Interim report
R.T.J. Cappers

Introduction

Güvercinkayası is a Middle Chalcolithic site (5200-4750 cal. BC), located along the east bank of the Melendez River in the Mamasun Dam reservoir, East of Aksaray. The excavation of this settlement, directed by Prof.dr. Sevil Dülçur, has started in 1996. Botanical samples from, have been secures from 2000 onwards. Samples have been flotated on the site and sieve residues have been analysed at the Groningen Institute of Archaeology (the Netherlands). Samples from the excavations seasons 2000 up to 2008 contain only small numbers of charred plant remains. Many often, these subfossil plant remains are contaminated with uncharred seeds and fruits. Most of these seeds and fruits belong to species from the established vegetation and indicate that Chalcolithic layers are contaminated to some extent with diaspores from the recent seed bank. Such mixtures can be suspected not only in shallow layers, but might also be found in deeper layers, due to activity of animals.

In addition to seeds and fruits of recent wild plants, wild plants are also represented by charred specimens, though in small quantities and in a limited number of samples. These wild plants originate partly from the ruderal vegetation on the site proper and partly from agricultural fields. It is this last category of wild plants that is of interest as they can be used for the reconstruction of the former agricultural practises. A precondition for this kind of reconstruction is that wild plants can be linked with a specific crop unambiguous. Unfortunately, the studies samples do not match this condition. Most samples contain more that one crop species and, moreover, the number of retrieved plant remains is very small. Samples that have been secured from the 2009 excavation season, however, include some samples that are rich in wild plants and match the condition for reconstruction agricultural practices. The analysis of these samples has not yet been finishes and will be excluded from this report.

Both geographical distribution and archaeological contexts are not yet linked with the samples and will be left aside as well.

Botanical composition

A total of 75 samples contained identifiable plant remains of economic plants. Almost without exception, these samples contained emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccon), a naked wheat (bread wheat [Triticum aestivum] or hard wheat [Triticum turgidum ssp. durum]) and barley (Hordeum vulgare). In addition to these cereals, also lentil (Lens culinaris) is present, though in seven samples only. The only food plant probably gathered from the wild, is represented by a singly fruit s.s. from the fig (Ficus carica).

Some other economic plants that have been found are rather dubious because they could not be identified with certainty, due to the preservation condition. They include a possible seed of a pea (Pisum sativum), an unidentified member of the Pea family (Fabaceae) and flax (Linum usitatissimum). A small fragment of a nut might belong to Walnut (Juglans regia), but its tiny size unfortunately does not justify a positive identification

Uncharred plant remains are represented by grape (Vitis vinifera) elder (Sambucus nigra), olive (Olea europaea). The seeds of the grape might be of sub-recent date. From the elder, the hard stone fruits (endocarps; many often labelled as ‘seed’) have been found. The outer surface of these stone fruits is blackish and suggests a considerable age. Specimens preserved in a similar condition have also been found in Sagalassos and could be assigned to the Roman period by radiocarbon dating. In Güvercinkayası, however, stone fruits of elder were partly present in samples with numerous diaspores of recent wild plants, suggesting a more recent date. The stone fruit of olive has been gnawed and has most probably been buried by an animal.

Interpretation

The botanical composition of the samples clearly represent the so-called ‘settlement noise’. This signal of plant remains is present throughout a settlement and can easily be retrieved even by random sapling. Plant remains that are omnipresent, though in low quantities, include the predominant economic plants. Differences in crop processing and seed characteristics can be used to nuance their representativeness.

Cereals are represented by emmer wheat, possibly a naked wheat and barley. Emmer wheat is a hulled cereal, barley can be cultivated as a hulled or naked (free-threshing) crop. If well preserved, the grain kernels from Güvercinkayası are still covered by their chaff, suggesting that only hulled cereals were grown. The two grain kernels of naked wheat cannot be identified to a species level. This is only possible with their rachis fragments, which have not been found. It cannot be excluded that both these grain kernels still belong to emmer wheat as it has been demonstrated by Braadbaart (2006) that the charring process may alter the shape of emmer wheat into that of naked wheat. But a combination of hulled and naked cereals is not unusual in early farming. As pros and cons of both kinds of cereals counterpart with respect to harvesting, crop processing and storage, cultivating both cereals might be used as a kind of risk management (Cappers 2006).

From emmer wheat both grain kernels and chaff remains are found on a regular base. Chaff remains consist of rachis nodes, being the most solid parts. Traditionally, these rachis fragments are labelled as ‘spikelet forks’ and ‘glume bases’, the latter one consisting of half a spikelet fork. Barley, on the other hand, is in most samples represented by grain kernels. Fragments of the rachis are rare. This difference can be explained by assuming that the charred plant remains of both emmer wheat and barley originate from ash layers that have been partly dispersed over the settlement by the wind. The regular deposition of ash from ovens in between houses or at the fringe of the settlement might result in the formation of substantial concentrations of ash layers. Basically, two sources of fuel can be used: wood, preferably dead wood as it does not affect the population size of the trees, and dung cakes, being a mixture of dung and threshing remains. Charcoal particles from the botanical samples indicate that wood was used indeed. But most probably, also dung cakes might have been produces as a secondary choice. The advantage of dung cakes is that it does not affect the population size of the trees either. Dung cakes are produced by mixing dung with threshing remains.

Hulled barley can be used as food, for the production of beer but also as a high quality fodder for animals employed in hard work and should be of good physic. If used as fodder, it has been demonstrated that, small quantities of grain kernels will pass the digestive tract undigested. It is these grain kernels that might become concentrated in ash deposits and can be partly wind dispersed throughout the settlement. The more fragile rachis fragments will have digested and could explain their limited recovery. Emmer wheat is used as food and needs two threshing processes, the second one is mostly done on the site proper. Especially when this is practised on a reasonable scale, the threshing remains could have been used as temper, for example in dung cakes and architecture. Contrary to the hulled barley, the rachis fragments do not pass the digestive tract and have therefore a much better change of becoming part of the archaeobotanical archive. The presence of charred grain kernels of emmer in ash layers can be explained by assuming that separating grain kernels from threshing remains will not have been complete in traditional crop processing, as could be demonstrated for Roman Egypt (Cappers 2006).

The presence of lentil and (almost) absence of other pulses can be related with the differences in seed size. Cleaning seeds prior to the preparation of a meal might include sieving and it is plausible that seeds from lentil, producing small-sized seeds, are more easily lost than those of other pulses. Sieving the small-sized seeds of lentil is only possible with a fine-mesh sieve. Irregularities in weaving, especially at the edge of the sieve, and broken parts elsewhere, will result in the loss of the smaller seeds. Sieving seeds of chick pea (Cicer arietinum), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) or pea (Pisum sativum), on the other hand, is not in need of high quality sieves. The change that seeds of these crop plants will pass the sieves unintentionally is therefore rather small. Absence of seeds from these crops in the investigated samples is the rule rather than the exception.

Another crop plant that is easily underrepresented, is flax. Seeds of this plant are rich in their oil content and it is only under special conditions that seeds remain undamaged during the charring process.

Literarture

Braadbaart, F. (2004): Carbonization of peas and wheat—A window into the past University of Leiden. PhD-thesis, Leiden.

Cappers, R.T.J. (2006): The reconstruction of agricultural practices in ancient Egypt: an ethnoarchaeobotanical approach. In: Palaeohistoria (47/48), pp. 429-446.