S imone Riehl and Emmanuel le Vi la)

1. Ten papers submitted to the Udine Congresspresented the contribution of earth sciences(geoarchaeology and archaeometry) and biologicalsciences (biomolecular analysis, archaeobotany,palynology and archaeozoology) to the under-standing of Qatna’s paleoenvironment. In addi-tion, Bernard Geyer’s paper on the arid margins ofcentral Syria, following a landscape archaeologyperspective, enlarges the scenario to the east,towards the neighbouring steppe and the desertbeyond it. Similarly, the paper of Graham Philipon the marly region of Homs, opens a window onthe Bronze Age environment to the west, at thewetter pre- Mediterranean margin.It is unnecessary to say that these papers do notexhaust the topic, but provide a fascinating intro-duction, highlighting the site’s great potential forthe investigation of the environmental and cultur-al dynamics of Levantine proto-history.

2. Several papers are devoted to on-site archaeo-metrical aspects: the nature of the organic contentof several vessels and of some resin artefacts foundin the Royal Tomb2, the micromorphology of thesoil inside the grave and its organic components3,and the mineralogical and petrographic study of apottery sequence ranging from EBA to IA4. Theheterogeneity of the topics and the early stage ofresearch counsel against further comment, beyonddrawing attention to the obvious contrast betweenthe long-range provenance of the goods in theroyal tomb and the strictly local provenance of theraw materials for pottery, which appears to havebeen made and used locally.

3. A more numerous group of papers furnishesdata for the reconstruction of Qatna’s environ-ment and its basic economy consisting of agricul-ture and animal husbandry.

Water availability seems to have been a maincausative factor in the location of Qatna5, whichwas founded on a main wadi, at the junction witha minor watercourse and in correspondence withan anomalous concentration (at a regional scale) ofkarstic springs. The permanence of water bodiesin the town’s immediate vicinity since its firsturban growth is indicated by the presence ofaquatic birds as a component of the fauna in allperiods. In contrast, the wild fauna indicates asteppe or arboreal steppe environment on the ter-races surrounding the city6. Forest fauna and tim-bers recovered inside the palace indicate thatwoodland may have existed on the mountainsnorth and south-west of Qatna7.

4. At the time of its first urban growth, the city ofQatna was sited next to a small lake, the sedimentsof which record the abundant availability of waterduring the EBA and the MBA8. It is possible thatthe shape of the wadi valley was artificially modi-fied to slow runoff in the stream and create astanding body of water9. A large-scale modification of the local landscape

morphology was caused by the construction of theramparts during the MBA; the lacustrine basinacquired its present shape of an artificial moat, asort of long and narrow reservoir, fed up to recenttimes by springs in the city’s southwestern corner. The springs at the base of the Butte de l’Églisewere isolated from the main wadi valley by theconstruction of the ramparts and generatedswamps on several occasions inside the perimeterof the city. Although with minor oscillations10, anoverall trend of declining water levels can bereconstructed on the basis of the sedimentary fills;the permanent body of the EBA-MBA turned intoa wetland during the late MBA and the early LBAand became a seasonal swamp during the very lateLBA and the IA. From a geological point of view,this trend is consistent with the sedimentsobserved in the same wadi downstream of Qatnaand with the overall regional perspective (North-ern Euphrates; Upper Khabur11), which indicatemore severe dry conditions in the Classical period. Pollen studies on the lacustrine deposits reveallandscape and environmental changes during theLate Holocene. A Juniperus forest was dominantand human impact on the vegetation is attested byseveral anthropogenic pollen indicators from ca.1950 to 1700 cal. BC (Middle Bronze Age). Adrastic change in the landscape was detected at ca.1680 cal. BC, when the (juniper-dominated)forested environment disappeared and the land-scape became more open, coinciding with a dropin the level of the lake, which turned into a wet-land12. The meaning of these changes is ambigu-ous; they could be attributed to an over-exploita-tion of Juniperus wood as fuel and a need for openspaces for cultivation and pastoralism, but mayalso be due to a climatic change towards drier con-ditions which has been recorded in some palaeo-climatic records of the region (e.g. Soreq cave,Dead Sea13). Also, the marked predominance ofgoats and sheep from the Middle Bronze Ageonwards may be interpreted as an indicator of adry environment, despite the persistence of pondsand marshes close to the city, fed by undergroundwater.According to Vila, the dominance of goats andsheep during the LBA is not exclusive to Qatna,but also occurs at sites in regions wetter thanQatna (Kamid al Loz and Ras Shamra amongother sites). On the basis of this fact, Vila suggeststhat the rise of ovicaprids may be interpreted asnot being directly linked to climate and should be

attributed to cultural factors (social or economicchoices, for instance). However, while a social fac-tor cannot be excluded – but once again it couldbe a consequence and not a cause – I believe that,as a tendency toward more dry conditions was ageneral phenomenon in the Middle-LateHolocene, it is reasonable to suppose that it alsoaffected other regions of Syria14, even if the evi-dence available at present is somewhat scarce.

5. Archaeobotanical research, both in the royalpalace15 and in the Operation J storage facilities16,indicates that cereal cultivation was the city’s mainagricultural resource. The wheat found during theEBA (with a significant proportion of free thresh-ing wheat) is later largely replaced by barley, lessdemanding as far as water availability is concerned.In the palace area however, emmer is foundthroughout the Bronze Age in small quantities,which may indicate its high value, considering thegeneral find situation in the Near East. The soilsmost suitable for cereal cultivation are the reddish,deep, fine-textured and well-drained terra rossasoils on the terraces surrounding the city. A recordof their Holocene history has been found in a sink-hole south of Qatna17. Despite poor chronologicalcontrol, the micromorphological study indicatesseveral phases of colluviation generated by plough-ing and soil erosion, starting probably in theNeolithic; however, deposition of secondary calciteover previously formed pedological features maybe due to an increase in evapotranspiration as aneffect of progressive drying in recent periods. In the Iron Age the soil appears to have been in ageneral state of deep erosion, as indicated by theaccumulation of pedological carbonate nodulesderived from the terra rossa soils, which are foundin the wadi deposits of this age18.

6. To the east of the Qatna region in the «arid mar-gins of northern Syria19», at the end of the EBA,

332

Mauro Cremaschi

10 Cf. VALSECCHI, in this volume.11 WILKINSON 1999; COURTY 1994; CREMASCHI - PEREGO, in

press.12 Cf. VALSECCHI, in this volume.13 BAR- MATTHEWS et al. 1999; BOOKMAN et al. 2004.14 See CREMASCHI, in this volume.15 Cf. RIEHL, in this volume.16 Cf. PEÑA-CHOCARRO - ROTTOLI, in this volume.17 Cf. TROMBINO, in this volume.18 Cf. CREMASCHI, in this volume.19 Cf. GEYER, in this volume.

sedentary settlements were numerous and occu-pied a territory which was probably delimitedtowards the arid steppe fringe by a 200 km longwall. At the beginning of the second millenniumBC (MBA) however, conditions changed: perma-nent settlements towards the west shrank in sizeand were protected by complex defensive systems(fortresses, forts and guard towers) and, during theLate Bronze Age, the whole area (as elsewhere incentral Syria) experienced a phase of recession.While this interpretation of cultural dynamics pre-sumes an adaptation to a steppe environment sincethe late Early Bronze Age, it is possible that thechange in settlement patterns reflects (as well associal and political factors) an expansion to thewest of the arid margin as an effect of general arid-ification. This would appear likely if the generalclimatic trend affecting arid lands at the margin ofthe monsoon zone reached these areas during theMiddle-Late Holocene. From 5000 BP onwards, the whole tropical desertbelt which experienced wet conditions during theHolocene optimum became progressively drier, upto the present20. The main geomorphologicalchange since the Late Holocene in these regionshas been the nucleation of oases and their latercontraction as an effect of the increasing aridity.This process is well known in the Saharian region21

and also from the Central Asian desert, forinstance in the Murgab delta22. In all cases the con-traction of land areas fed by water and suitable forhabitation led to important changes in culturaldynamics. In the case of the Merv oasis during theAchaemenid period, a long wall was erected at thefringe of the oasis to protect against the incursionof the desert and nomads23, which could perhapsbe meaningfully compared with the EBA wall ofthe central Syrian desert margin.

7. On the basis of the preceding discussion, envi-ronmental change in the area of Qatna may besummarised as follows:

A - Before Qatna (Early Holocene / pre-BronzeAge)In the vicinity of Mishrifeh some sites have beenrecently found which date back to the Neolith-ic/Chalcolithic period and indicate that the areahas been settled since the Early Holocene. Thoughpollen analysis is lacking, the evidence from theQatna sinkhole indicates probable deforestationwell back in the Holocene, with the removal of theprimeval vegetation which would have consisted

potentially of oak Rosaceae park woodland, on thefringe of the steppe, to the east, and of forest(riverine and eumediterranean forest) to thewest24. Inside the wadi valleys, organic clay andgravel bear witness to fluvial activity dominated bybodies of standing water in the proximity of a lowcompetence stream.

B - Early Qatna (early Middle Holocene / EBA,early MBA).No direct evidence has been found in the landsca-pe of the dry spell recorded by δ13C analyses onC3 plants (Olea and Hordeum) recovered fromthe excavation and dating to the beginning of theEarly Bronze Age (2900-2800 cal. BC)25. However,several dry phases are locally documented duringthe Holocene by the accumulation of carbonatesevidenced by micromorphological investigation ofthe soil sequence from the karstic pit south ofQatna26. Unfortunately they cannot be accuratelydated.The oldest nucleus of Mishrifeh, before the edifi-cation of the rampart fortification system, wasbuilt on a terrace at the confluence of a minor wadiand the Wadi al-Aswad. At the base of the terrace,there was a small lake fed mainly by karstic springs(Attached Plan 1). The fact that in the wadi valleythe beginning of the lacustrine sedimentation iscoincident with the late third millennium BC, thatis with the first urbanisation of the site ofMishrifeh, may suggest that at this time some mod-ification of the wadi bed was effected in order toinhibit the runoff and favour water stagnation andthe formation of a lake, the extent of which can beestimated as at least about 70 ha. Around the lake, the landscape was dominated byarboreal cover (shrubs and trees from 70% to80%) and wet conditions are suggested by δ13Canalysis27, the occurrence of wheat (a comparative-ly water-demanding cereal species), and possiblyby the higher percentage (in comparison to laterperiods) of Bos and Sus in the domestic fauna.

333

The Environment of Ancient Qatna

20 BAUMHAUER et al. 2004; BATTERBEE et al. 2004; CREMASCHI

2001; CREMASCHI et al. 2006; GASSE 2001; HOELZMAN et al.2001; PACHUR - HOELZMAN 1991; PETIT MAIRE, 2002; THOMP-SON et al. 2002.

21 E.g. CREMASCHI - DI LERNIA 2001.22 CREMASCHI 1998.23 BADER et al.1995.24 MOORE et al. 2000.25 Cf. FIORENTINO - CARACUTA, in this volume.26 Cf. TROMBINO, in this volume.27 Cf. FIORENTINO - CARACUTA, in this volume.

C - Apogee of Qatna and marked environmentalchange (Middle-Late Holocene / Middle-LateBronze Age) During this period or at the end of the precedingphase, the ramparts were built, splitting the lake intwo parts. The external portion was integratedinto the ditch and, fed by the karstic springs at thesouthwestern corner of the town, remained occu-pied by water. The inner part corresponded to the modernMarais. Stratigraphic evidence indicates that theMarais did not exist during the Middle BronzeAge and the area was subject to human occupationand contained archaeological structures. TheMarais became a swamp for the first time duringthe late Late Bronze Age or at the beginning of theIron Age, a period of crisis in the city’s history,when the karstic springs, previously regulated forurban use, dispersed their water in the northwest-ern corner of the town.At about 1680 cal. BC, there is an overall changetowards a more open landscape, which is clearlyindicated by a dramatic decrease in shrubs and acorresponding growth in the percentage of herbs(from 80% to 90%), a drop in the level of the lake(which turned into a wetland hosting considerablebiodiversity, i.e. a large variation of life – andtherefore of resources – at all levels of biologicalorganization), a dramatic rise in sheep and goats inthe domestic fauna, and the disappearance of free-threshing wheat in favour of the less demandingbarley, an important feed for ovicaprids in a live-stock production orientated economy (AttachedPlan 2). Whilst a change in the landscape is unde-niable, its causes are still ambiguous. At a localscale, it is reasonable to hypothesize a strongeranthropogenic impact due to the increase inpower, size and population of the city of Qatna,now a regional capital, but from a wider perspec-tive the trend towards aridity, apart from ephemer-al phases of rising lake level, does not cease withthe city’s decline. According to Canci and Gourichon, the significantsample of bone remains of aquatic birds recoveredfrom the Royal Hypogeum makes it possible toreconstruct more accurately the landscape of thewetland during the LBA. The combined presenceof remains of two species of geese, white fronted

goose (Anser albifrons) and lesser white frontedgoose (Anser erythropus), and dabbling ducks suchas mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), wigeon (Anaspenelope), pintail (Anas acuta) and gadwall (Anasstrepera), and the notable absence of grebes anddiving ducks, indicates extensive wet meadowswith shallow water level28, thus supporting theresults of the geomorphological, sedimentologicaland palynological studies. It is important to note that the flooding of wetmeadows is seasonal, thus suggesting the impor-tance of autumn and winter precipitation for themaintenance of the wetland throughout the year;the wetland would have increased in size duringthe rainy season. The presence of arboreal bush orwood along the border of the wetland with areasdominated by bulrush (Typha sp.; cf. Valsecchi, thisvolume) is consistent with the bones – probablybelonging to a greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga)– found among the faunal remains. The greaterspotted eagle is a raptor that hunts especially ducksand uses trees close to wetlands as roost.The available evidence, therefore, suggests thateven though the climate shifted towards drier con-ditions, the wetland and the adjoining wet mead-ows were regularly water filled during the winter(at least in January-February) after the majorannual rains and represented at any period anddespite the low water depth an attractive area formigrant geese and ducks.

D - Late period (Late Holocene / Iron Age andlater). Information regarding this period is quite inade-quate; however, on the basis of evidence frompollen, fauna, and the sediments in the wadi val-leys29, the local environment also appears to havebeen more degraded in comparison with the earli-er phases (Attached Plan 3). However, the wildfauna from Qatna includes some forest species andmay thus suggest remnants or regeneration ofwoodland not far from the area.

334

Mauro Cremaschi

28 See CRAMP and PERRINS 1977 (1986).29 The occurrence of a large amount of pedological calcium

carbonate concretions, accumulated as gravel amongst thevalley deposits, points to severe soil erosion.

335

The Environment of Ancient Qatna

BADER, A. - GAIBOV, V.A. - KOSELENKO, G.A. 1995: Walls ofMargiana, in: A. Invernizzi (ed.), In the land of theGryphons, Firenze, 39-50.

BAR-MATTHEWS, M. - AYALON, A. - KAUFMAN, A. - WASSER-BURG, G.J. 1999: The eastern Mediterranean paleocli-mate as reflection of regional events: Soreq cave, Israel,Earth and Planetary Science Letters 166, 85-95.

BATTARBEE, R.W. - GASSE, F. - STICKLEY, C.E. 2004: Past cli-mate variability through Europe and Africa. Springer,Dordrecth, The Netherlands, 638.

BAUMHAUER, R. - SCHULZ, E. - POMEL, S. 2004: Environmen-tal changes in the Central Sahara during the Holocene.The Mid-Holocene transition from freshwater lake intosebka in the Segedim depression, NE Niger, in: W.Smykatz-Kloss - P. Felix-Henningsen (eds.), Palaeoecol-ogy of Quaternary drylands, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 31-45.

BOOKMAN (KEN TOR), R. - ENZEL, Y. - AGNON, A. - STEIN, M.2004: Late Holocene lake levels of the Dead Sea, Geo-logical Society of America Bulletin 116, 555-571.

COURTY, M.A. 1994: Le cadre paléogéographique desoccupations humaines dans le bassin du Haut-Khabur(Syrie du Nord -Est). Premiers résultats, Paléorient20/1, 21- 56.

CRAMP, S. - PERRINS, C.M. 1977 (1986): The Birds of theWestern Palearctic: Handbook of the Birds of Europe, theMiddle East, and North Africa. Volume I - Ostrich toDucks, Oxford University Press.

CREMASCHI, M. 1998: Palaeohydrography and MiddleHolocene desertification in the Northern fringe of theMurgab delta, in: A. Gubaev, G. Koshelenko and M. Tosi,The archaeological map of the Murgab delta, Preliminaryreport 1990-1995, ISIAO series minor III, Rome, 15-25

CREMASCHI, M. - DI LERNIA, S., 2001: Environment and set-tlements in the mid-Holocene palaeoasis of the wadiTanezzuft (Libyan Sahara), Antiquity 37, 453-457.

CREMASCHI, M. - PELFINI, M. - SANTILLI, M. 2006: Cupressusdupreziana: a dendroclimatic record for the Middle-

Late Holocene in the Central Sahara, The Holocene16/2, 293-303.

CREMASCHI, M. 2001, Holocene climatic changes in anarchaeological landscape: the case study of wadi Tanez-zuft and its drainage basin (SW Fezzan, Libyan Sahara),Libyan Studies 32, 3-27.

CREMASCHI, M. 2003: Steps and timing of the desertificationduring Late Antiquity. The case Study of the Tannezzuftoasis (Libyan Sahara), in: M. Liverani (ed.), Arid Landsin Roman Times, AZA Monograph vol. 3, 1-14.

CREMASCHI, M. - PEREGO, A. in press: Tell Beydar in its geo-morphological context, in: L. Milano (ed.), Subartu.

GASSE, F. 2000: Hydrological changes in the African tropicssince the Last Glacial Maximum, Quaternary ScienceReviews 19, 189-221.

HOELZMANN, P. - KEDING, B. - BERKE, H. - KROEPELIN, S. - KRUSE,H.J. 2001: Environmental change and archaeology: lakeevolution and human occupation in the Eastern Sahara dur-ing the Holocene, Palaeo, Palaeo, Palaeo 169, 193-217.

MOORE, A.M.T. - HILLMAN, G.C. - LEGGE, A.J. 2000: Villageon the Euphrates, Oxford University Press.

PACHUR, H.J. - HOELZMANN, P. 1991: Paleoclimatic implica-tions of Late Quaternary lacustrine sediments in west-ern Nubia, Sudan, Quaternary Research 36, 257-276.

PETITE-MAIRE, L. 2002: Large interglacial lakes in the Saharo-Arad desert belt, in: Lenssen-Erz et al. (eds.), Tides of thedesert. Contributions to the archaeology and environmen-tal history of Africa in honour of Rudolph Kuper, Hein-rich-Barth-Institut, Jennerstrasse 8, Koln, 371-374.

THOMPSON, L.G. - MOSLEY-THOMPSON, E. - DAVIS, M.E. -HENDERSON, K.A. - BRECHER, H.H. - ZAGORODNOV, V.S. -MASHIOTTA, T.A. - LIN, P.N. - MIKHALENKO, V.N. - HARDY,D.R. - BEER, J. 2002: Kilimanjaro ice core records: evi-dence of Holocene climate change in tropical Africa,Science 298, 589-593.

WILKINSON, T.J. 1999: Holocene valleys fills of SouthernTurkey and Northwestern Syria: Recent geoarchaeologicalcontributions, Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 555-571.

Bibliography

STUDI ARCHEOLOGICI 01 SU QATNAhumanidades.cchs.csic.es/ih/grupos/pe%f1achocarro_QATNA.pdfNeolithic....

Documents

Transcript of STUDI ARCHEOLOGICI 01 SU QATNAhumanidades.cchs.csic.es/ih/grupos/pe%f1achocarro_QATNA.pdfNeolithic....