A Thousand Years of Farming: Late Chalcolithic Agricultural Practices at Tell Brak in Northern Mesopotamia 9781407303604, 9781407333885

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Environmental setting of the study
Chapter 3. Archaeological and socio-political overview
Chapter 4. Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south
Chapter 5. Archaeobotanical methods
Chapter 6. Results of the archaeobotanical study
Chapter 7. Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak
Chapter 8. Conclusion
Appendix I: Working data sheet of the charred plant items in the Tell Brak assemblage
Appendix II: Identification criteria for some of the Tell Brak wild taxa
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

BAR S1880 2008

A Thousand Years of Farming

HALD

Late Chalcolithic Agricultural Practices at Tell Brak in Northern Mesopotamia

A THOUSAND YEARS OF FARMING

Mette Marie Hald

BAR International Series 1880 2008 B A R

A Thousand Years of Farming Late Chalcolithic Agricultural Practices at Tell Brak in Northern Mesopotamia

Mette Marie Hald

BAR International Series 1880 2008

ISBN 9781407303604 paperback ISBN 9781407333885 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303604 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Abstract The present volume assesses the agricultural developments in Late Chalcolithic northern Mesopotamia from the perspective of the archaeological multi-period settlement of Tell Brak in modern northeast Syria (ancient northern Mesopotamia). Archaeobotanical material from the Late Chalcolithic levels on the site was analysed for this purpose. The crops grown, and the methods used for growing them, were assessed, as were changes in crop preferences and crop husbandry methods through the Late Chalcolithic phases 5 to 2. It was also explored whether agricultural changes could be identified as responses to climatic, societal or political changes, all of which took place during the Late Chalcolithic. There is very limited reported archaeobotanical data from Mesopotamia in general, which makes the rich finds of charred plant remains from Tell Brak all the more important to an assessment of Late Chalcolithic agriculture. The major crops at Tell Brak were glume wheat (primarily emmer), two-row hulled barley, flax and lentil. Barley and flax were both found as cleaned crops in storage. Free-threshing wheat, common pea, grass pea and grape have also been confirmed as crops at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak, as were a range of crops that were previously unreported from northern Mesopotamia from this time, such as bitter vetch, chickpea, fig and possibly safflower. There do not appear to be significant changes in crop preferences during the Late Chalcolithic. Changes in crop husbandry practices in the Late Chalcolithic appear to be associated with an intensification of agriculture: crops from the later half of the Late Chalcolithic tend to have had better growing conditions, fields appear to have been tilled, and crops may have been cut lower on the straw than previously, possibly as a result of the increased value of straw for fodder and building purposes. This change corresponds chronologically with what appears to be the arrival of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site, though it cannot be determined whether agricultural intensification was a direct response to this event, or whether it was the response to an isolated northern urban development, already underway by the time of the arrival of southern Mesopotamian material culture in the region.

i

Acknowledgements The present volume is based on my doctoral thesis submitted at the University of Sheffield in October 2005. My work has benefited immensely from helpful advice, comments and discussions with my supervisor, Mike Charles, University of Sheffield, and my two examiners, Glynis Jones, University of Sheffield, and Roger Matthews, University College London. I would like to thank the members of the Tell Brak team from 1998 onwards, who have been happily providing me with soil samples and knowledge of their trenches. In particular, I would like to thank Marta Ameri, Carlo Colantoni, Sam Eames, Donald Hansen, Phil Karsgaard, Lamya Khalidi, Salam al-Quntar, Stine Rossel, Laurie Tedesco, David Thomas, Jill Weber, and Henry Wright for our many discussions on the excavations in TW. Once off the site, Geoff Emberling, Helen McDonald and Joan Oates have provided me countless plans of the excavation areas and with extremely useful information on contexts and level designations at Tell Brak. I would also like to thank Tim Skuldbøl and Patricia Vandorpe for useful information, Chantelle Hoppé for inspiration for the title of this volume, the Hald family for general encouragement, Jacob Hald for high-quality scanning jobs, and Murat Arslan for driving me all the way to Damascus. Joanna Bending, Amy Bogaard, Sarah Clark, Robert Craigie, Rebecca Harrison, Rocky Hyacinth, Ingrid Mainland, Christiane Meckseper, Tim Mills, Charles Salt, and Kim Vickers are gratefully acknowledged for their good company, sound advice, computer parts, lessons in Endnote, dinners and long walks – you were all fantastic! I am grateful to the helpful staff at BAR, and to the authors who have let me use their original figures in this volume. My PhD project was supported financially by the Sheffield University-endowed Edgar Allen Scholarship, Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra’s International Education Fund, the Danish Institute in Damascus Fund, Christian and Ottilia Brorson’s Travel Fund for Scientists, the Roblon Foundation and the G.E.C. Gad Foundation. The preparation of this volume for publication was made possible through the generous funding by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities.

ii

Table of contents Abstract Acknowledgements Table of contents List of Figures List of Tables

i ii iii vi ix

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

Chapter 2 Environmental setting of the study 2.1. Introduction 2.1.1. Topography 2.1.2. Geology and soils 2.1.3. Past and present climate 2.1.4. Past and present vegetation 2.1.4.1. Present vegetation 2.1.4.2. Past vegetation 2.1.5 Water resources and irrigation 2.1.5.1. Present 2.1.5.2. Irrigation in the past 2.2. Traditional crop husbandry practices and crop yields in northern Mesopotamia

4 4 4 4 5 6 6 8 9 9 10 11

Chapter 3 Archaeological and socio-political overview 3.1. Introduction 3.1.1. Chronology of early Mesopotamian civilisations 3.1.2. The natural resources of Mesopotamia 3.1.3. The role of exchange in the development of complex society 3.1.4. Identifying exchange goods 3.1.4.1. Northern exports 3.1.4.2. Southern exports 3.1.5. Assessing societal complexity 3.1.6. Identifying southerners 3.2. A brief look at the Ubaid period 3.2.1. Southern Mesopotamia 3.2.2. Northern Mesopotamia 3.3. The Late Chalcolithic 3.3.1. Southern Mesopotamia 3.3.2. Northern Mesopotamia and the “Uruk Expansion” 3.3.2.1. The ”Uruk Expansion”: theories and explanations 3.3.2.2. Northern “independent” sites: Arslantepe and Tepe Gawra 3.3.2.3. Northern indigenous sites with southern Uruk occupation: Hacınebi Tepe 3.3.2.4. Southern Mesopotamian Uruk colonies: the Habuba Kabira complex and Hassek Höyük 3.3.3. Evidence for north-south interaction 3.3.3.1. Archaeobotanical implications and predictions

14 14 14 14 14 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 28 29 30 31

Chapter 4 Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south 4.1. Tell Brak 4.2. Tell Brak during the Late Chalcolithic 4.2.1. Late Chalcolithic population density and carrying capacity of Tell Brak 4.3. The excavation areas 4.3.1. TW 4.3.2. TX 4.3.3. UA 4.3.4. Tell 2

32 32 33 36 37 37 43 43 43

Chapter 5 Archaeobotanical methods 5.1. Introduction 5.1.1. Taphonomic considerations 5.1.1.1. What plants arrived and survived on site? 5.1.1.2. The effect of crop processing on archaeobotanical assemblages

44 44 44 44 45

iii

5.2. Data collection 5.2.1. Sampling on site 5.2.2. Extraction of plant remains by flotation 5.2.3. Sub-sampling of sample flots in the laboratory 5.3. Identification of plant remains 5.3.1. Determination of ecological zones 5.3.2. Identification of crops 5.3.3. Identification of weed/wild taxa 5.4. Quantification of plant items 5.4.1. Quantification of the Tell Brak assemblage 5.5. Statistical methods 5.5.1. Standardisation of data 5.5.2. Reducing the number of variables 5.5.3. Preliminary determination of the major crops and the source of the archaeobotanical samples 5.5.4. Determining crop processing stage of the samples 5.5.5. Pattern searching in the Tell Brak samples

46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 50 50 50 50 51 54 62 64

Chapter 6 Results of the archaeobotanical study 6.1. Crops, non-domesticated taxa and other botanical finds in the Tell Brak samples 6.1.1. Major crops 6.1.2. Other cultivated and collected plants 6.1.3. Non-cultivated taxa 6.1.4. Other 6.2. Sample composition 6.2.1. Group A - >70% glume wheat chaff 6.2.2. Group B - >70% hulled barley grain 6.2.3. Group C - >70% cultivated flax seeds 6.2.4. Group D – mixed composition 6.3. Determination of harvesting height using sample composition 6.4. Determination of crop processing stages 6.4.1. Samples classified as winnowing by-products 6.4.2. Samples classified as fine sieving by-products 6.4.3. Samples classified as fine sieving products 6.4.4. Hand-sorting of stored fine sieving products 6.5. Exploring variation in sample composition 6.5.1. Archaeological factors of variation 6.5.1.1. Sample chronology 6.5.1.2. Sample context 6.5.1.3. Plant remain density 6.5.1.4. Summary of archaeological variables 6.5.2. Ecological factors of variation 6.5.2.1. Flowering/fruiting time 6.5.2.2. Plant height reflecting growing conditions 6.5.2.3. Life cycle 6.5.2.4. Moisture requirements 6.5.2.5. Summary of ecological variables 6.5.3. Correspondence between archaeological and ecological variables 6.6. Assessing the Tell Brak sample groups in the light of the statistical analyses 6.6.1. Group A 6.6.2. Group B 6.6.3. Group C 6.6.4. Group D 6.6.5. Comparison of the sample groups

66 66 66 66 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 71 75 75 76 76 81 81 81 81 82 82 82 83 84 85 85 85 86 87 87 87 88 88

Chapter 7 Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak 7.1. Crops at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak 7.2. Crop storage at Tell Brak 7.2.1. Glume wheat 7.2.2. Barley 7.2.3. Flax 7.2.4. Lentil 7.2.5. Minor crops

97 97 97 97 99 99 100 100 iv

7.3. Crop husbandry practices as represented at Tell Brak 7.3.1. Crop sowing time and sowing practice 7.3.2. Use of irrigation 7.3.3. Intensity of weeding and tilling of fields 7.3.4. Crop rotation and fallowing practice 7.3.5. Harvesting practice 7.4. Spatial variation in crop use in the Tell Brak excavation areas 7.4.1. Trench TW 7.4.2. Trench TX 7.4.3. Trench UA 7.4.4. Tell 2 7.4.5. Trench HS1 7.4.6. Trench HS6 7.4.7. Spatial comparison of the use and disposal of crops 7.5. Crop use at Tell Brak through the Late Chalcolithic 7.5.1. Crops and products through time 7.6. Crops and people 7.6.1. Producer-consumer areas and the role of the satellite sites 7.6.2. Ethnicity as a factor of crop husbandry variation 7.7. The Tell Brak plant remains in their wider archaeological/botanical context 7.7.1. Comparisons with regional archaeobotanical studies 7.7.1.1. Patterns of crop use 7.7.1.2. Changes in storage and distribution practices 7.7.2. Comparisons with archaeobotanical data from southern Mesopotamia 7.8. Concluding remarks

100 101 101 102 103 103 104 104 108 108 108 109 109 109 111 112 114 114 116 117 117 117 120 121 121

Chapter 8 Conclusion

122

Appendix I: Working data sheet of the charred plant items in the Tell Brak assemblage Appendix II: Identification criteria for some of the Tell Brak wild taxa

124 160

Bibliography

163

v

List of Figures 1.1. Map of the Near East with position of Tell Brak in northern Mesopotamia

2

2.1. Map of the Near East with position of Tell Brak and modern cities and regions mentioned in the text

5

2.2. Map of the Khabur region with some of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text (based on Zeder 2003:169)

7

2.3. Map of the Khabur region showing location of watercourses (after Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001:xxvii) 7 2.4. Vegetation map of northern Mesopotamia (based on Zohary 1973, map 7)

8

2.5. Map of Khabur region showing soil types and annual rainfall levels (based on Weiss 1986:81)

9

2.6. Detail of Fig. 2.5 showing the soil types in the vicinity of Tell Brak

10

2.7. Hydrothermic curve for Hassake, northeast Syria. Striped area represents rainfall, dotted area represents temperature (based on Frey and Kürschner 1991:89)

11

3.1. Map of the Near East with some of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text

20

4.1. Map of Tell Brak showing excavated areas. Late Chalcolithic trenches are underlined; 1 m contour interval (after Emberling and McDonald 2001:22)

33

4.2. Map of the Khabur region showing probable ancient routes of communication (after Oates, Oates and McDonald 1997:xvii)

34

4.3. Map of Tell Brak with position of some of the satellite sites, including Tell 2, and the test trenches dug in 1998 (after Emberling et al. 1999:24)

35

4.4. Map of the third millennium BC Khabur region settlement system with estimated land needed for agriculture and pastoralism around the major sites (after Weiss et al. 1993:997) 37 4.5. TW level 20 with monumental gateway

40

4.6. TW with the Level 18 Building (left) and the Level 16 Houses (right)

41

4.7. TW, the Level 11 House

42

5.1. Plant height of the Tell Brak crop weeds; height in brackets indicate less typical measurements

57

6.1. Bar chart showing the groups of minimum plant height of the crop weeds in group A+D>60%fine sieving by-product samples; samples are divided into the two chronological groups (Northern Early and Middle Uruk (E) and Late/post-late Uruk (L) samples) and sorted on the tallest plant group. The following taxa were used for this table: Aegilops sp., Bromus japonicus, Lolium type A and C, Eremopyrum confusum, Malva type A, Vaccaria sp., Bellevalia sp., Muscari sp., Trigonella astroites, Medicago type B, Valerianella sp., Silene type B, Adonis sp., Galium spurium 69 6.2. Number of culm nodes present in group A+D>60% fine sieving by-product samples, divided into the two chronological groups (Northern Early and Middle Uruk (E) and Late/post-late Uruk (L) samples) and sorted on culm node richness

70

6.3. Discriminant plot of 85 charred plant samples from Tell Brak plotted in relation to the ethnographic samples from Amorgos, from known crop processing stages 71 6.4. Discriminant plot with Amorgos and Tell Brak samples as above, showing mixed samples only

71

6.5. Correspondence analysis using all samples (minus eight flax and three Aegilops dominated samples) and species present in >10% of samples. Plot of samples coded according to dominant crop group

78

vi

6.6. Correspondence analysis using all samples (minus eight flax and three Aegilops dominated samples) and species present in >10% of samples. Plot of taxa labelled by their code (see Table 6.4 for full names) 79 6.7. Correspondence analysis using all samples (minus eight flax and three Aegilops dominated samples) and species present in >10% of samples. Plot of samples coded according their relative proportion of barley rachis 81 6.8. Correspondence analysis using all samples (minus eight flax and three Aegilops dominated samples) and species present in >10% of samples. Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of major crop components (“free-threshing” represents free-threshing wheat grain) 82 6.9. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to original dominant crop group 83 6.10. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples labelled by their number 84 6.11. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa labelled by their code (see Table 6.4 for full species names) 85 6.12. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to archaeological period; NEU = Northern Early Uruk, NMU = Northern Middle Uruk, LU = Late Uruk 86 6.13. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to archaeological context 87 6.14. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to their floweringfruiting times 88 6.15. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of early-to-late flowering/fruiting taxa 89 6.16. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product and four flax dominated samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to original dominant crop groups 90 6.17. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product and four flax dominated samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to their flowering-fruiting times 91 6.18. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product and four flax dominated samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of early-to-late flowering/fruiting taxa 92 6.19. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to plant height in cm 93 6.20. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of short-to-tall taxa (in cm) 94 6.21. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to moisture requirements 95 6.22. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species vii

present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of dry-to-wet loving taxa

96

6.23. Bar chart of the group A and D (>60% glume wheat chaff) fine sieving by-product samples with the proportion of crop weeds in the four maximum plant height groups. The samples are divided into early (E) and late (L) sample groups and sorted according to the proportion of wild taxa in group >61 cm 96 7.1. Level 18 Building and Level 16 Houses with position of archaeobotanical samples from levels 19-10

104

7.2. TW level 20 with pie charts of major crops (left) and plant elements (right) in the sample, and crop group designation below

105

7.3. Level 18 occupation of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major crops in each sample

105

7.4. Level 18 occupation of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample

106

7.5. Level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building and Level 16 Houses with archaeobotanical samples coded on their crop group 107 7.6. Level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major crops in each sample

108

7.7. Level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample

109

7.8. Level 16 Houses with pie charts of the major crops in each sample

110

7.9. Level 16 Houses with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample

111

7.10. Level 11 House with position of archaeobotanical samples from levels 11-9

112

7.11. Level 11 House with archaeobotanical samples coded on crop group

112

7.12. Level 11 House with pie charts of the major crops in each sample

113

7.13. Level 11 House with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample

113

7.14. Bar chart of the relative proportions of major crops in the Tell Brak assemblage of the present study, divided into the chronological phases of the samples. NEU = Northern Early Uruk (5 samples), NMU = Northern Middle Uruk (61 samples), LU = Late Uruk (18 samples), post-Uruk (6 samples) 115

viii

List of Tables 2.1. Summarised environmental data for northern Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions, based on Guest (1966) and Zohary (1973) 6 2.2. Summary of crop rotation experiment undertaken at Qamishli in 1966-68. Mean annual rainfall in the area during the experiment was 445 mm (based on Weiss 1986:83)

12

2.3. Wheat and barley production in northeast Syria and Iraq in 1968, taken from the 1979 Syrian Agriculture Sector Assessment Project, Land Use Information Report, App. B: Crop Use of Land, Winter Crops, 1968 to 1977 (after Weiss 1986:73)

13

3.1. Chronology of Mesopotamia

15

3.2. Chronology of Late Ubaid-Uruk periods (after Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, Oates 2002, Rothman 2001) 16 3.3. Trench TW levels (after Oates 2002:111)

17

4.1. The Tell Brak archaeobotanical samples, contextual and chronological data. “Double samples” from the same context are marked in grey 38-9 5.1. Summary of major crop processing stages, the products and by-products of which are most likely to become charred 46 5.2. Common and scientific names of the cereal crops in the Tell Brak samples

47

5.3. Measurements of the archaeological weed/wild taxa in the Tell Brak samples (bold types) and modern seeds 48-9 5.4. Density of plant items per litre of processed soil in each sample

52

5.5. Amalgamated identifications of the weed/wild taxa in the Tell Brak assemblage

53

5.6. Amalgamated identifications of the crop taxa

54

5.7. Relative proportions of plant elements in each sample, grouped according to the dominant crop

55

5.8. Relative proportions of crops in each sample, grouped according to the dominant crop

56

5.9. Ecological information on the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa. x = species occasional in this zone

58

5.10. Moisture requirements of the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa

59

5.11. Flowering/fruiting times of the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa

60

5.12. Ratios of glume wheat and barley grain to chaff

61

5.13. Ratios of grain to chaff for emmer wheat, barley and flax

62

5.14. Weed characteristics used in discriminant analysis

63

5.15. Differences in crop processing methods between free-threshing cereals and glume wheat as reflected in the characteristics of the respective crop weeds present in the by-products/products (SFL = small-free-light; SHL = small-headed-light; SFH = small-free-heavy; SHH = small-headed-heavy; BFH = big-free-heavy; BHH = big-headed-heavy) 64 6.1. Discriminant analysis of the Tell Brak samples and their probabilities. For the second groupings, 1 = winnowing by-product, 3 = fine sieving by-product, 4 = fine sieving product 72-3 6.1a. Summary table of classifications in the four groups, including samples not analysed by discriminant analysis; numbers in brackets represent classifications which were later changed 73

ix

6.2. Square-rooted numbers of weed seed categories per sample used in discriminant analysis

74

6.3. Ratios of crop seeds to weeds in the barley and flax product samples

76

6.4. CANOCO codes used for the plant taxa in correspondence analysis

77

6.5. The >60% glume wheat chaff dominated fine sieving by-product samples used in the final stage of correspondence analysis

80

6.6. Major crop weeds present in each of the four crop groups. Highlighted crosses indicate those taxa that are present in only one of the crop-rich groups, or present in a crop-rich group as well as in the mixed group D

84

7.1. Crops from Tell Brak, from the present study and reported from previous studies

98

7.2. Major crops, summary of Table 7.1

99

7.3. Crops found in fifth to third millennium BC archaeological sites in Mesopotamia

118-9

x

Chapter 1 Introduction The present volume focuses on the agricultural developments in Late Chalcolithic northern Mesopotamia from the perspective of a major settlement in the region, Tell Brak in modern northeast Syria (Fig. 1.1).

Despite its importance to the understanding of the development of early complex civilisations in the Near East, the Late Chalcolithic has been described as “one of the most ill-documented in Mesopotamia” (Jasim and Oates 1986:357). This is still particularly true for southern Mesopotamia, as excavation has been limited to only a few Late Chalcolithic sites apart from the city of Uruk itself (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:184), partly due to the fact that many settlements have been long-lived enough for Late Chalcolithic levels to be buried under many metres of later occupation levels. At the city of Uruk, investigation has been limited to the cult precincts, ignoring the private residential areas in the city, and in many cases the stratigraphic levels are not secure, to the effect that a definite chronology of finds cannot be made (Nissen 2002).

Agriculture formed the basis of the economy of ancient Near Eastern communities; a study of the crop husbandry practices of Tell Brak can potentially identify the plant economy of the site, including the crops present in the settlement, and methods of crop processsing and use. Any agricultural responses to changes in the socio-political system, known from the archaeological evidence to have taken place during the Late Chalcolithic, can also be assessed. These responses may be able to give us an indication of the wider economic responses to societal change during the Late Chalcolithic.

Northern Mesopotamia, in contrast, has yielded a wealth of Late Chalcolithic data in the shape of both local and southern-influenced settlements, most of them excavated within the last forty years; thus much of our knowledge of the Late Chalcolithic is now derived from the northern settlements along with those on the Susiana plain (in present day Iran) to the east. Some of the northern sites presented below cover both earlier and later phases of the Late Chalcolithic and it is thus possible to compare occupation levels containing strict northern Mesopotamian material culture with those levels where southern Mesopotamian material culture has made an appearance, to assess how the arrival of this material culture - whether coinciding with southern colonization or not - affected the indigenous northern communities.

The Late Chalcolithic is a period of far-reaching changes in many aspects of life in Mesopotamia. On the southern alluvial plain (present day Iraq) the first city states appear, among them the city of Uruk, which grows to become the largest of the cities in the south. The growth of cities coincides with evidence for elaborate ritual building complexes, an increasingly class-stratified society, industrial specialisation, and multi-tiered administration, which includes the invention of writing. In northern Mesopotamia (modern northern Iraq/ northeast Syria/southeast Turkey), signs of an increasingly complex society appear, including the growth of some towns into large urban centres within a multi-tiered settlement hierarchy, with elaborate architecture and evidence for complex administration and manufacturing specialisation, and participation in long-distance exchange networks. In the later half of the Late Chalcolithic, settlements are also established in the north, which carry distinct southern Mesopotamian features – the material remains of the so-called “Uruk Expansion” (Algaze 1989, 1993) or “Uruk Phenomenon” (Collins 2000). These enclaves vary from small districts within northern indigenous settlements, with mixed southern and local material assemblages, to seemingly independent, isolated settlements covering the full range of southern Mesopotamian material culture. They are sometimes thought to have been established by southern Mesopotamian settlers with the purpose of securing trade relations between southern and northern Mesopotamia. There are, however, doubts as to the character of this southern intrusion on the north, especially whether the southern material culture should be viewed as the remains of a process of southern conquest or colonization, or a less dramatic process of acculturation following reciprocal interaction between the communities of the two regions.

Though the role of the economy is key to the understanding of Mesopotamian civilisation, little effort has been spent looking at the physical remains of agricultural production on Late Chalcolithic sites. Archaeobotany is a relatively new discipline within archaeology and systematic sampling for charred plant remains at Near Eastern sites is a fairly recent phenomenon, especially at sites that are not being investigated from the perspective of the origins of agriculture. The archaeobotanical record of the Near East, therefore, suffers from a lack of reported Late Chalcolithic plant remains (McCorriston and Weisberg 2002:488). The large amounts of well-preserved charred plant remains at Tell Brak, however, provide us with much needed information on Late Chalcolithic agricultural practices. Comparisons can then be made with the limited amount of material recovered from other contemporary sites in the Near East. The archaeological focus of this volume, Tell Brak, is a multi-period settlement with extensive Late Chalcolithic occupation levels. An almost complete chronological sequence from the Late Chalcolithic has been excavated on the site, which allows us to follow not only the growth of the settlement from a town to a 1

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 1.1. Map of the Near East with position of Tell Brak in northern Mesopotamia. regional centre in the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic, but also, in the later half of the Late Chalcolithic, the arrival of southern Mesopotamian material culture - possibly southern settlers - to this northern settlement, and the effects a southern presence may have had on the local community.

as weeding or irrigation, in order to provide sufficient agricultural produce for increasing population levels. The arrival of southern Mesopotamian material culture in the settlement may also be reflected archaeobotanically, though depending on the scenario, the archaeobotanical expectations would vary:

The economic organisation of Tell Brak is likely to have changed following these socio-political developments. Economic changes may well have included changes in agricultural practices, such as the practices of crop procurement and crop processing, which would, therefore, be reflected in the archaeobotanical assemblage from the site.

A southern Mesopotamian conquest or colonization of the north could potentially be associated with hierarchical crop divisions and culturally derived crop preferences, such as the introduction of typically southern crops not usually grown in the north, and present in southern material contexts only. One could also expect a division of producer/consumer areas – as southern colonisers may have bought agricultural products from local inhabitants rather than producing their own crops – within a settlement or system of settlements, and, as in the case of the growth of Tell Brak, one could expect to see an intensified production of crops to cater for the new population group. On the other hand, if the “Uruk Expansion” should be considered a matter of southern acculturation in the north, southern crops may either be absent, or, if present, be so in both southern and northern material culture assemblages. Intensification of crop production, however, is predicted to take place at Tell Brak due to the continuous growth of the settlement, whether or not an actual group of southern colonisers/settlers arrived on the site.

The connection between socio-political and archaeobotanical developments is explored, including the archaeobotanical expectations that might be associated with certain socio-cultural developments. On a larger scale, the study of Late Chalcolithic agricultural practices at Tell Brak may provide a general indication on how populations respond economically to socio-political changes. The growth of Tell Brak could potentially result in the acquisition of cereals from a wider area than previously to accommodate for the growing number of inhabitants, and in larger-scale storage practices of crops for the distribution to an increasing number of full-time specialists and workers busy with the construction of public architecture. We may also detect an increase in the variety of crops, and/or the specialisation and intensification of agriculture, including more efficient crop growing methods, such

An assemblage of archaeobotanical samples has been analysed from Tell Brak and forms the basis for the results discussed in the present volume. The 2

Introduction

archaeobotanical recovery programme at Tell Brak is part of a wider archaeological research programme on the site (Emberling and McDonald 2001, 2003), focusing on two periods of large-scale southern Mesopotamian interaction in northern Mesopotamia in the fourth and third millennia BC, respectively, and on the responses of the local communities to this southern presence.

methods of crop husbandry practices, by looking at food, fodder and fuel preferences, and by comparing the use and disposal of plants within different types of buildings and areas on and off the settlement during the Late Chalcolithic. In the following chapters, the environmental and archaeological background is outlined, followed by a presentation of Tell Brak. The archaeobotanical methods are presented, followed by the results of the present study, and a discussion of, and conclusions on, the archaeobotanical results.

The aims of the archaeobotanical research are to “map” the archaeobotanical “clues” to economic responses to socio-political changes at Tell Brak by determining

3

Chapter 2 Environmental setting of the study and McDonald 2001:xxvii). The region is bordered by the Taurus mountain range to the north.

2.1. Introduction Ancient Mesopotamia occupied roughly the same area as do modern Iraq and northeast Syria today, with the ancient Susiana plain of Iran, the Arabian Desert and southeastern-most Turkey as neighbouring regions (Fig. 2.1). The two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, run through the entire length of the country, originating in the Van region of southeast Turkey and ending their courses in the Persian Gulf to the south. Southern Mesopotamia, corresponding in modern geographical terms to the southern half of Iraq, is a flat alluvial plain bordered by the Jezira, described below, to the north, and the Persian Gulf to the south.

As mentioned above, the two main rivers running through the region are the Euphrates and the Tigris, roughly bordering the region on the western and eastern side, respectively (Fig. 2.1). Both rivers originate in southeast Anatolia and run through Mesopotamia, ending their courses in the Persian Gulf, and were used as sources of drinking and irrigation water, and means of transport throughout the history of Mesopotamia. Another major river, a tributary of the Euphrates, the Khabur River, rises in the Taurus Mountains and runs through the interior of northern Mesopotamia, branching off into a number of smaller streams to feed the fertile Khabur region in the north. The Khabur and its tributaries are likely to have acted as routes of communication and exchange through the region, and towards southern Mesopotamia, in the past (Sommerfield, Archi and Weiss 2004).

The main area of the present study is northern Mesopotamia. The geographical division between northern and southern Mesopotamia (also sometimes referred to as Upper and Lower Mesopotamia) can be set along a line between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers by the towns of Hit and Samarra (Fig. 2.1), where the southern alluvial plain meets the limestone plateau of the Jezira (Lloyd 1984:14). The environmental diversity of Mesopotamia is the cause of a material diversity in terms of the variation in number and range of natural resources, which has again created a cultural division of north and south, which is visible throughout the history of the region (Frangipane 1997:46).

Tell Brak, the archaeological focus of this study, is situated in the southern part of the Khabur region, by the confluence of two wadis feeding off the Khabur, the Wadi Jaghjagh and Wadi Radd. Though the Jaghjagh is only a small stream today, the importance of the wadi in the past can be seen from the number of large tells situated along its banks (Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001:xxvii). There are no estimates of the size of the wadi in the past, but it is thought to have been of a “considerable” depth in the third millennium BC, as it was also observed to be during the excavations at Tell Brak in the 1970s and 1980s (ibid.:xxix). The limited size of the wadi today is partly the result of the drop in the water table from the use of petrol-driven irrigation pumps (Oates 1990:389).

Northern Mesopotamia covers the southeastern-most part of Turkey, northeast Syria and northern Iraq. It is an area of steppe lying between the forested regions of Anatolia and Iran, and the desert of mid-to-southern Iraq, bordered to the east and west by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, respectively. Today the Syrian and Iraqi parts of this area are also often referred to as the Jezira, “island”, lying as it does between the two major rivers of Mesopotamia. The area is generally fertile and has been described as the “granary of Syria”, providing the country with 25% of its cereal harvest (Weiss 1985:32). Rainfall, altitude and vegetation data for northern Mesopotamia and for the neighbouring regions are summarised in Table 2.1 and are described in more detail below. The region has been settled, and modified, by humans for at least 8000 years, a fact that needs to be considered when attempting to reconstruct the past landscape and vegetation of this region (Butzer 2000).

Regarding the agricultural potential of the region, an important topographic feature is the wide plains of the area. Though in terms of per-unit cultivation dryfarming is considered half as productive as irrigation agriculture (Weiss 1986:95, Wilkinson 1990:89), the much vaster amount of land available for cultivation in northern Mesopotamia compared to that in the south meant that the total amount of crops produced were potentially as great as, or even greater than, what could be achieved in southern Mesopotamia (Weiss 1986:74). 2.1.2. Geology and soils

2.1.1. Topography Northern Mesopotamia is formed mainly of Tertiary sedimentary rocks, locally overlaid by Quaternary alluvial gravel fans and basalt lava flows (Wilkinson 1990:87). The most common soil type in the region is calcic xerosol, a semi-arid soil which is generally regarded as very fertile (Wilkinson 1990:89-90, Wilkinson et al. 2001:1). Weiss (1986:81-2) describes the land around Tell Brak as consisting of

The northern Mesopotamian plain lies at an altitude of between 100 and 500 metres above sea level (Guest 1966:71-2). The majority of the region consists of flat steppe broken by low mountain ranges (Figs. 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4), the Abd al Aziz to the west and the Sinjar, Jeribe and Chembe mountains to the east as one travels into the Khabur region from the south (Oates, Oates

4

Environmental setting of the study

Fig. 2.1. Map of the Near East with position of Tell Brak and modern cities and regions mentioned in the text. “Mediterranean” brown and red calcareous soils on conglomerate (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6).

The past climate of the region has been reconstructed mainly by pollen cores taken from lakes in Syria, Turkey and Iran (Bottema 1989, Roberts et al. 2001, Stevens, Wright and Ito 2001, van Zeist and Bottema 1982). Global temperatures during the late Pleistocene (25.000-10.000 BP) are estimated to have been about 10ºC lower than today (Butzer 2000:124) and plant growth was restricted by both temperature levels and lower humidity (Bottema 1989:6). The pollen data from Lake Ghab in northwestern Syria shows that around 11.000 BP the region saw increased precipitation levels and a rise in temperature, as indicated in the spread of forest in northwestern Turkey – the gradual increase in humidity appears to have reached modern levels by 5500 BP (Bottema 1989:6). This development is also reflected in the lake-core taken from Eski Acıgöl in Turkey (Roberts et al. 2001) which has provided indications of a wetter environment than at present. Increasing temperatures in the Taurus mountain area also meant that from about 8000 BP the Euphrates, Khabur and Balikh rivers were receiving increasing amounts of run-off water (Bottema 1989:6). A similar picture is presented by pollen diagrams from Lake Zeribar in Western Iran (Stevens, Wright and Ito 2001, van Zeist and Bottema 1982:278-9), where an almost complete absence of tree pollen between 35.000 and 14.000 BP is followed by a slight increase in tree pollen – indicating an oak-pistachio forest-steppe – until 7000 or 6000 BP, when increased humidity levels makes it possible for the Zagros oak forest to replace the forest-steppe. The establishment of the present-day distribution of steppe and forest took place at 6000 BP; Stevens, Wright and Ito (2001) note a short-lived return

Guest (1966:71-2) observes that the soils of the moist steppe, i.e. steppe receiving 350-500 mm yearly rainfall (Table 2.1), have been impoverished due to the continuation of dry-farming through millennia, with the soils suffering leaching and erosion. A similar point is made by Smith and Young (1972:48), arguing that increasingly shorter fallow intervals throughout the Holocene have resulted in a decline in soil fertility. French (2003:237) suggests that the silty clay alluvial soils along the Wadi Jaghjagh were rich in nutrients in the past, and it is thus reasonable to assume that the soils in northern Mesopotamia were more fertile in the Late Chalcolithic than they are today. On the lower dry-steppe (receiving 200-350 mm rain annually; Table 2.1), on the other hand, Guest (1966:71) notes that, due to the irregularity of the rainfall and consequently the change between years of sufficient rain for dry-farming and years of drought, the soils have not been exhausted, and are able to give high crop returns in good years. 2.1.3. Past and present climate Northern Mesopotamia today tends to have hot and dry summers, with temperatures in July and August ranging between 25-35ºC, whereas the winters (October/ November-March/April) are usually wet and cold, with temperatures between +5ºC and –10ºC. Most of the rain falls in the winter period (Fig. 2.7).

5

A Thousand Years of Farming

Environmental zones (Guest 1966)

Annual rainfall, mm.

Altitude, m.

Vegetation: Zohary’s (1973) geobotanical definitions

Anatolia and Iran: Forest zone

600-1000

500-1800

Xerophilous deciduous steppeforest of Quercetae brantii (actual)

Northern Mesopotamia: Upper, moist steppe

350 – 500

300-500

Northern Mesopotamia: Lower, dry steppe

200 – 350

Southern Mesopotamia: Desert

Mesopotamian steppes of the Artemisiatea herbae-albae mesopotamica

100 – 200

100-350

200

Saharo-Arabian desert vegetation of the Anabasetea articulatae

Table 2.1. Summarised environmental data for northern Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions, based on Guest (1966) and Zohary (1973). meant a decrease to 225 mm, insufficient for a dryfarming economy (ibid.). Even with a less precise estimate, it is clear that any reduction in precipitation in this marginal area would have considerable effects on the agricultural production.

to a much drier environment around 4500 BP, with winter-only precipitation. The general trends, therefore, indicate a wetter and warmer climate in Mesopotamia after 12.000 BC and until the early third millennium BC, with denser oak forest in the Taurus and northern Zagros Mountains, and a heavier grass cover on the steppe lands.The climate thus appears to have been wetter and warmer in the Late Chalcolithic than it is today (Miller 1997a:124), meaning that Late Chalcolithic farmers potentially would have been able to exploit a larger area for reliable dry-farming than at present (Wright 2001:128). While conditions overall may have been better in terms of dry-farming, it is still likely that there were minor climatic fluctuations throughout the Late Chalcolithic. Wilkinson (1994:499) uses available climate data from the Near East and Morocco to suggest that significant droughts could have happened five to ten times during the fourth millennium BC, affecting the agricultural production. He also makes the assumption, from comparison with modern rainfall data from northern Syria, that periods of drought would have been felt across a wide area of the Jezira, thus making the import of agricultural products from neighbouring, more marginal, areas more difficult (ibid.:501).

2.1.4. Past and present vegetation 2.1.4.1. Present vegetation Northern Mesopotamia lies within the Western IranoTuranian sub-region (Fig. 2.4), with the general vegetation included within the class of Artemisiatea herbae-albae mesopotamica, based on the character species of steppe, the low-growing shrub Artemisia sp., or wormwood (Zohary 1973:168). Within the steppe land there are smaller pockets of Pistacia-Amygdalus (pistachio-almond) steppe forest, xerophilous deciduous steppe forest of Quercetea brantii (oak), and saltland vegetation (Naval Intelligence Division 1943:92-94, Zohary 1973, map 7). The area is bordered by the wetter southeast Anatolian and northern Iraqi deciduous steppe forest to the north and east, Mediterranean woodland to the west, and to the south the drier steppe vegetation turns into the Saharo-Arabian desert vegetation of Anabasetea articulatae. Woody vegetation in the Jezira is dominated by xerophytic dwarf shrubs, while the lower mountain ranges contain tree species of the park forest and steppe formation types, such as Pistacia khinjuk and P. atlantica, Crataegus azarolus (hawthorn) Quercus brantii and Cerasus microcarpa (cherry) (Engel 1996:105-6). Willow shrubs have been observed along the Khabur and Balikh rivers (Bottema 1989:3). On the northern Mesopotamian plain Chenopodiaceae (goosefoot family) species are common, due to the salinity tolerance of some of the species, while the shrubby species Propopis farcta and Alhagi maurorum

From about 3200 BC (or 4500 BP) global aridification appears to have set in, changing the climate in northern Mesopotamia towards a drier environment (Weiss et al. 1993:1001). Weiss (2002) uses three climate records from Turkey, Israel and Oman as the basis for his suggestion that an abrupt climate change to a drier environment took place c. 3200 BC and lasted for about 200 years. Weiss has estimated that the average annual precipitation was reduced by c. 27%, which in the case of sites situated near the 300 mm isohyet 6

Environmental setting of the study

Fig. 2.2. Map of the Khabur region with some of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text (based on Zeder 2003:169).

Fig. 2.3. Map of the Khabur region showing location of watercourses (after Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001:xxvii).

7

A Thousand Years of Farming

Turkey TELL BRAK

Syria Iraq

kilometres Mesopotamian steppes of the Artemisiatea herbae-albae mesopotamica Xerophilous deciduous steppe-forest of Quercetea brantii (actual) Pistacia-Amygdalus steppe forest (actual) Littoral saltland vegetation of Salicornetea europaeae and Irano-Turanian saltland vegetation of Halocnemetea strobilacei and Saharo-Arabian saltland vegetation of Suadetea deserta Mediterranean steppe-maquis and Ballotetalia undulatae Mediterranean woodland climax Mosaics of Anatolian Artemisietea fragrantis armeniaca and Sub-Euxinian oak forest remnants Mosaics of N.W. Iranian Artemisietea fragrantis high steppe and Quercetea brantii remnants Saharo-Arabian desert vegetation of the Anabasetea articulatae Fig. 2.4. Vegetation map of northern Mesopotamia (based on Zohary 1973, map 7). (camelthorn) are dominant, indicating irrigated fields (Engel 1996:106).

formerly

(1996:106) estimates that riverine forests of, among others, Populus euphratica (poplar) and Platanus orientalis (plane) would have covered the river edges on the plain in the past. Communities of the Phlomidetalia bruguieri would have been found in the region north of modern Hassake and towards the Taurus mountains (Frey and Kürschner 1991:98-101).

2.1.4.2. Past vegetation Over most of northern Mesopotamia today, the original steppe vegetation has been replaced by farming and grazing land. Guest (1966:72) estimates that the original steppe vegetation would have been covered by Pistacia sp. and other small trees and shrubs. Engel 8

Environmental setting of the study

Fig. 2.5. Map of Khabur region showing soil types and annual rainfall levels (based on Weiss 1986:81). Much of the Jezira was re-settled in the early 20th century and had until then been extensive nomadic pasture land (Wilkinson 1990:91). Smith and Young (1972:23) describe the region as “fairly inhospitable country deeply etched by wadis and marked with patches of marsh country, suitable primarily for exploitation by pastoralists”. For Syria generally, Naval Intelligence Division (1943:252) estimated that during their survey of the country, one and a half million acres (roughly 600.000 ha) of land was potentially irrigable in Syria, only a quarter of which was under cultivation at the time. Much of Syria’s steppe areas were thus cultivated relatively recently.

2.1.5 Water resources and irrigation 2.1.5.1. Present The region can be divided into a northern area with an average annual rainfall of between 500 and 350 mm, sufficient for dry-farming, and a southern, drier, area, with an average annual rainfall of between 200 and 350 mm, at or below the limit of reliable dry-farming (Figs. 2.2 and 2.5). These two areas are described as the moist-steppe zone and dry-steppe zone, respectively, in the Flora of Iraq (Guest 1966:71-2) and are summarised in Table 2.1. Tell Brak is situated in the dry-steppe zone.

Pollen records (Bottema 1989:5-6) show that the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East was covered in steppe and desert-steppe about 15.000 years ago and that forests were found mainly in the Levant and along the Black Sea coast. As mentioned above, plant growth was restricted by lower levels of both temperature and humidity.

Reliability and timing of rainfall is more important to successful dry-farming than actual quantity of rain; in areas with low inter-annual variability, annual rainfall of 180 mm is sufficient for dry-farming, whereas farmers in areas with high inter-annual variability (more than 35%) need a substantially higher amount of rainfall in order to practice reliable dry-farming (Wilkinson 1990:88-9). High inter-annual variability of rainfall means that the geographical limit of reliable dry-farming may change considerably from year to year. The northern moist steppe zone has an interannual variability of 25-35% (ibid.:89), which means that despite its annual rainfall level of 350-500 mm, the area is still at risk of crop failure in dry years (though Charles (1988:1) quotes estimates of minimum water requirements of down to 240 mm annually in areas with 37% inter-annual variability). Oates, Oates and McDonald (2001:xxviii) note that in the 1970s the dry-

By the Late Chalcolithic, the region around Tell Brak is thought to have been that of open steppe with clusters of riverine forests and with heavily cultivated areas nearer to the cities, especially towards the north where higher rainfall levels than to the south were to be expected (Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001:xxviiixxix). Towards the south the area was less densely inhabited, and there may have been areas of marshland along the Wadi Radd (ibid.).

9

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 2.6. Detail of Fig. 2.5 showing the soil types in the vicinity of Tell Brak. farming limit was said to lie at the latitude of Chagar Bazar, only some 20 km. northwest of Tell Brak. The timing of the rain through the crop growing period is of equal importance to a successful crop; Oates and Oates (1976:113) note that the barley crop in northern Mesopotamia is dependent on the April rains to “fill out” the head just before the crop is ripe, usually in the beginning of May, otherwise the grain will remain small.

one nearby village is named Bir Helu, “sweet water/well” (Wilkinson et al. 2001:4). Late Chalcolithic rainfall levels are difficult to estimate with any precision; given the marginal position of Tell Brak, even minor fluctuations in annual rainfall levels could have had major consequences for the agricultural potential in the immediate environs of the site. However, there does appear to be indications of a warmer and wetter climate during this period than today, and annual rainfall levels may have been well over 300 mm in the Late Chalcolithic, possibly with a decrease towards the end of the period.

Tell Brak lies just below the 300 mm rainfall isohyet the area receives an average 284 mm annual rainfall, most of it in November-February (Fig. 2.7, based on data from Hassake; after Frey and Kürschner 1991:89) - and is thus below the dry-farming limit in dry years (Fig. 2.5). Oates and Oates (1976:111) have noted how crop failures have happened twice in a five year period by Tell Afar, close to Mosul and receiving 337 mm annual rainfall, and it is not unreasonable to estimate a crop failure around Tell Brak three to four years out of ten. Today most winter cereal fields around the site are irrigated with the help from petrol driven pumps, though as recently as 10-20 years ago irrigation was primarily reserved for summer crops (M. Charles, pers. comm.).

2.1.5.2. Irrigation in the past Evidence for the fields around Tell Brak having been irrigated in the past is ambiguous. The Euphrates and Tigris rivers, along with their tributaries, primarily the Balikh and Khabur rivers, are potentially useful for irrigation practices: Unlike southern Mesopotamia, where the Euphrates and Tigris have been known to rapidly change their courses, the rivers of northern Mesopotamia are securely situated in deep river beds, which means that they are potentially reliable sources for irrigation water to nearby settlements (though Smith and Young (1972:23) have noted that the deep river beds means that a method of artificially raising the water must be constructed to be able to use the water for irrigation). Irrigation is thus possible in the Khabur Valley, but otherwise in northern Mesopotamia there is only limited possibility for irrigation (Wilkinson 1990:89).

The location of Tell Brak close to several wadis means that the site may be lying on the watershed between two of these wadis, and at least part of the water consumption of the site may have been provided by drilling for ground water in the past. Wells have been excavated on-site from third millennium BC contexts, though no evidence for wells has been reported from the Late Chalcolithic levels. Apparently, until recently Tell Brak was known for the quality of its water, and

It has been noted (Mike Charles, pers.comm.) that irrigation today is difficult due to the very low water 10

Environmental setting of the study

Euphrates valley, west of the Khabur Valley, until Roman times (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988:283). In modern times, irrigation practices in northern Mesopotamia were unusual until the introduction of petrol driven pumps. Around Tell Brak, no definite archaeological evidence, in the shape of ancient artificial water channels, has been uncovered to suggest that fields were irrigated in the past. The river Jaghjagh, which runs at a distance of roughly 3 km. from the site today, may have had some of its water directed towards Tell Brak via an artificial channel (Wilkinson et al. 2001:2), though it has also been suggested, from the evidence of satellite images, that the wadi itself may have run next to the foot of the mound in the past (Sommerfield, Archi, and Weiss 2004). Archaeological evidence for irrigation is thus inconclusive.

Fig. 2.7. Hydrothermic curve for Hassake, northeast Syria. Striped area represents rainfall, dotted area represents temperature (based on Frey and Kürschner 1991:89). levels; however, the suggested wetter climate in the fourth millennium BC would have entailed higher water levels and height of the water table than today, and as the wadis Jaghjagh and Radd are thought to have been carrying more water in the past than today, irrigation should have been possible in the past.

2.2. Traditional crop husbandry practices and crop yields in northern Mesopotamia Studies on crop husbandry practices in northern Mesopotamia are sparse; the present section, therefore, includes studies on agriculture in Iraq in the recent past, which is considered sufficiently similar in agricultural traditions to merit inclusion.

A relevant question to the discussion of the use of irrigation at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak is whether this practice was at all necessary at the time. Climate reconstructions, summarised above, suggest that the fourth millennium BC may have seen a slightly wetter and warmer climate than today, and given the present position of Tell Brak on the margin of dry-farming land, even slight increases in rainfall levels to what they are now may have secured the dry-farming potential of the area around Tell Brak.

The dominant crops in the region are winter wheat and barley, and, in the more northerly parts of the region, also pulses (mainly lentils) and vines (Naval Intelligence Division 1943:255-6, Wilkinson 1990:90). Flax is also mentioned as a winter crop in northern Iraq (Charles 1990:48). While wheat is grown for human consumption, barley is primarily grown for fodder. In areas where irrigation is possible, e.g. along the rivers, fruit and vegetables such as melons and cucumbers are grown, and summer crops such as cotton and sesame have been introduced.

The earliest direct archaeological evidence for irrigation in the Near East is from sixth-millennium BC Choga Mami in the Mandali area in southeast Iraq (Fig. 3.1), where a system of ancient water channels running off the Gangir and Ab-i-Naft rivers has been found (Kühne 1990:15, Oates and Oates 1976:125, 128-132); given its later date and the connections with communities in southern Mesopotamia, the inhabitants of the Late Chalcolithic settlement at Tell Brak would thus potentially have had the necessary skills and knowledge for the use of an irrigation system. In Syria, Neolithic Mureybit has yielded archaeobotanical and palynological indications for irrigation in levels dating to the ninth and seventh millennia BC (Miller 1980:331).

The timing of the sowing of crops, as set by farmers, is determined annually and locally by a series of factors, primarily soil conditions related to humidity/rain levels. Before sowing, ploughing is essential for breaking up the soil to prepare the seed bed; in order to do this efficiently, the soil needs to have been softened by rain or high humidity, which means the ploughing of fields depends on the timing of the first autumn rains (Charles 1988:2). Sowing of cereals in Iraq is best done in October, whereas a later sowing time (NovemberDecember) may result in a much reduced crop harvest; it has been noted how flax, if sown as late as December, may yield only half its usual seed crop (Charles 1990:51). The growing of a seed is genetically deter-mined and relates to a sufficient level of temperature, moisture and oxygen (Percival 1974:24). In northern Mesopotamia today, most rain falls during the autumn and winter (the wettest months around modern Hassake are November to February; Fig. 2.7), and modern crop sowing is timed according to the autumn rains. At the other end of the growing period,

There is no archaeological evidence for canals in the Khabur Valley until the first millennium BC (McCorriston 1995:34), though Kühne (1990:15) suggests that irrigation systems may well have existed in the region from the Early Bronze Age onwards. The earliest textual evidence for irrigation agriculture in northern Mesopotamia is from the Old Assyrian period, i.e. late second millennium BC (Weiss 1986:80), and irrigation is not thought to have been used in the

11

A Thousand Years of Farming

CROP

Zohary and Hopf 2000:92), and as can be seen in Table 2.2, the wheat-after-vetches harvest gave the highest yield by far in the Qamishli experiment. Around Tell Brak today, farmers have been observed to keep some fields fallow, and to rotate between lentils and cereals (pers. observ).

3-YEAR MEAN, KG/HA

Wheat, continuous

780

Wheat after fallow

1540

Wheat after lentils

1510

Wheat after vetches

1740

Lentils after wheat

1240

Harvesting takes place in May-June and in the area around Tell Brak today is still mainly done by hand with sickles (pers. observ.). Modern cereal yield data from areas within northern Mesopotamia vary considerably and it is thus difficult to estimate a mean crop yield for the region. Changes in agricultural production during the 20th century AD, such as the introduction of the tractor and high-yield seeds, have resulted in an increase of both cultivated land and crop yields; for Syria, Weiss (1986:74) quotes estimates of a three-fold increase in agricultural land within 20 years, and a 70% increase in wheat and barley yields since 1975. Wilkinson (1994:497) quotes modern cereal yields from the northern Jezira as 700-900 kg/ha, and 935 kg/ha for the Urfa province in southeast Turkey. A Turkish government report on agricultural production from the years 1958-60 shows Urfa yielding an average 617 kg/ha of cereals (Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry, Central Statistical office 1962:80), though from the more adjacent city of Mardin, an almost twice as high average of 1196 kg/ha of cereals is reported for these three years (ibid.:64). From Qamishli, c. 35 km. north of Tell Brak, Weiss (1986:73) mentions yields of barley and wheat for the year 1968 as 1289 kg/ha and 1042 kg/ha, respectively (Table 2.3). From the area around Mosul in Iraq, further southeast and with an annual rainfall level of 385 mm (Oates and Oates 1976:110), average cereal yields of 700-900 kg/ha have been mentioned (ibid.), but also, as men-tioned above, the observation that crop failures in this area have occurred as often as twice in a five-year period. For comparison, irrigated land around Massayib in southern Mesopotamia yielded 1638 and 1524 kg/ha of barley and wheat, respectively, in 1968 (Table 2.3). It is also worth noting that whereas around Qamishli the percentage of land taken up by barley and wheat fields is 24.7% and 12.8%, respectively, the percentage area of land needed to grow a crop in southern Mesopotamia, with higher yields than the Qamishli example, is markedly lower, in the case of Massayib 9.1% and 4.5% for barley and wheat production, respectively (Table 2.3). Agriculture in northern Mesopotamia is thus dependent on a much larger area of agricultural land to grow a crop compared to southern Mesopotamia, but with much more land available in the north compared to the south, northern Mesopotamia is probably at least as productive agriculturally as the southern alluvial plain.

Table 2.2. Summary of crop rotation experiment undertaken at Qamishli in 1966-68. Mean annual rainfall in the area during the experiment was 445 mm (based on Weiss 1986:83). the crop is dependent on the April rains in order for the grains to grow to a sufficient size (Oates and Oates 1976:113). Traditionally, cereal crops are broadcast, and fields may be cross ploughed afterwards to cover the seeds (Charles 1990:51). In the area around Tell Brak today, most fields are irrigated by petrol driven pumps. Crops are usually sown in October-December and harvested in MayJune; generally the barley crop ripens before wheat and is harvested about two weeks before the wheat crop in the beginning of May (Charles 1989:117, 1990:55). The sowing of winter cereal crops appears to have been the norm in ancient times as well, with no mention of summer cereal crops in ancient texts (Oates and Oates 1976:117). In the recent past, a third to half of the agricultural land was allowed to lie fallow for a year to regain its fertility and moisture content over the winter (Naval Intelligence Division 1943:251). Fallowing recovers the fertility of the land, thus making it possible to cultivate it for longer; it reduces salinisation of irrigated land, and provides grazing land for livestock (Charles 1990:47-8). According to Wilkinson (1994: 500), fallowed soils cleared of weeds will retain 1520% of their moisture content to be carried over to the following year’s crop. Wilkinson (1990:91) estimates that the practice of fallowing results in crop yield increases of 150-200%, i.e., growing crops every other year after a fallow period yields roughly as high a crop yield as annual harvesting, but without exhausting the soil. Similar results are suggested by Weiss (1986:823), quoting a crop rotation experiment undertaken at Qamishli in 1966-68, the results of which are summarised in Table 2.2. From this table is it evident that crop yields benefit from the rotation of different crops as well; crop rotation with lentils results in the replenishment of soil nitrogen and ensures that the levels of soil fertility stay high (Wilkinson 1990:91,

12

Environmental setting of the study

DRY-FARMED AREAS Qamishli

Mosul

Tel Afar

Sinjar

Erbil

Kirkuk

RANGE

Area (km2)

4002

4702

3961

2955

5112

3000-5100

Net Area (ha)

51370

3504 12787 5

168250

108275

70475

50725

51000168000

12,8

36,5

35,8

27,3

23,8

9,9

Yield (10 tons)

5353

10895

15196

8532

6774

2713

Yield/ha (kgs.)

1042,1

852

903,2

797,2

961,2

534,8

535-1042

Net Area (ha)

98884

72850

63500

51900

19550

17250

17000-99000

24,7

20,7

13,5

13,1

6,6

3,4

Yield (10 tons)

12749

8223

6718

5410

1972

1005

Yield/ha (kgs.)

1289,2

1058

1041

1008,8

582,4

582-1289

150254

1128,8 20072 5

231750

160175

90025

67975

68000231800

2331,3

1980,8

1961,2

1838,2

1970

1117,2

1117-2331

Massayib

Hilla

Diwaniyah

RANGE

Area (km2)

1183

659

2201

660-2200

Net Area (ha)

5300

12550

33525

500034000

4,5

19

15,2

Yield (10 tons)

808

2126

5363

Yield/ha (kgs.)

1524

1694

1599,6

1500-1700

Net Area (ha)

10800

16625

11550

1100017000

9,1

25,2

5,2

Yield (10 tons)

1770

2754

1821

Yield/ha (kgs.)

1638,8

1656,8

1576,8

1600-1700

16100

29175

45075

1610045075

3162,8

2350,8

3176,4

2350-3176

WHEAT Cultivated area (%)

BARLEY

Cultivated area (%)

WHEAT Net Area (ha) & BARLEY Yield/ha (kgs.)

IRRIGATED AREAS

WHEAT Cultivated area (%)

BARLEY Cultivated area (%)

WHEAT Net Area (ha) & BARLEY Yield/ha (kgs.)

Table 2.3. Wheat and barley production in northeast Syria and Iraq in 1968, taken from the 1979 Syrian Agriculture Sector Assessment Project, Land Use Information Report, App. B: Crop Use of Land, Winter Crops, 1968 to 1977 (after Weiss 1986:73).

13

Chapter 3 Archaeological and socio-political overview As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers run though the entire length of Mesopotamia. The land immediately outside the river banks is desert. Depositions of silt from the two rivers through millennia have resulted in the build-up of alluvium over sedimentary bed rock; the southern alluvial plain is flat and featureless, rising only about 400 metres over the 1200 km. it stretches from the Persian Gulf in the south to the Taurus Mountains in the north. The region is intersected by smaller streams between the greater rivers, and though it is too dry and hot for dry-farming (summers (May-October) are generally completely dry and very hot with temperatures often up to 60ºC), southern Mesopotamia is potentially extremely fertile once the land is artificially irrigated. The dependency on the rivers meant that changes in water courses and salinisation of fields due to irrigation, both of which were regular events, had major effects on the settlements; surveys have shown how abandoned settlements can often be seen along old river courses.

3.1. Introduction Before assessing the nature of the archaeological data in Mesopotamia, it is useful to briefly outline the chronology and the division of natural resources of the region, to discuss the role of exchange in the formation of Mesopotamian complex civilisation, the identification of exchange goods and southern Mesopotamian settlers, as well as to briefly review the theories on the ”Uruk Expansion”. 3.1.1. Chronology of early Mesopotamian civilisations The chronological phases of Mesopotamia covered in this study are summarised in Tables 3.1 and 3.2; it should be noted that the use of period designations cover not only chronological, but also geographical, areas. An attempt has been made to illustrate this point by noting the southern or northern Mesopotamian geographical limit of each period in the tables. The chronology of the Near East is not firmly established and especially the periods preceding the third millennium BC are under constant chronological revision. The dates used in the present volume are, therefore, only rough approximations.

The natural resources of the alluvial plain included gypsum, alabaster, nodules of flint and limestone, reeds, palm trees (Oates 1993:408), bitumen from a wide range of sources, and clay, the latter of which the inhabitants made particularly ingenious use of – archaeological finds of clay objects include bricks, pottery, sculpture, decorative wall cones, spindle whorls, weights for fish nets, pestles and sickles. However, the scarcity of resources such as metals, roofing-grade timber, and semi-precious and precious stones meant that the inhabitants on the alluvium were engaged in long-distance exchange with their neighbours to the north and east from early onwards. To the east of the southern Mesopotamian plain lies the Zagros mountain chain, behind which is the Susiana plain, with the major city of Susa, and further east of this area, Afghanistan, known for its sources of primarily lapis lazuli and for its metals. In northern Mesopotamia the landscape changes into rolling hills and fertile agricultural land, as described in Chapter 2. North of this region run the Taurus Mountains and behind them lies the Anatolian plain. These neighbouring regions held the abundant resources of timber, metals, and semi-precious stones that made their way to the cities on the southern alluvial plain.

The Late Chalcolithic covers all of the fourth millennium BC and is also named the Uruk period, after the largest city of that time in southern Mesopotamia. The Uruk period is generally assumed to have lasted roughly between 4200 and 3100 BC and is divided into several phases, from Early to Late Uruk, including, in the north, local sub-phases (northern Uruk phases). For a slightly more fine-level chronology, the levels of certain archaeological sites are sometimes used as chronological markers. In Table 3.2 the chronology of the Late Chalcolithic is presented as a comparative list of the excavation levels of a range of the sites mentioned in the text. Throughout this volume, “Late Chalcolithic” (with phases abbreviated LC 1 to 5) and “Uruk period” are used interchangeably, and when discussing the data specifically from Tell Brak, the period designations used are those of the TW sequence, i.e. including “northern Uruk” occupation levels (Table 3.3). 3.1.2. The natural resources of Mesopotamia The contrasting geography of Mesopotamia and its neighbours to the north and east, and the unequal distribution of natural resources following this diversity, has been a major factor in shaping the history of the region. The geography of northern Mesopotamia was presented in Chapter 2, and what follows here is a brief description of southern Mesopotamia as related to its resources.

3.1.3. The role of exchange in the development of complex society During the middle and late phases of the Late Chalcolithic a number of sites to the north and east of the southern Mesopotamian alluvial plain were established, the material assemblages of which are indistinguishable from those of the cities to the south. The sites have been interpreted as southern Uruk colonies, and as they are mainly located along major trade routes, such as the Euphrates and the gateways

14

Archaeological and socio-political overview

Years BC

Northern Mesopotamia

800

Southern Mesopotamia

Late Assyrian Iron Age

Late Babylonian

1000 Middle Assyrian

Middle Babylonian

Mitanni

Kassite

1200 1400

Late Bronze Age

Old Babylonian

1600 1800

Old Assyrian

Middle Bronze Age

Isin-Larsa Ur III

2000 2200

Akkadian

2400 ED III/Amuq I

Early Dynastic I-III

2600 2800

Amuq H Amuq G Ninevite V

Early Bronze Age

Jemdet Nasr

3000 Late Uruk 3200 Middle Uruk 3400 Northern Middle Uruk 3600 3800

Chalcolithic

Early Uruk

Northern Early Uruk

4000 4200 4400 Ubaid 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400

Neolithic Halaf

5600 5800 6000 6200

Samarra Hassuna

6400 6600 6800

Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Table 3.1. Chronology of Mesopotamia.

15

A Thousand Years of Farming

Date BC

Tell Brak chronology

Syria

Southeast Anatolia Arslantepe VIA

3000 Habuba Kabira Jebel Aruda

3200

3400

Late Uruk Middle Uruk

Tell Brak TW 12

Sheikh Hassan 4

Tell Brak TW 13

Sheikh Hassan 5-7

Northern Middle Uruk 3600

Hassek Höyük

Hacınebi B2 Leilan IV

Arslantepe VII

Hacınebi B1

Qraya

Sheikh Hassan 8-10/13

Tell Brak TW 14-17

Leilan V

Northern Early Uruk Hammam et Turkman VB

3800

Hacınebi A Tell Brak TW 18-19

4000 Hammam et Turkman VA

4200 Ubaid Date BC

Tell Brak chronology

Arslantepe VIII Leilan late VIb

Hammam et Turkman IVD Northern Iraq

Southern Iraq Nineveh V Eanna IVA

3000 Mohammed Arab Late Uruk

Nineveh Late Uruk

Eanna IVB-V

Nippur XV-XVII

Nineveh IV

3200

Eanna VI

Late Uruk 3400

hiatus?

Middle Uruk

Nineveh Northern Uruk B

Eanna VII

Abu Salabikh Uruk Mound

Northern Middle Uruk

Nippur XVIII hiatus?

3600 Tepe Gawra VIII

Nineveh Northern Uruk A Eanna IX-VIII

Nippur XX-XIX

Northern Early Uruk Eanna XI-X

3800 Tepe Gawra IX-X Nineveh Gawra B

Eanna XII

4000 Tepe Gawra XI-XA 4200 Ubaid

Tepe Gawra XIA/B Tepe Gawra XII

Nineveh Gawra A hiatus? Eanna XVI-XIV

Tepe Gawra XIIA-XIII

Table 3.2. Chronology of Late Ubaid-Uruk periods (after Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, Oates 2002, Rothman 2001).

16

Archaeological and socio-political overview

TW

Period

levels

access to all materials necessary for survival (Oates 1993). The majority of imports reaching southern Mesopotamia were thus probably mainly luxury goods, and it could be argued that trade in such goods would have been relatively small-scale, hardly necessitating the complex exchange systems we appear to have archaeological evidence for, or acting as a factor in the development of socio-political complexity. However, following the notion that human needs are socially created and flexible rather than fixed (Pollock 1999:43), the importance of luxury goods like metals and semi-precious stones should not be underestimated. Rare and/or precious objects often serve a powerenhancing function (Brumfiel and Earle 1987:3-4), as a symbolic way of presenting the (superior) status of one group of people to another, either between different societies or between the hierarchical levels within the same society, and are therefore essential commodities in societies undergoing such vast socio-political changes as the ones that appear to have taken place in Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia. Metals and semiprecious stones are not only valuable due to their rarity on the alluvial plain, but also because they are symbols of the ability of their owner to interact with foreigners, as discussed above. Timber, for example, has an ideological value (Algaze 2001b:51) as a means in the construction of buildings symbolic of the power which is able to gather the work force and materials for the building projects - the visual association, as noted by Pollock (1999:91), between the building and its builder(s).

Date BC (ca.)

1

2800 Early Ninevite V

2-8

Pre Ninevite V/post-Uruk

9-10

2900 3100

Jemdet Nasr 11-12

Late Uruk

34-3200

13

Middle Uruk

14-18

Northern Middle Uruk

3500

19-20

Northern Early Uruk

38-3700

Table 3.3. Trench TW levels (after Oates 2002:111). into the plains of Susiana and Anatolia, their purpose has primarily been explained in terms of long-distance exchange (section 3.3.2.1, below). This appearance of southern Uruk colonies has been described as the “Uruk Expansion” (Algaze 1993); as the term implies, southern Uruk culture has traditionally been viewed as the active agent of this event, while the northern Mesopotamian communities were considered relatively passive hosts to this expansion from the south. There is evidence for the existence of long-distance exchange networks between Mesopotamia and its neighbours, and throughout the Near East, from very early onwards – among the earliest evidence, from c. 15.000 BC, is the find of sea shells on an inland settlement in Jordan, some 100 km. from the sea shore (Roaf 1990:34). Evidence from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (c. 9000-7000 BC) includes the widespread finds of Anatolian obsidian at sites more than 800 km. away from the original sources (ibid.). Though there is no evidence as to the exact character of the earliest exchange contacts, they were probably of a “down-theline” variety, with commodities trickling into increasingly distant areas by repeatedly changing hands, rather than direct long-distance exchange.

3.1.4. Identifying exchange goods The perishable nature of most of the commodities that may have been exchanged between northern and southern Mesopotamia makes a definite identification of them difficult (Crawford 1973) and we do not, in fact, possess much direct evidence of the commodities that may have been traded during the Late Chalcolithic (Oates 1993:412). Later written sources are potentially useful for identifying otherwise invisible goods: texts from the third millennium BC mention textiles, grain, fish, animals, slaves, oils, fats, wood, copper, tin, lead and silver as regular trade items (Crawford 1973:233).

Exchange would have been an important factor not only in the acquisition of raw materials, but also in the spread of technological knowledge and the development of administrative skills. As such, it played a major role in the development of complex societies; the negotiation and acquisition of commodities for import, and the organisation of items to be exchanged for these goods, involves the organisation of labourers and a need for administrative and communicative tools to oversee the movement of goods. As noted by Helms (1988:ch. 4), the ability of local rulers to maintain contacts with people from surrounding areas – the “outside world” - and to acquire exotic items may also help intensify the power of these rulers.

The value of exotic goods mean that they may have been recycled or reused through generations, thus making them difficult to identify and date (Algaze 2001b:51); stone and timber in house constructions, for instance, was often kept and reused after the demolition of a building (Wilkinson 2000:229). As Stein (2000:20) has pointed out, the identification of goods exchanged during the Late Chalcolithic is even more difficult if southern Uruk traders exported not only goods originating in the southern alluvium, i.e. goods that can either be directly associated with southern Uruk traders by their stylistic characteristics (for instance, ceramics), or traced back to the southern alluvium from their chemical composition (for instance, bitumen), but also acted as middlemen in the

Despite the scarcity of natural resources in southern Mesopotamia, the inhabitants of the region still had

17

A Thousand Years of Farming

trade of goods coming from elsewhere, as exemplified in the later Old Assyrian trade (Larsen 1976).

southern Mesopotamian objects in the north is the ceramic assemblage. These may have been items of exchange, either on their own or, more likely, as containers for commodities such as oil, wine or bitumen, though the exact function of the vessels is unknown. As Algaze has noted, it is hard to imagine that bevelled rim bowls, the most ubiquitous of the southern Mesopotamian ceramics but far from the most elegant, would have been traded on their own (Algaze 1993:74). Chemical analysis of remains of bitumen found at Hacınebi in southeast Anatolia and Sheikh Hassan in northern Mesopotamia has shown that the bitumen originated from Hit, in mid Mesopotamia (Algaze 2001b:52); however, though chemical analysis certainly provides evidence for the provenience of goods, obviously it does not answer the question whether bitumen may in fact have been part of the range of exchange goods, or whether it was used by southerners exclusively.

3.1.4.1. Northern exports Given the scarcity of natural resources on the southern Mesopotamian plain, the finds of items made from, for instance, metals and semi-precious stones give direct evidence for some of the items that were imported to the south. One such find was made in the Riemchengebäude in Uruk, dated to the LC 5. This building, situated in one of the cult precincts in the city, the Eanna complex level IV, and functioning as either a temple or a storehouse for a temple, contained wooden chests with inlays of precious and semiprecious stones, fragments of copper statues, alabaster vessels, jewellery, weapons and other items made of, among other materials, copper, gold, silver and obsidian (Algaze 2001b:35). Other lines of evidence are less direct, but include what appear to be metal-smelting installations in Uruk, which also indicate that metals did not only – if ever – arrive in the south as finished products, but may have been transported to southern Mesopotamia as ingots, which were then manufactured into the desired goods.

Woollen textiles is a commodity often mentioned among potential southern Mesopotamian exports (Algaze 1993:74, Pollock 1999), based on later texts (i.e. the Old Assyrian trade, Larsen 1976) as well as on archaeozoological evidence. The Archaic Texts from the city of Uruk indicate the existence of state-managed flocks of sheep and goats (Algaze 2001b:34), and depictions of weaving have been identified on LC 5 sealings (Lupton 1996:69-70). Studies of animal bones from a number of southern Late Chalcolithic sites have suggested that wool production was increased, possibly due to growing tribute demands; throughout the Late Chalcolithic there is an increasing proportion of sheep to goat bones, and kill-off patterns suggest an emphasis on wool production (Pollock 1999:103-9). This is again supported by the Archaic Texts from Uruk, a large number of which concern the storage, distribution and possibly also manufacture, of textiles (Nissen 1986:330). On the other hand, northern Mesopotamia is known for its own textile production and exports in later periods (McCorriston 1997:533-4). The need for southern Mesopotamian textiles thus seems primarily likely if they were of a particularly high quality.

Indirect evidence for the import of timber to the south is also available: The scale of the architecture constructed in Uruk necessitated roofing timber of a better quality than what was found growing on the alluvium, and as Uruk temples were most likely to be roofed due to the hot climate, the size of the buildings are evidence in themselves – it has been estimated that the Limestone Temple in the Eanna complex would have needed at least 3000, and possibly over 6000, linear metres of wooden beams for the construction of its roof (Margueron 1992:90). Private houses, however, were most probably roofed using local tree types such as poplar, tamarisk and pine (Oates 1993:408, Weiss 2002). The early third millennium BC Mesopotamian legend of Gilgamesh, king of Uruk (Dalley 1991), includes the story of how Gilgamesh procures timber from the Pine Forest, thought to be either in Lebanon or the Zagros area, for his city, and the use of the Euphrates or Tigris for transport would certainly have made the import of northern Mesopotamian timber to the southern alluvium relatively simple. Wright (2001:127) mentions estimates of travelling by raft on the rivers, whereby 1000 kilometres can be covered in 20 days. For comparison, donkey caravans mentioned in the Old Assyrian documents from Kanesh took six weeks to cover the distance of roughly 1200 km between Kanesh in Anatolia and Assur in mid Mesopotamia (Larsen 1976).

Cereal grain and dates (or date wine) have also been suggested as southern exports (Lloyd 1984:19). Regarding the former, later textual evidence seems to suggest that the north provided the south with cereal grain rather than vice versa (Sommerfield, Archi and Weiss 2004) and apart from a single find of a date stone from Tell Karrana on the Assyrian plain, northern Iraq (Charles and Dobney n.d.), dates have not been found in the north. Wine has often been cited as a possible southern export; residue analysis of wine from vessels excavated in the city of Uruk, however, has shown that the wine originated in southeast Anatolia, Syria and the Zagros region, and thus had been imported to, rather than exported from, the south (Stein 2000:20).

3.1.4.2. Southern exports A large assemblage of typically southern Uruk artefacts has been found on northern sites, but none that can be securely identified as trade goods. The largest group of

A final suggestion is that southern Mesopotamian exports may not always have been directly material,

18

Archaeological and socio-political overview

but organisational, architectural, technological, or cultic in shape. It is not unlikely that southern Mesopotamian traders could have acquired northern Mesopotamian raw materials in exchange for, for example, supervising the construction of buildings, such as the Eye Temple at Tell Brak, in the southern Mesopotamian style.

fundamental dynamics of chiefdoms are essentially the same as those of states”. 3.1.6. Identifying southerners The evidence reviewed below for the northern and southern Uruk settlements in northern Mesopotamia is of a material culture, some components of which – architecture, pottery, seal designs – can be said to represent a deliberate attempt to signal the identity and power of its builders/owners, in some cases without forming part of the real cultural assemblage of a group of people. For this particular study the question is whether southerners were really present in the north or whether northerners were merely emulating the southern Mesopotamian material culture, which has implications for the assessment of the level of northsouth interaction. A powerful individual on a northern indigenous site, for instance, may choose to acquire goods in the fashion of southern Mesopotamia to underline his/her ability to interact with foreigners, the importance of which was discussed in section 3.1.3.

3.1.5. Assessing societal complexity One of the pivotal questions regarding the character of the ”Uruk Expansion” is whether there was a significant difference in the degree of societal complexity between the communities in northern and southern Mesopotamia. In order to answer this question, one needs to define the characteristics of societal complexity, and, since we are dealing with societies of the past, to define ways of identifying these characteristics archaeologically. Societal complexity, discussed here at the level of chiefdom/state, is reflected in a number of ways – among others, in the division of people in classes of which one or more are superior to the others, in settlements placed within a regional hierarchical system with certain activities centralised in the major settlement, in the control and administration of people, goods, etc., including the storage and redistribution of goods, by an elite, economic specialisation above household level, and the elaboration of cults (Matthews 2003a:95). These aspects of societal complexity leave certain archaeological imprints, of which Matthews (ibid.:96) has listed the following, which are taken into account in the archaeological reviews below:

Other lines of evidence, however, have been generated on a more subtle, day-to-day, domestic level, and are more likely to reflect the activities of the actual cultural group to which the material culture belongs. The concept of habitus, introduced by Bourdieu (1977) as part of his theory of practice, has been used in a number of archaeological studies directly relevant to the present study (Pearce 2000, Stephens and Peltenburg 2002). Habitus can be defined as unconscious, day-to-day activities, “the way things are done”, and have been suggested as the cultural traits that are least likely to change during the interaction between different cultural, or ethnic, groups. Habitus can thus potentially be used as a tool to distinguish between northern and southern population groups rather than merely material groups.

• Monumental constructions, rich tombs, differential distribution of prestige items, palaces • Regional hierarchy of settlement patterns • Craft specialisation within and between sites, storage, exchange within and between settlements • Temples, priests’ residences, cultic paraphernalia • Evidence of growth, flux, collapse

Pearce (2000) has used the concept of habitus to explore patterns of cuisine at Hacınebi and found that there were distinct differences in the cooking wares used by the local northern and intrusive southern group, respectively; this study is discussed in more detail below. Generally, the presence of the whole assemblage of the southern Uruk material culture on a site – objects, styles of architecture and manufacturing techniques that are unquestionably of southern Mesopotamian origin – is taken as evidence for the presence of southern Uruk settlers on a northern settlement.

Attempts at a division between the chiefdom and state levels of complex society have usually been concerned with quantitative differences, i.e. size or number of levels, as in states having a decision-making hierarchy of three or more levels (Wright and Johnson 1975:267), a minimum of a four-tiered settlement hierarchy (Flannery 1998:21), and controlling a population of over 20.000 individuals (Renfrew and Bahn 1991:155). Others, such as Rothman (2002:49), merely describe states as “societies with a high degree of social, political, and economic complexity”, and some archaeologists, as Yoffee (2005:29) has pointed out, describe complex pre-state societies as chiefdoms simply for lack of a better word. In the present study, chiefdom and state are treated as one level, following Matthews (2003a:94) quoting Earle that “the

3.2. A brief look at the Ubaid period Many of the socio-political developments in Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia saw their initial form in the preceding millennium, which thus requires a brief outline. Evidence from the Ubaid period (Table 3.1) is generally not as well documented from the north as it is

19

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 3.1. Map of the Near East with some of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text. towards the end of the Ubaid period (Stein 1994:38). Richly decorated and furnished temples built on platforms at, for instance, Susa in Iran, and Eridu and Uruk in southern Mesopotamia (Fig. 3.1), point to the existence of one or more individuals able to command a, possibly temporary, large labour force. The niched and decorated platform structure at Susa was roughly ten metres tall and covered about one hectare of a 10 hectare city; it must have been visible from a long distance, acting as a symbol of the centralised power that was able to organise its construction (Pollock 1999:90-91). The presence of three buildings interpreted as, respectively, a temple, a private residence, and a storage structure (containing pots of charred wheat) on top of this platform suggests that elite members among the inhabitants of Susa were able to control the acquisition and redistribution of agricultural goods, and also that they may have had some sort of religious motivation to do so (Pollock 1999:91, Wright, Redding and Pollock 1989:106).

from the south, where more sites from this period have been excavated (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:158). The following outline, therefore, begins with a summary of the evidence from the south, including Iran, before going on to discuss evidence from the north. 3.2.1. Southern Mesopotamia The Ubaid period in southern Mesopotamia saw the organisation of small village communities, usually 5-10 ha in size, into two- or three-level settlement hierarchies (Stein 1994:38, Wright 1994:71), living on a mixed subsistence of farming and animal husbandry, and hunting and gathering. Surveys in the vicinity of the Ubaid period towns of Eridu and Ur (Fig. 3.1) have indicated (from ceramics scatters) that the surrounding smaller settlements cultivated larger areas of land than needed for covering their basic subsistence needs; it has been suggested that these villages may have been providing larger towns with agricultural surplus (Stein 1994:42), and we may see here the beginnings of the Late Chalcolithic tributary economy.

At the city of Uruk, the Ubaid levels of the Eanna cultic precinct have yielded evidence for architecture of a similarly impressive nature; cultic buildings with niched, plastered and whitewashed facades on platforms provide evidence for the cultural continuity with the later Late Chalcolithic cultic architecture (Oates 1983:251-2). Ritual elaboration and cultural continuity is also evidenced in the 1500-year-long sequence of temples at Eridu (Matthews 2003a:102-3).

Animal bones from excavated sites show that sheep, goats, cattle and pigs were kept and that birds, gazelle and onager were hunted (Pollock 1999:81-3). Agricultural products included wheat and barley, flax, figs, lentils, and other pulses, and possibly also a variety of vegetables and fruit that rarely survive to appear in the archaeological record (Miller 1991).

The architectural evidence of the period as well as the settlement patterns mentioned above suggest that surplus products, probably primarily agricultural

Some form of social stratification is evidenced in the architecture and house contents of the time, particularly

20

Archaeological and socio-political overview

products, were finding their way into the major settlements, and also, as Stein (1994:42) has suggested, that this may be interpreted as some level of ritual/cultic mobilisation of the agricultural surplus. In his work on Mesopotamian religion, Jacobsen (1976) has noted that early (i.e., Late Chalcolithic) representations of the Mesopotamian gods were closely connected with the production and acquisition of food, that the gods were seen as providers of the people, and that throughout Mesopotamian history, temples were considered the households of the gods (ibid.:15-16, 25). Once textual evidence becomes available (from the third millennium BC onwards) it is clear that temples played a major role in the storage and redistribution of agricultural goods, using these goods as payment for finished goods and labour (Powell 1990). Buildings with cultic significance may thus have been used for communal storage of agricultural products also by the late fifth millennium BC.

ceramics production became faster. This development is reflected in the decoration of the ceramics at the time, which mainly consists of horizontal bands or wavy lines, easy to make on a rotating object, rather than the more time-consuming decoration in sections as seen in the previous Halaf period (Nissen 1988:46). Speed thus appears to have become important in the manufacture of goods, reflecting the increasingly specialised modes of production during the Ubaid period. Another interesting aspect of the Ubaid ceramic assemblage is its wide spread, in the later half of the period, from southern Mesopotamia up to northern Mesopotamia and also as far south as Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Whether this wide distribution is an effect of direct inter-regional exchange contacts and a certain level of cultural uniformity, or, as suggested by Nissen (1988:61-2, 2001:169), merely the material evidence of the widespread need for, and adoption of, a technological improvement in ceramics production, has been debated. Thin section and neutron activation analyses on Ubaid ceramics found on the Arabian Gulf sites have shown that the majority of the pots derived from southern Mesopotamia (Oates 1983:255), suggesting that the pots had been traded to the Gulf sites, most likely as containers for goods such as wine or oil. On the other hand, Ubaid ceramics found in northern Mesopotamia appear to be predominantly manufactured from local types of clay, supporting Nissen’s hypothesis. Whereas contacts to the south may have been of a primarily, or even exclusively, economic character, contact between southern and northern Mesopotamia appears to have taken place on several levels between communities that were much more culturally similar, as discussed below.

At Susa, compositional analysis of the clays used for the ceramics found within graves in the necropolis has shown that they derived from several different regions, suggesting that vessels may have arrived at Susa along with the bodies of regional elite members (Matthews 2003a:107). Some graves also contained valuable goods such as copper axes and mirrors (Pollock 1999:91). Other types of evidence for social stratification come from Tell Abada in the Hamrin region in Iraq, where considerable variability in house sizes and material wealth within individual houses suggests that some buildings served other purposes than primarily living quarters. The unusual number of infant burials found under the largest house has led some researchers to suggest that it may have had some sort of cultic significance (Jasim and Oates 1986:352). The presence of clay tokens in three of the houses suggests that they may also have served some administrative purpose. Similarly, at Tepe Farukhabad in Iran (Fig. 3.1), two houses with otherwise similar artefact assemblages showed differences in the proportions of animal species consumed, suggesting unequal access to food resources, which again suggests some level of social stratification (Pollock 1999:89).

3.2.2. Northern Mesopotamia Ubaid period sites in the north are mainly restricted to areas along the Euphrates and its tributaries the Balikh and Khabur, and along the Tigris in modern northern Iraq. The sites are generally small – from less than one to four hectares, but some as large as ten hectares – and may in some cases have formed part of two-tier settlement systems (Lupton 1996:34). The architecture found on the sites is mainly of a domestic character, with associated bread ovens and granaries, and the subsistence mode of mixed agriculture and huntinggathering appears to be similar to that described for the south. The production of most commodities is thought to have taken place at the level of small, local workshops, and storage of cereals appears to have been at the household level (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:171). There does not appear to be as much difference in building sizes, or any other markers, such as differences in grave goods, of the beginnings of a non-egalitarian society, as is seen at the late Ubaid sites in the south, though at Tell Ziyadeh the foundations of a structure built on top of three terraces has been found (ibid.:167), reminiscent of the platforms used to house

Architectural remains and the varied contents of buildings from the end of the Ubaid period thus clearly indicate the existence of a relatively stratified society. Stein (1994:41) makes the observation that the largest household at Abada also appeared to be the wealthiest in material remains, corresponding with ethnographic observations of the largest households tending to accumulate the most wealth in a kin-organised society (ibid.). The scale of the temples in the Ubaid period, as well as the evidence for exchange networks discussed below, suggest that Ubaid society, at least in the later phases, was going from a kin-based to a class-based organisation, from a more or less egalitarian society to a hierarchical one on the level of chiefdom/state. The invention of the slow potter’s wheel, or tournette, at the beginning of the Ubaid period meant that

21

A Thousand Years of Farming

temples in southern Mesopotamia. Also, at Tepe Gawra, the Level XIII Northern Temple show similarities, in its plan and elaborate decoration, with contemporary temples in Uruk in southern Mesopotamia (Matthews 2003a:103), indicating not only a certain level of societal complexity, but also contacts between the region around Tepe Gawra and southern Mesopotamia.

cities and dealing with the increasingly more complex urban life through elaborate bureaucratic systems that, among other things, resulted in the invention of writing (Algaze 2001b). New ideologies of leadership were created, that, borrowing the words from Norman Yoffee (2005:42), “insisted that such leadership was not only possible, but the only possibility”. This was an essentially tributary economy, that is, an economy dependent on the gathering of tribute, in the form of goods or labour, to support the ruling elite (Pollock 1999:79-80), the beginnings of which were seen in the later Ubaid period, as we have seen above. Outside the cities, increasingly specialised modes of production were developed in order for rural households to meet the taxation and tribute demands from the growing cities. The urban population included an ever larger number of individuals – artists, administrators, and craftsmen such as potters and weavers – working as full-time specialists within stateorganised, industrial-scale craft production and depending on the subsistence production of others. A complex hierarchical administrative system developed in order to control the transport and distribution of goods between producers and consumers. The availability of a large labour force - and the existence of a class of people powerful enough to exercise control over this force - is attested in the building of monumental architecture such as that found in the city of Uruk. Exotic commodities from distant regions found in the south and the possible foundation of the “Uruk Expansion” colonies in the north and east show how large-scale organisation of long-distance exchange was taking place.

Despite the predominantly local nature of the production of goods, there is also evidence for longdistance exchange contacts. Obsidian and bitumen, for instance, are found on many sites, and must have come from southeast Anatolia and mid-to-southern Mesopotamia, respectively. At the site of Değirmentepe in southeast Anatolia, storage structures as well as large numbers of seals and sealings have been uncovered, leading the excavators to suggest that this settlement was engaged in long-distance exchange with Mesopotamia and Iran (Esin 1989:138). Finally, the spread of the originally southern Ubaid ceramics testify to a certain level of inter-regional contacts during the later half of the Ubaid period, as described above. These initial steps towards increased productivity in ceramics production, as well as the architectural evidence for social stratification described above, imply that the Ubaid period saw the beginnings of the Uruk period economy. The long-distance contacts with Mesopotamia’s neighbours as indicated in the Ubaid period and earlier also appear to directly precede the later ”Uruk Expansion”, indicating that not only did long-distance exchange networks exist before the emergence of cities in southern Mesopotamia, but also that the communities in the “peripheries” of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, rather than being isolated regions, formed part of these networks, participating in the exchange of the goods, ideas and technologies these contacts would have brought with them.

Surface surveys in southern Mesopotamia (Adams 1981, Adams and Nissen 1972) have shown how the Ubaid period settlement pattern of widely dispersed small villages and towns changed dramatically during the Late Chalcolithic. The Early and Middle Uruk period (LC 2-4) saw a large increase in number of settlements on the Mesopotamian alluvium, mainly centred in the area around Nippur. During this period there are also very clear differences in settlement size, with some settlements reaching a size of more than 50 ha, and the city of Uruk over 100 ha. In the LC 5, the area around Uruk appears to have had the highest concentration of population, with Uruk itself reaching a size of about 250 ha (Emberling 2003:259). By this time, the emergence of four-tiered hierarchies of settlement systems is seen (Algaze 2001b:30, Nissen 1988:66). Uruk was, for the whole of the Uruk period, the biggest city in Mesopotamia, and reached a size of 400-550 ha just after the Late Uruk (LC 5) period.

3.3. The Late Chalcolithic As with the Ubaid period discussed above, southern Mesopotamia provides an important background to what is happening in northern Mesopotamia during the Late Chalcolithic. This section, therefore, begins with a summary of the archaeological information we have from the south, including the southern Uruk material assemblage later found in the north, before discussing the local and southern settlements in northern Mesopotamia in more detail. 3.3.1. Southern Mesopotamia From the southern Mesopotamian cities of the Late Chalcolithic we have evidence for a much more complex economic structure than in the preceding Ubaid period. During this period of time, southern Mesopotamia saw the emergence of a highly complex, class-stratified society. Ruled by a political, military and religious elite institutionalised through new forms of art representations, its citizens were living in large

The mere size of the city of Uruk testifies to the complex urban society that was developing on the southern Mesopotamian alluvium. Excavations in the city have concentrated on the two cultic precincts, the Eanna and Kullaba precincts, both located in the centre of the city, where elaborately decorated, large public structures have been uncovered. One such building, the

22

Archaeological and socio-political overview

so-called Limestone Temple, measured some 76 by 30 metres, which is considerably larger than other structures for this and the preceding periods. From the Pillar Temple we have evidence for the southern Mesopotamian tradition of decorating walls with thousands of small baked clay cones in different colours, set in a pattern in the plaster on the wall, a very time-consuming method of decoration. Another example is the White Temple, named after its elaborate white-washed façade, standing on a 13 metre high platform. On the flat, monotonous plain of southern Mesopotamia this temple must have been visible from far away, much as the Susa platform, mentioned above, had been in the Ubaid period.

pictographic sign of a head with a bowl, very similar to the bevelled rim bowl, in front of its mouth. He also argues that most of the bevelled rim bowls fall into roughly the same size, with a volume corresponding almost exactly to a labourer’s daily ration in grain, as mentioned in texts from later periods (Nissen 1988:845), though this size standardisation has been questioned (Beale 1978, Emberling et al. 1999:6-9). Akkermans and Schwartz (2003:197) have wisely pointed out that the bevelled rim bowls may very well have served more than a single purpose. Even with the exact function of the bevelled rim bowls unknown to us, however, the vast numbers of these vessels that have been found, and their wide geographical distribution, certainly do testify to the levels of complex economic organisation that was taking place in the Late Chalcolithic, and the wideranging contacts between the different regions of Greater Mesopotamia. Badler (2002:84) notes how the technique of manufacturing the bevelled rim bowls is identical on a wide range of Late Uruk sites, and, as Nissen has argued in the case of the earlier Ubaid ceramics (1988 and section 3.2.1), Badler argues that this reflects a transfer of technology taking place between southern Mesopotamia and its neighbouring regions.

These brief examples clearly show that a vast investment in full-time specialist labour was needed in order to produce and maintain these buildings of monumental size and decoration; it has been estimated that the White Temple Complex would have involved 1500 labourers working for ten hours a day over a fiveyear period (Nissen 1988:95), and there is no doubt that the organisation of a work force of this scale on a long-term project would have necessitated high-level organisation of a wide segment of the population. The increasingly specialised and stratified Late Chalcolithic society is clearly evidenced in the developments of ceramics production during the fourth millennium BC. From the beginning of this time, the hand- or tournette-made painted Ubaid pottery is replaced by wheel-made, mostly undecorated, pottery, and mass-produced pottery, most importantly the bevelled rim bowls, which are seen already in the LC 2 and which have been found in great numbers everywhere from southern Mesopotamia to southeastern Turkey and southern Iran. These coarse and irregular bowls - Badler (2002:84) claims they represent “the ultimate triumph of function over aesthetics” - were made by pressing clay into a mould (but see Badler (ibid.) for a different opinion on their manufacture) and cutting off excess clay at the rim, a method that made it possible to produce a large number of vessels within a very short time; the tempering of the clay with large amounts of straw meant that the bowls needed shorter drying and firing time as well as lower firing temperature (Buccellati 1990:21, Schwartz 2001:237) – another indication that speed was probably the most important consideration in the production of bevelled rim bowls.

Other evidence for the complexity of the southern Uruk communities is the vast number of seals, sealings, tablets, bullae and clay tokens reflecting the Uruk administrative system. Bullae, hollow clay balls containing clay tokens thought to act as a security that the correct number of items was being handled, appear to be early accounting devices used in the trade and transport of goods, though their exact function is unclear (Jasim and Oates 1986). Seals, mainly in the form of carved stone cylinders, were used to authorise and document the packing and transport of commodities by rolling the seal over the clay that was used to seal the containers. The variety of designs cut in the seals may reflect the hierarchical levels in the Uruk administrative system, with a larger variety of seal designs reflecting a higher number of hierarchical levels (Pollock 1999:93, Wright and Johnson 1975). The seals also document the complexity of the Late Chalcolithic economy through their repertoire of designs. Some depictions on seals and sealings show people engaged in “assembly line” production, i.e. potters or weavers in a row, indicating the industrialscale specialisation of craft production that emerged in the Late Chalcolithic (Pollock 1999:97). Cylinder seals were a replacement of the earlier stamp seals; the larger space in which to carve the owner’s motives on a cylinder meant that not only could a larger variety of seals (and hence levels of administration, cf. Wright and Johnson 1975) be used in transactions, but it also meant that seals could show enough variation in their motives to be distinguishable to people not directly associated with the owners/bearers of a particular seal (Nissen 2002:10). Large-scale, impersonal, transactions

It is unclear what the function of these bowls may have been: suggestions have varied from bread moulds (Millard 1988), cultic presentation bowls for ritual offerings (Beale 1978), containers for salt-making (Buccellati 1990, Oates 2002:120), and ration vessels for either staple food products such as grain (Nissen 1988:83-85) or already cooked meals (Palmieri 1989:423). The suggestion that the bevelled rim bowls are for the distribution of rations has been most widely accepted; Hans Nissen (1988:85) has suggested that the cuneiform sign for “to eat” is derived from the early

23

A Thousand Years of Farming

are also reflected in the ability of the cylinder seal to cover larger areas of sealing clay faster, not only improving the speed of the transaction, but also improving security, making it more difficult to disguise unauthorised opening of an item (ibid.).

and southeast Turkey as a consequence, has also prompted a large number of rescue excavations to be conducted in these regions. The traditional view of Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia from a southern perspective is, therefore, being supplemented by results from more recent investigations in the north, forcing researchers to continually revise their theories about the history of Mesopotamia during this period of time. A change from primarily site- or regionally limited investigations to an inter-regional perspective on the history of Mesopotamia has been made from the understanding that developments in any one region can only be understood within a wider context including neighbouring regions (Algaze 2001b:37).

The already rather complex accounting system of bullae and seals was improved with the invention of the pictographic script written on clay tablets, which was able to include a larger variety of information than previously (Nissen, Damerow and Englund 1993). Some of the earliest tablets of pictographic script are from the city of Uruk, Eanna precinct level IVa from the Late Uruk period (though the date of this context is not entirely secure) and the script is, in the words of Hans Nissen, “merely a refinement of existing controlling devices for another 500 years until literary texts appear” (Nissen 1987:287), that is, its primary use is as a counting and registration tool. The early tablets all appear to have been concerned with either the recording of commodities, or with lexicographical lists, which were probably used for teaching scribes the discipline of writing. One of the lexicographical lists, the “Titles and Professions List” from Eanna level IV, appears to list some 130 specialised personnel in rank order (Algaze 2001b:35) and, though not all of the contents is clear to us, it does provide us with convincing evidence for the hierarchical administrative system of this period.

With the recent focus on northern Mesopotamia it has become increasingly clear that settlements in this region were considerably more complex than initially thought. Recent excavations and survey studies have provided evidence for an independent northern urban development, challenging the view of the pre-eminence of the south. This is based, among other things, on the large size of the northern settlements, their substantial public architecture, and the finds of artefacts indicating both a high level of technology, centralised administration of goods, and wide-ranging exchange contacts. Most significantly, indications of increased societal complexity have appeared from archaeological levels dated to before the southern Uruk intrusion into northern Mesopotamia, and thus provide evidence for an indigenous development of societal complexity, rather than, as earlier thought, a response to the presence of southern Uruk settlers (Oates et al. 2007, Ur et al. 2007).

There is only limited archaeobotanical evidence from southern Mesopotamia in the Late Chalcolithic, but generally the assemblage of plants and animals exploited does not seem to change between the fifth and fourth millennia BC. A large pit excavated in the Middle Uruk settlement of Sharafabad on the Susiana Plain, SW Iran (Wright, Redding and Pollock 1989), has provided evidence for the cultivation of wheat and barley, and possibly also lentils, grape, peas, flax, olives and figs. Barley predominates on a range of southern fourth millennium sites, such as Abu Salabikh, Khafajah, Kish and Jemdet Nasr on the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, and Sharafabad and Farukhabad on the Susiana Plain (Wright 2001:131). There are no reported finds of storage contexts from Late Chalcolithic sites, but evidence for the redistribution of, possibly agricultural, goods as labourrations does indicate that communal storage activities were taking place at the time.

A study of north Mesopotamian settlement patterns (Lupton 1996) has indicated that the northern settlements were not affected to any large extent by the presence of southern Mesopotamian settlers. Lupton argues that the area around Tell Brak, for instance, most probably had a three-tier settlement system before contact with southerners (ibid.:34), and that northern Mesopotamia in general was organised into hierarchically structured regional systems (ibid.:99), with little change from contacts with southerners. The amount of influence southern Mesopotamia may have had on the formation of northern Mesopotamian complex society is, therefore, possibly of a lesser degree than initially anticipated. Late Chalcolithic reported archaeobotanical remains from northern Mesopotamia are scarce. However, barley predominates at Hacınebi and Kazane Höyük, whereas in some Taurus region sites, such as Korucutepe and Fatmalı-Kalecik, wheat appears to be the dominating crop (Wright 2001) and both types of crops are present in roughly equal proportions in Umm Qseir and Kashkashok II (McCorriston and Weisberg 2002). Cultivated grapes and various pulses (lentil, common pea, grass pea) have been found at Kurban Höyük (Lupton 1996:61, Miller 1991). None of the charred plant remains are reported to have been from

3.3.2. Northern Mesopotamia and the “Uruk Expansion” Archaeological investigations in Mesopotamia were primarily focused on remains in modern Iraq and Iran until the 1980s, when political unrest caused by the Iran-Iraq war, and later the first Gulf War in the 1990s, forced a movement of research focus to the adjacent regions, with an increased number of excavations and surveys in Syria and southeast Turkey as the result. The construction of dams from the 1970s to the present, and the flooding of vast areas of land in Syria

24

Archaeological and socio-political overview

storage contexts, but certainly for some of the larger sites in the region it is likely that agricultural goods were brought on-site from a larger hinterland, much as it was in the south. The archaeobotanical evidence is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

establishment of southern Uruk colonies in the north. One model, advocated primarily by Algaze (1989, 1993, 2001a, 2001b), views southern Mesopotamia as significantly more socio-politically complex than its neighbours to the north and east, and regards the interaction between these areas as one of asymmetric exchange, with the socio-politically advanced southern Mesopotamian states dominating the relations with their less developed peripheries to the economic advantage of the former and the gradual destabilisation of the latter, weaker, communities exposed to this form of trade.

A number of northern sites, mainly those which have been reported on most extensively in recent years, are described below in order to assess the political and socio-economic situation in northern Mesopotamia. The sites can be divided into three groups, and are discussed within them in the sections below: 1) indigenous northern sites with occupation levels contemporary with the Uruk Expansion but with no signs of a southern intrusion onto the site, 2) indigenous northern sites with evidence for a southern Uruk presence in some levels, 3) colony sites established and lived in by southerners.

Following Algaze (1989, 1993), who used Wallerstein’s (1974) “World Systems Theory” as an explanatory model for the ”Uruk Expansion”, southern Mesopotamian “core” communities controlled the exchange and distribution of goods with their “peripheries” by founding a number of trading outposts in the neighbouring regions, either on or near indigenous settlements, or in previously uninhabited areas of land near major trade routes such as the Euphrates. The superiority of the southern Mesopotamian polities meant that the south had “an overwhelming influence, if not downright control” (Algaze 1993:111) over the exchange economy of the north, but, significantly, did not exercise political control (though Algaze (2001b:43) does suggest that actual colonisation of stretches of land along the Upper Euphrates may have taken place in the later stages of the Late Chalcolithic). The establishment of colonies focusing on trade, of an “informal empire” (Algaze 1993:115), was to the advantage of the southern Mesopotamian cities, as they were able to control the flow of goods to the alluvial plain without the extra costs of having to maintain overall political domination of the peripheries.

Before outlining the archaeological evidence for the northern Late Chalcolithic sites, however, it is appropriate to review the current theories regarding the character of the ”Uruk Expansion”. 3.3.2.1. The ”Uruk Expansion”: theories and explanations Regardless of the character of the ”Uruk Expansion”, there is no doubt that north-south interaction took place during the Late Chalcolithic. The establishment of southern Mesopotamian colonies in the north, and the cultural interaction between the two regions that followed, took place over more than 700 years (Wright 2001:126). The earlier colonies, appearing in the late LC 2, took the shape of enclaves within local northern settlements, such as Hacınebi (Stein 2000) in southeast Turkey and Tell Brak in northeast Syria. Indigenous northern sites appear to have been occupied by southerners who may have taken over some settlements in their entirety, or otherwise settled in either a part of the settlement or in the vicinity, and apparently lived peacefully with the local community.

According to Algaze’s model, one of the most important aspects of the ”Uruk Expansion”, in a wider historical perspective, was that the exports from southern Mesopotamia - Algaze maintains that the collection and distribution of goods took place at statelevel (2001b:34) - were probably, for the most part, finished goods. This would have important economic, political and social effects on the southern cities; the investment in a significant permanent labour force specialising in the processing of raw materials and the organisation of the distribution of goods helped creating a complex hierarchical administrative system, as well as systems of communication (i.e. writing), that were necessary for controlling a larger state. The communities on the periphery, on the other hand, which merely provided the southern cities with raw materials, would not develop the same level of political and social complexity.

Later, during the LC 4 and 5, isolated southern Mesopotamian colonies were founded, as exemplified by the Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas/Jebel Aruda complex (Strommenger 1980), and Hassek Höyük (Algaze 1993). There is only limited evidence for interaction with the local communities from these sites, and the presence of protective city walls suggests that relations with the local northern population may have changed. For the purpose of the present study, the ”Uruk Expansion” is discussed within the context of northern Mesopotamia only, though a similar development is thought to have taken place to the east, on the Susiana plain in Iran. There are considerably different views as to the character of north-south contacts, especially regarding the level of southern domination over the northern communities, and the major factor(s) in the

Since Algaze’s initial publications, a number of scholars have focused their research on the ”Uruk Expansion” and often questioned the validity of this core-periphery model (inter alia Frangipane 1997, Gosden 2004, Lupton 1996, Postgate 2002, Rothman

25

A Thousand Years of Farming

2001b, Stein 2000). This is not least in the light of recent excavations in the “peripheries”. The major points of debate within ”Uruk Expansion” research are the differences in socio-political complexity between the southern and northern communities, the degree to which northern communities were affected by the southern presence, the reason for contact, and the function of the “colonies” or enclaves within local northern sites.

the abundance, however, of spindle whorls at northern settlements, and, for example, the large numbers of what is believed to be spools for thread at Tell Brak (Emberling and McDonald 2003:3), suggest that textile production was already on an industrial scale in the north, and the Hacınebi ceramics, and the Tell Brak administrative assemblage, have shown that the developments in pottery production and administrative organisation, for example, were independent from developments in the south. With the abundance of raw materials and the high level of technology in the north, it is questionable whether the southerners had anything to offer of particular attraction to the northerners (Stein 2000:20).

Among scholars arguing for a Late Chalcolithic exchange network on a much more equal level between the south and the north are Frangipane and Stein, excavators of the local northern settlements of Arslantepe and Hacınebi, respectively, who argue not only for the presence of evidence for a much higher level of socio-political complexity in the local northern communities than Algaze hypothesizes, but also for the absence of evidence for southern domination of these communities. Frangipane (1997:46-7) is reluctant to believe that polities in the south were able to control an exchange system on this geographical scale, a view she shares with Johnson (1988-89). Frangipane argues that large northern centres such as Nineveh and Tell Brak would have “neither the physical nor the political space for an alien settlement” (Frangipane 1997:47). In contrast to Algaze, Frangipane (ibid.:48) argues that the success of the Uruk exchange system, which she interprets as the intensification of already existing exchange contacts (Frangipane 2002:129), was due, not to the domination of less socially complex northern communities by southerners, but to the fact that some northern settlements such as Arslantepe were already well-organised regional centres, exercising the control of the local populations needed to ensure the necessary flow of goods. Stein (2000, 2001) is of the same opinion and argues that northern settlements merely intensified trade relations by the time of the arrival of southerners. Rather than being overtaken by the southern settlers, they were able to control the level and pace of interaction with the southern settlers, and to maintain their cultural identities. Rothman (2002:58) agrees with both Stein and Frangipane in the argument that the southern Uruk presence in northern Mesopotamia should not be viewed in terms of southern dominance or colonialism. On the contrary, he argues that the ”Uruk Expansion” represents an increase in economic exchanges between the two regions to the benefit of both north and south. Northerners are not expanding south because they inhabit less developed societies, but because they do not have to, living, as they do, in the resource-rich north (ibid.).

Schwartz (1988) uses the analogy of the 8th century BC Greek colonisation of the Mediterranean (ibid.:9) to suggest that the expansion of southern Mesopotamian settlements to the north was related to overpopulation and major social changes in the south, and aimed at control of agricultural land, rather than control of trade routes. Johnson (1988-89) has argued that the colony sites are simply too large, too elaborate and too many to merely function as trade stations (a point shared with Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:204), and suggests that they may have housed refugees from the southern plain, having fled the southern cities after political unrest or, as Schwartz (1988) argues, in search of land. Indications that wool production became increasingly important in southern Mesopotamia during the Late Chalcolithic (Pollock 1999:109) have made some researchers propose that the southern Uruk colonies in the north could have been established to control grazing land for sheep and goats in order to supply the southern Mesopotamian textile production with raw materials without having to use valuable agricultural land in the south (McCorriston 1997:534, Wright 1989:599-600). Gosden (2004:2) argues that the concepts of “colonialism” and “colonies” not necessarily always occur at the same time. Rather than seeing the foundation of actual southern Mesopotamian colonies in the north, Gosden sees the “Uruk Expansion” as colonialism in a shared cultural milieu, as “a new grip that material culture gets on people” (ibid.:39). He sees a colonialism without colonies in the traditional sense of the word, but views the “Uruk Expansion” as an event where items of southern Mesopotamian material culture have ceased to have meaning and value strictly within one group, i.e. southern Mesopotamia, but have gone on to convey meaning and value to groups outside of their original sphere.

Researchers who have argued against trade as the primary motivating factor have asked why the northern settlements would have needed southern Mesopotamian goods at all. Though there is no evidence for southern Uruk finished goods on the periphery sites that can definitely be identified as southern trade exports (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:204), textiles are proposed as the primary export;

3.3.2.2. Northern “independent” sites: Arslantepe and Tepe Gawra Arslantepe At the site of Arslantepe, near Malatya in modern southeast Turkey (Fig. 3.1), the excavators have uncovered Late Chalcolithic occupation levels showing

26

Archaeological and socio-political overview

a distinct northern, independent, development in the production and administration of goods (Frangipane 1997, 2001 and 2002). There is no evidence for the presence of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site. From Arslantepe period VII, covering LC 2-4 (Frangipane 2002:123), plaster-decorated monumental buildings, as well as mass-produced ceramics and sealings, have been uncovered within a purely local context. One “ceremonial building” from this level stood on a raised basement and included a hall 18 metres long (Frangipane 2001:328). The building contained large amounts of mass produced pots and a number of clay sealings; it may have been used for the collection and redistribution of goods and provides indications for the centralisation and administrative control of these goods by an elite group (Frangipane 2002:124). The excavators have suggested that the building may have been used for the ceremonial distribution of meals (Frangipane 2001:329). Also from this level sherds of Anatolian red-black burnished ware are seen, indicating the long-distance contacts Arslantepe must have had with the central Anatolian regions (Frangipane 2002:125).

Tepe Gawra Tepe Gawra on the Iraqi Jezira (Fig. 3.1) is a small site with levels covering the whole of the Late Chalcolithic (Rothman 2002:50), with Gawra level VIII dated to the arrival of southerners in the north. The site appears to have been engaged in long-distance exchange with the Khabur region, Iran and Afghanistan from early onwards (ibid.:51); the Northern Temple in Ubaid period level XIII mentioned above (section 3.2.2), show similarities with contemporary temples in the south, testifying to Tepe Gawra’s southern contacts already by this time. The settlement appears to have become increasingly specialised through time: level XII, dated to the LC 1, has yielded mass-produced ceramics, seals and sealings, and what appears to be grain storage facilities and areas for the sorting of goods, containing obsidian blades and items of gold and lapis lazuli (ibid.:59). The grain storerooms contained large amounts of “wide flower pots”, a mass produced ware similar to the bevelled rim bowl, which may be associated with a ration system (ibid.). This and the following levels (XI/XA) see specialised production, such as weaving, woodworking and bead carving, centralised in special-function buildings (Rothman 2001a:387).

Level VIA, dated to the LC 5 and thus contemporary with the presence of southern Mesopotamian settlers in the north, contains a large complex of public buildings arranged on different terraces on a slope, with religious and other seemingly important buildings at the top and “service areas”, including storage areas, on the lower terraces (ibid.:127). More than two thousand sealings have been found within the complex, representing about two hundred different seals, and testifying to the multileveled hierarchical bureaucratic system that must have been in operation by this time (ibid.). The excavators have noted how many of the sealings show signs of having been taken away while still wet, i.e. within less than 24 hours of an item having been sealed, indicating the intensive administration taking place on the settlement (Frangipane 2001:336).

Tepe Gawra appears to have functioned as a local centre, with central grain warehouses, specialised craft activities, and long-distance exchange contacts. The dispersal patterns of the many seals and sealings found on the site shows how the administration of goods within the settlement changes through time (Rothman 2001a:389-90): increasing centralisation of the administration is evidenced by the concentration of seals/sealings in fewer areas; whereas in level XII seals/sealings were present in virtually every building on the site, in levels XI/XA they are predominantly present in the specialised craft areas, and in level X most seals/sealings are associated with the temple (Rothman 2002:59). In level VIII, coinciding with the arrival of southerners in the region, seals/sealings are again found in all buildings on the settlement, but as the same design of sealing is found in all buildings, it suggests that the same group of people may have been controlling the movement of all goods (Rothman 2001a:390).

Though an increase in the levels and intensity of administration can be assessed at Arslantepe after the arrival of southerners in the region, the underlying agents of this development appear to have been primarily local. The continuity in the development of mass produced pots, for instance, between level VII, dated to before the arrival of southerners in the region, and the Late Uruk level VIA, shows how this development, though influenced by southern Mesopotamian style and technology, was more likely a response to internal developments within the indigenous community than an effect exclusively of the arrival of southerners (ibid.:327). The citizens of Arslantepe, already engaged in long-distance exchange with communities to the north and east, appear to have taken advantage of the arrival of southern Mesopotamian traders by increasing the control of the movement of goods in the area.

Mortuary practices at Tepe Gawra show increasing social differentiation through time in the shape of grave goods. Level X-VIII (late LC 2 to LC 3) tombs include items of shell, precious metals and semi-precious stone (Rothman 2001a:392-3), which apart from societal complexity also indicate connections with longdistance exchange partners. There does appear to be an increase in trade by the time of the arrival of southerners; from level VIII, contemporary with Tell Brak TW 14-17 (LC 3; Table 3.2), large numbers of unused obsidian blades have been found, which may have been destined for a southern Mesopotamian city – obsidian blades were found in the Riemchengebäude in Uruk (Rothman 2002:60). Trade with southerners,

27

A Thousand Years of Farming

however, does not appear to influence the economy or politics at the site; there is no significant change in the richness of grave goods between the levels dated to before the arrival of southerners in the region and level VIII (Rothman 2001a:399), and neither do southern Mesopotamian goods appear to have been found on the settlement. The interpretation of Tepe Gawra is thus the same as that for Arslantepe: the settlement was already of a complex organisation engaged in longdistance exchange by the time of the arrival of southern Mesopotamians, controlling the access of goods in the region to their own benefit.

shape of a child burial containing three rings of silver and copper, whereas most graves contained no grave goods at all (ibid.). The sum of the evidence has made the excavators suggest that once Uruk settlers arrived at Hacınebi, they had to deal with an already wealthy and complex society controlling the distribution and production of copper in the region (ibid.:151). Studies of a range of artefacts found at Hacınebi have underlined the differences between the local, northern Anatolian, and southern Mesopotamian occupation areas. There is a clear difference in the technological styles of the chipped stone tool assemblages between the Anatolian and southern Mesopotamian occupation areas (Edens 2000:32), and also in the butchering techniques, mortality patterns and the proportion of different animal species in the faunal assemblages, with sheep and goats comprising an average 50% in the local assemblages and almost 80% in the southern Uruk deposits (Bigelow 2000:87-8). There seems to be a general emphasis on the herding of sheep and goats in southern Mesopotamia and cattle in northern Mesopotamia, probably mainly due to the fact that sheep can manage high temperatures, like those in the southern alluvium, much better than cattle. The faunal remains from the southern Uruk deposits at Hacınebi, with high levels of sheep/goat, are therefore likely to reflect a continuation of the southern tradition of animal husbandry.

3.3.2.3. Northern indigenous sites with southern Uruk occupation: Hacınebi Tepe Hacınebi Tepe in southeast Anatolia is an indigenous northern site with evidence for an enclave of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site around 3700 BC, the LC 3 (Stein 2002:149). The earlier, local phases A and early B1 are characterised by traditional Anatolian ceramic types and no evidence for contacts with southern Mesopotamia is evident until late B1 when bevelled rim bowls appear, followed by the full southern Mesopotamian cultural assemblage in phase B2 (ibid.:149-50). From this latter phase, finds of southern material culture was confined to the northern part of the settlement, while on the remaining parts of the site, deposits of local material show a continuation from the earlier local levels. The artefactual assemblage from the southern Uruk occupation area contains the entire southern ceramic repertoire of types made using typical southern temper and techniques, cylinder seal impressions, clay bullae, clay sickles, and ceramic wall cones. Analysis of a clay tablet and several jar sealings found in the southern Mesopotamian deposits has shown that they were made from clay from the Susiana and Deh Luran plains in Iran (ibid.:152).

A study of the ceramics at Hacınebi (Pearce 2000) has shown differences between the use patterns of local and southern Uruk cooking vessels, reflecting differences in food preparation and consumption. Whereas southern Uruk cooking pots are usually of a relatively small, globular shape, the local chaff-tempered cooking pots consist primarily of more open and bigger “casserole” types, suggesting differences in cooking routines (ibid.:41). The large local serving and cooking vessels are also mainly suitable for communal consumption, whereas the comparatively smaller sandtempered southern Uruk ceramics are suitable for individual portions (ibid.:39). Where local Anatolians appear to have been served large portions of food, the southerners seem to have been given smaller, but perhaps more numerous, dishes to eat.

As at Arslantepe and Tepe Gawra, independent northern societal complexity is evidenced in the local phases at Hacınebi by a monumental architectural construction, possibly elite residences or a public building, built on a platform; a three metre thick niched and buttressed enclosure wall, and storage structures (Stein 2002:150). Advanced metallurgical activities are attested by the finds of copper-casting moulds, crucible fragments, a tuyère and smelting pit furnaces; Stein (ibid.) notes that the smelting and casting of copper was the most advanced technology in the Late Chalcolithic, testifying to the high-level technological knowledge of the inhabitants of the site.

These studies underline an important aspect of the Hacınebi southern and local assemblages, that is, none of the two groups appear to have been influenced by the presence of the other to any great extent – apart from the adoption of the bevelled rim bowl by the Anatolian community, there does not seem to have been any emulation of southern styles by the Anatolians, despite the presence of southerners on the site for possibly up to two hundred years (Stein 2000:19). Typical of this situation is the finds of cylinder seals only in the southern Mesopotamian deposits, while stamp seals are found only in local northern deposits (Stein 2002:152). Finds of wheelmade fine ware ceramics in the occupation phases dated to before the arrival of southerners show that the

The participation in long-distance exchange and the administration of the movement of goods are evidenced by the presence of stamp seals with a variety of designs, and items of chlorite and marine shell, as well as the copper, the nearest source of which is the Ergani copper mines, 200 km to the north (ibid.). Mortuary practices also suggest some level of social stratification, including hereditary elite status, in the

28

Archaeological and socio-political overview

pottery wheel was already in use before southern contacts in the LC 5, and was not a product of the ”Uruk Expansion” (Stein et al. 1997:155). Neither does there appear to be any change in the character or intensity of textile production as a result of the northsouth interaction, judging from the similar amounts and types of spindle whorls found in levels before and after the arrival of southerners at Hacınebi (Keith 1997:138). Similarly, the southerners do not appear to have been influenced by their northern neighbours either: several types of evidence have been mentioned above, and Rothman (2002:57), furthermore, notes how the settlers at Hacınebi farmed with traditional southern Mesopotamian methods, including the use of baked clay sickles, which would not have been necessary in the flint- and obsidian-rich northern region.

Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas/Jebel Aruda The southern colony of Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas, with its supposed cult or elite complex on Jebel Aruda, appears to have been inhabited for 100 to 150 years during the LC 4, between 3500 and 3300 BC. The town covered at least 18 ha and probably housed 6-8000 citizens; it had a colossal city wall with towers, broad main streets paved with pebbles, drainage systems, administrative, industrial and residential areas, and an enclosed “cult precinct”, Tell Qannas, with monumental architecture, all of it apparently laid out according to a pre-conceived city plan (Strommenger 1980). The associated complex of buildings on Jebel Aruda lay some eight kilometres further north, on a promontory overlooking the Euphrates and the plains. The town appeared to have replaced an earlier shortlived settlement. As the site had not been inhabited after it was abandoned in the Late Chalcolithic, the excavators were able to uncover large horizontal areas of the town and map a considerable part of the settlement.

Apparently, rather than dominating the local population, the southerners were only able to stay at Hacınebi through the goodwill of local rulers. The study of the chipped stone and faunal assemblages throw an interesting light on this aspect: Bigelow (2000:86) did not see any evidence for social stratification within the faunal assemblages, as similar proportions of meat-rich and meat-poor animal parts were found in local and southern Uruk deposits, suggesting that each group was economically selfsufficient. Similarly, Edens (2000:33) has pointed out that the distinctly southern technique of hafting and maintaining sickles that was used in the southern Uruk area suggests that the southerners harvested their own crops rather than hiring or forcing locals to provide them with crops. From the evidence presented here it does not seem likely that the inhabitants of the southern Uruk enclave at Hacınebi commanded any power over the local Anatolians. Rather, the southern Uruk occupation bears more resemblance to the independent southern Mesopotamia colony sites described below.

Jebel Aruda contained two monumental, niched and buttressed, buildings on terraces, reminiscent of southern Mesopotamian temples. Associated with the buildings were other buildings of a more residential type: it has been suggested that they may have been elite residences and that Jebel Aruda functioned as the administrative centre for Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas and other southern Uruk colonies in the area (Algaze 1993:25). Southern Uruk occupation has been more or less certainly identified at seven more sites in this region along the Euphrates (ibid.:29). The material assemblage of this settlement complex – architecture, pottery, accounting-devices – is virtually indistinguishable from that found in the city of Uruk 12-1300 km further south. The use of tripartite (or Mittelsaal) architecture with southern-style “Riemchen” bricks and key-hole shaped hearths, clay cone decorations, bullae and numerical tablets, cylinder seals and mass-produced ceramics, completely identical to the southern Uruk assemblage, does suggest that these similarities in architecture, iconography and administration mean that also the underlying ideology and economy was of a southern Mesopotamian nature (Algaze 1993:38-9). The excavators have therefore concluded that this settlement and its cult precinct were lived in by southern Mesopotamians, who appear to have lived there independently from the local population.

3.3.2.4. Southern Mesopotamian Uruk colonies: the Habuba Kabira complex and Hassek Höyük The later type of southern Uruk settlements, the seemingly isolated settlements founded on previously uninhabited land, is exemplified by the Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas/Jebel Aruda complex (Algaze 1993, Strommenger 1980) in the Tabqa Dam area along the Euphrates in northwest Syria, and the site of Hassek Höyük (Algaze 1993, Lupton 1996) some 120 km. further north along the Euphrates, in southeast Turkey (Fig. 3.1). These settlements appear to have been built, and lived in, by southerners only, and in general there does not seem to have been much interaction between the southern Mesopotamian settlers and the indigenous population in the surrounding areas. It is worth noting that both Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas and Hassek Höyük were fortified in later occupation stages, indicating that whatever interaction with a local population may have taken place, it may not always have been peaceful.

Hassek Höyük Hassek Höyük was of a much smaller size than Habuba Kabira/Tell Qannas, roughly 1 ha, and the most remarkable feature of this site is its apparent isolation, as it is situated much further north than any other southern Mesopotamian colony. Algaze (1993:50) suggests the purpose of the location of Hassek Höyük was to control the crossing of the Euphrates into the

29

A Thousand Years of Farming

Anatolian plain from northern Mesopotamia. Occupation of the site covers the LC 3-4; a mud brick fortification wall with niches and towers surrounds a small temple, domestic and storage buildings (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:196). Cylinder seals and bullae indicate the connection with southern Mesopotamia (Lupton 1996:59), while northern stamp seals and local chaff-tempered pottery indicates some level of contact with the local population. It has been suggested that Hassek Höyük functioned as a specialist production centre, due to the large amounts of flint cores and Canaanean blades found on-site (Oates and Oates 1993:174).

does suggest that any southern Mesopotamians arriving in the north met with an already thriving, complex urban environment engaged in long-distance exchange and controlling access to the goods that were valued by the southerners. As mentioned above, northern Mesopotamian settlement patterns did not show any effect from the presence of southern Mesopotamian settlers, with several northern sites, including Tell Brak, already in multi-tiered settlement patterns by the time of contact with southerners (Lupton 1996:34). Though Algaze (2001b:66-8) argues that the northern societies had not reached the level of organisational complexity equivalent to that in the south, evidence from both Hacınebi and Tell Brak are sufficient to show that northern Mesopotamian communities had a high enough level of organisation not to be exploited or otherwise economically or politically affected by contacts with southern Mesopotamia. Rather, from the archaeological evidence it appears that the northern settlements merely increased trade relations with their neighbours, probably to their mutual benefit. Though there may have been a difference in the level of societal complexity between the cities to the south and in the north, this difference does not appear to have affected north-south interaction to the benefit of the southerners.

3.3.3. Evidence for north-south interaction The sites discussed above are examples of northern Mesopotamian Late Chalcolithic settlements. A further large number of Late Chalcolithic sites have been surveyed or excavated in northern Mesopotamia, among them Hamoukar, with extensive occupation levels, and evidence for a large city wall, from the LC 2 and LC 3 (Gibson et al. 2002), and Tell al-Hawa, which is suggested to have reached a size of roughly 50 ha during the LC 2 (Matthews 2003c, Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:190) and may have been a regional centre at this time, like Tell Brak (Matthews 2003c:33). At Grai Resh a massive mud brick wall of probably late fourth millennium BC date has been uncovered (ibid.). Tell ‘Abr and Jerablus Tahtani both show material evidence for a southern Mesopotamian presence; from Jerablus bitumen residues have been found that may have derived from Hit (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:196). Bitumen was also found at Sheikh Hassan, one of the Tabqa Dam colonies. Further north from the Tabqa Dam group is another cluster of, so far, 18 southern sites of village-size along the Euphrates between Birecik and Jerablus. From Carchemish typical southern Uruk ceramics and a cylinder seal has been found among deep southern Uruk occupation levels (Algaze 1993:29). Nineveh on the Iraqi Jezira appears to have been settled by southerners, and show typical southern Mesopotamian artefacts (Algaze 1993:37, 40), as do Kurban Höyük and Samsat downriver from Hassek Höyük. At Tell Leilan, bevelled rim bowls appear among local ceramics above a long sequence of local northern occupation (Algaze 1993:91), and at Tell Mashnaqa levels with local northern ceramics change into levels with typical southern Mesopotamian ceramics and the construction of a large circular “fort” (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:200).

Judging from the available evidence, and the long history and obvious importance of inter-regional exchange in Mesopotamia, the function of the southern colony and enclave sites in the north appears to be primarily connected with trade. Southern Uruk enclaves on already inhabited local northern sites are unlikely to have been set up in order to exploit land for cultivation or grazing, as this would mean competing for land with the already established local communities. The comparatively larger area of land needed for cultivation in the north than in the south was discussed in the previous chapter. Sites like Habuba Kabira and Hassek Höyük, on the other hand, with their isolated location, may have taken advantage of the surrounding land available for agriculture and/or pastoralism, but were most probably also, perhaps primarily, engaged in trade with the northern communities. By the time of the Early Dynastic period, i.e. early third millennium BC (Table 3.1), the southern Uruk colony sites had been abandoned. On many of the local northern Mesopotamian sites with southern Uruk material remains, there is either a discontinuation of occupation or a change to a completely local northern material culture at this time. At Tell Brak, however, north-south contacts seem to have continued, as evidenced by the presence of southern Jemdet Nasr pottery not usually found outside southern Mesopotamia (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:207). Whether this development in northern Mesopotamia meant a complete discontinuation of contacts with the south – apart from those of Tell Brak – or whether

The sheer number of more or less definitely identified southern Uruk colonies in northern Mesopotamia (Algaze (2001b:43) mentions 28 known sites in the Upper Euphrates area, alone) makes Algaze (ibid.) suggest that we cannot leave out the possibility of a full-scale southern Uruk colonisation of (at least parts of) northern Mesopotamia, rather than merely the setting up of colonies at convenient locations. The archaeological data reviewed above, however, certainly

30

Archaeological and socio-political overview

contacts continued but in a different “format” is difficult to determine, but given the long-term trade relations that had existed before the Late Chalcolithic, and the continued need for goods on the southern plain, it is most likely that contacts were continued.

Southern Mesopotamian conquest or colonization: hierarchical crop divisions, culturally derived crop preferences, and a division of producer/consumer areas. Possibly intensification of crop production to cater for the new group of occupants.

3.3.3.1. Archaeobotanical predictions

Southern Mesopotamian acculturation: absence of “southern” crops, or, if present, crops are so in both southern and northern material culture assemblages. Otherwise no changes to the agricultural economy.

implications

and

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the “Uruk Expansion” may be reflected archaeobotanically on archaeological sites, including Tell Brak, given the importance of the agricultural economy. Several scenarios are predicted, depending on the character of this event, and are summarised here:

Finally, the growth of cities has to be considered, which happened regardless of the character of the “Uruk Expansion”; this is predicted to be reflected in an intensification of crop production to cater for a growing population.

31

Chapter 4 Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south A third millennium BC tablet from nearby Tell Beydar has revealed that the ancient name of Tell Brak was Nagar, and that the city was an important regional centre during this time (Emberling and McDonald 2001:21). Later texts from Mari imply that Nagar may have held an important religious position in the region (Matthews and Eidem 1993:203). Tell Brak appears to have ruled over Tell Beydar, and to have had commercial relations with other large regional centres like Mari and Ebla (from where texts have been found, mentioning the city of Nagar), the latter of which appears to have depended on its supply of a type of equids, possibly onagers, from Tell Brak in exchange for oil (Archi 1998).

4.1. Tell Brak Tell Brak is situated in the Jezira region in northeast Syria, some 50 km. north of the modern city of Hassake (Fig. 2.1). It is a multi-period settlement that appears to have been occupied continually for several millennia; the earliest occupation layers so far excavated (in the CH test trench, Fig. 4.1) are dated to the Ubaid period, i.e., fifth millennium BC, and the tell appears to have been finally abandoned sometime between 1200 and 900 BC. Virgin soil has not been reached in any of the excavation areas so far; as the Ubaid levels in CH were found at a height of 12 metres above the plain, the tell appears to have been of a considerable size already by then (Oates and Oates 1997:296), even considering the possibility that the settlement may have been founded on a natural high point on the plain. Ceramics and chipped stone characteristic of, respectively, the earlier Halaf and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B periods suggest that the occupation of Tell Brak may go back to at least the seventh/eighth millennium BC. The site was first excavated by Max Mallowan in 1937-8 (Mallowan 1947), and subsequent excavations have been carried out at Tell Brak regularly since 1976 (Emberling et al. 1999, Emberling and McDonald 2001, 2003, Matthews 1995, 1996, 2003b, Matthews, Matthews and McDonald 1994, Matthews and Postgate 2001, McMahon and Oates 2007, Oates 1977, 1982, 1985, 1987, Oates and Oates 1991, 1993, 1994, 1997, Oates, Oates and McDonald 1997, 2001).

The function of Tell Brak as an administrative centre during the Akkadian period (late third millennium BC) is reflected in the large “Naramsin Palace”, a wellfortified building containing narrow storage rooms, probably used for the storage of goods collected from the near region (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:279, Oates and Oates 2001:19). The size of Tell Brak and the complexity of its architecture in the Late Chalcolithic certainly testify to the importance of Nagar during this time as well. Tell Brak appears to have been an urban centre within the Mitanni Empire in the 14th century BC (Oates, Oates and McDonald 1997). Monumental architecture, like that of the Eye Temple (mid fourth millennium BC, discussed below), the Naramsin Palace (c. 2200 BC), and the later Mitanni Palace (14th century BC), provide evidence for the significant role Tell Brak must have played throughout its history.

Near Eastern tell sites, or settlement mounds, form through the accumulation of building debris from the continuous construction, razing and rebuilding of houses on the site. The rarity of building quality stone and wood across a large part of Mesopotamia meant that most Near Eastern architecture was constructed from dried or burned mud bricks. The most common method of rebuilding houses appears to have been simply to raze old and abandoned buildings to the ground - reusing any stone and wood included in the structure - and build a new house on top of the mound of rubble, thus slowly raising the level of the building ground. Streets in Near Eastern cities appear to have followed this gradual rise in level simply through the continuous accumulation of household refuse, etc.

The importance of Tell Brak is probably due, first of all, to its excellent strategic position: the city lies as a gateway, controlling not only access to the fertile Khabur region from southern Mesopotamia, but also further access into the resource-rich Anatolian plateau. To the east it guards the trade routes into Iran and further on to Afghanistan, from where precious commodities like lapis lazuli made their way into Mesopotamia from very early onwards. The trade routes controlled by Tell Brak were in use for millennia; part of a Roman road and castellum in the vicinity of Tell Brak shows how the same routes were still in use a thousand years after the city of Nagar was finally abandoned. The major route of communication between northern and southern Mesopotamia in the fifth and fourth millennia BC appears to have been via the Tigris coming up from the southern plains, crossing the Jezira south of the Sinjar mountains, and going via the Khabur and Balikh rivers down to the Euphrates, along which access to the Anatolian plain was possible (Matthews 2003c:37). Alternatively, access to the Khabur plain and the southeastern Anatolian plain was possible going up the Khabur, past Tell Brak.

The long occupation of Tell Brak is reflected in the size of the central mound today, covering some 45 ha and rising about 43 metres above the surrounding plain.The site is estimated to have covered about 50 ha in the LC 2 and grew to over 130 ha during the LC 3-4 (Oates et al. 2007:597). This is thought to be roughly the same size as the largest contemporary cities on the southern alluvial plain (Oates and Oates 1997:290).

32

Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south

Fig. 4.1. Map of Tell Brak showing excavated areas. Late Chalcolithic trenches are underlined; 1 m contour interval (based on Emberling and McDonald 2001:22). Fig. 2.2 illustrates the excellent strategic position of Tell Brak: when travelling along the Euphrates, access to the Khabur Valley is by far the easier along the Khabur River between the Sinjar and Abd el Aziz mountains, and even today the remains of Tell Brak are clearly visible from a long distance. Tell Brak lies in the vicinity of the confluence of the wadis Jaghjagh and Radd, and would have been able to control these two means of transport to the north from the Khabur region (Oates, Oates and McDonald 2001:xxv). The probable ancient routes of communication in the southern Khabur region are mapped on Fig. 4.2. The location of Tell Brak between the fertile plains to the north and the drier steppe lands to the south also meant that the site was situated between population groups involved in different kinds of economies; Tell Brak may have functioned as a centre for the exchange of goods between sedentary farmers and mobile pastoralists (Wilkinson et al. 2001:1-2).

northern Mesopotamian agricultural produce was collected at Tell Brak and from there transported, by donkey or river, to the south (Sommerfield, Archi and Weiss 2004). 4.2. Tell Brak during the Late Chalcolithic At Tell Brak, occupation levels covering almost the entire Late Chalcolithic have been excavated. The excavators have designated some of the Late Chalcolithic phases northern (i.e. LC 2 = Northern Early Uruk and LC 3 = Northern Middle Uruk; Oates and Oates 1993:172), in order to distinguish levels with purely local northern material culture from those levels containing southern Mesopotamian material remains (Table 3.3). Late Chalcolithic occupation levels have been uncovered in several areas on and off the settlement. From this period the so-called Eye Temple has been uncovered, containing clear southern architectural features in its later construction phases; the deep sounding CH has yielded Northern Early Uruk levels (Oates 2002:112-113); from trenches HS1 and HS6 Northern Middle and Northern Early Uruk levels, respectively, have been excavated (Matthews 2003b); areas TX and UA are both of Late Uruk date, and from area TW large horizontal exposures are combined with over 10 vertical metres (levels 11-20, Northern Early to Late Uruk) of fourth millennium BC occupation (Fig. 4.1) (Emberling et al. 1999, Emberling and McDonald 2001, 2003, McMahon and Oates 2007). Six of the test trenches dug around the main settlement in 1998

Tell Brak is situated about 3 km. from the wadi Jaghjagh, a tributary of the Khabur River. Though it has been suggested that the Jaghjagh ran all the way up to Tell Brak in the past (Sommerfield, Archi and Weiss 2004), this has not been finally proved, and the presence of a linear feature running up to the tell may be the remains of an artificial channel running towards the Jaghjagh (Wilkinson et al. 2001:2). Nevertheless it is likely that the Jaghjagh was used for the transport of goods (Eidem and Warburton 1996:52-3, Wilkinson 1994:503). A late Akkadian period text mentions 40.000 litres of barley being shipped from Nagar to the southern Mesopotamian city of Sippar, suggesting that 33

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 4.2. Map of the Khabur region showing probable ancient routes of communication (after Oates, Oates and McDonald 1997:xvii). (trenches 11, 14, 15, 16, 27, and 28, Fig. 4.3) have yielded Northern Middle Uruk ceramics (Larsen and Skuldbøl 1999), as have Tell 2 and Tell Majnuna (Fig. 4.3).

specialisation, with 75-90% sheep/goat in the animal bone assemblage (ibid.). Southern Uruk ceramics make their first appearance in excavation area TW level 13, where southern sandtempered vessel types appear next to local chafftempered pottery types. The assumption that we appear to be dealing with the actual presence of southern Mesopotamians in this and the following levels, rather than with the emulation of southern styles by northerners, is proposed by the presence of the full assemblage of southern ceramic styles (such as large amounts of bevelled rim bowls), the use of key-hole shaped fireplaces similar to those found in Habuba Kabira, architecture - including the size and shape of mud bricks (so-called Riemchen bricks) and the use of clay cones for wall decoration - and cylinder seals and tokens.

The finds at Tell Brak of large public structures and the fact that the site reaches a size of over 130 ha already during the LC 3-4 suggest that Tell Brak was already a large regional centre within a complex settlement system by the time of contact with southerners, a settlement system that had developed independently in the north during the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC, before any contact with southerners in the region. During the later half of the fourth millennium BC, Tell Brak seems to have reached a size almost equal to that of the city of Uruk, the largest of the cities on the southern Mesopotamian alluvial plain. Excavations in area TW at Tell Brak have uncovered large monumental architecture (described below) dated to before contact with southern Mesopotamia, as well as a numerical tablet and pictographic dockets from Northern Middle Uruk levels, an earlier date than the one assigned to the pictographic tablets found in the city of Uruk, Eanna level IV, and possibly reflecting a local administrative development (Jasim and Oates 1986:360, Oates and Oates 1997:289-91). Northernstyle stamp seals have been found in TW levels 14-19, i.e. before southern Uruk material culture appears in level 13, where cylinder seals are more common (Pittman 2003:14). Manufacturing specialisation is evidenced by the presence of mass-produced ceramic wares, one of which comprised about 70% of the ceramics in some contexts, and by the use of obsidian for up to 50% of the blades found (Emberling and McDonald 2003:2). Faunal remains also indicate

One of the most conspicuous Late Chalcolithic structures at Tell Brak is the so-called Eye Temple, excavated by Mallowan (1947) and named after the large numbers of “eye idols”, carved stone figures, that have been found within the levels of this structure (Roaf (1990:67) mentions estimates of some 20.000 eye idols) and which, until recent finds of bone eye idols at the site of Hamoukar, roughly 60 km to the northeast (Fig. 2.2), were restricted to Tell Brak (Emberling 2002:86, Oates and Oates 2002:145-6). The earliest level of the Eye Temple has been dated to the Northern Middle Uruk period (Oates and Oates 2002:152) and was built in the local northern style; the fourth and latest level of the Eye Temple dates to the late fourth millennium and is of the typical southern Mesopotamian layout, though with the local architectural additions of narrow storerooms 34

Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south

Fig. 4.3. Map of Tell Brak with position of some of the satellite sites, including Tell 2, and the test trenches dug in 1998 (after Emberling et al. 1999:24). (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:198). The temple is situated on a platform in the style of the southern Mesopotamian temples, is tripartite in plan and decorated with interior friezes of gold, silver and semiprecious stone, wall clay cones, and exterior niches and buttresses.

that the northerners adopted this style (an opinion also held for Tell Brak by Akkermans and Schwartz (2003:209), who suggest that elites emulated southern Mesopotamian styles in order to legitimise their own authority), or otherwise Tell Brak was conquered by southern Mesopotamian settlers, who were powerful enough to rebuild one of the major temples in the city in their own architectural style. Given the fact that the southern Mesopotamian occupation of Tell Brak was clearly not restricted to a specific, smaller area of the city, and especially that southerners were able to influence the layout of as important a structure as the Eye Temple must have been, a southern take-over of the site certainly seems plausible (Emberling 2002:89).

The temple would have been situated on one of the highest points of the settlement and must have been visible from a distance, particularly, as Emberling (2002:85) has pointed out, from the south. The majority of the remains of what has been interpreted as exterior wall decoration was also found by the south face of the temple. The strategic position of Tell Brak at the gateway to the Khabur plains has been described above; the position and decoration of the Eye Temple must have made Tell Brak an even more impressive sight for travellers entering the Khabur plains from the south.

Trenches HS6 and HS1 were excavated during the 1994-1996 seasons (Matthews 2003b). From HS6, contemporary with TW levels 18-20 and thus dated to the Northern Early Uruk period, a massive wall similar to the one in TW level 20 has been uncovered, as well as a pottery kiln and sealings with stamp seal impressions, reflecting production and administration above household level (Matthews 2003c:32). HS1 is of Northern Middle Uruk date and has yielded remains of domestic architecture, with finds of spindle whorls, grinding tools, bitumen, tokens and sealings indicating some level of production of goods, administration and long-distance exchange contacts (Felli 2003:68).

The exact meaning that travellers from the south would have deduced from the sight of the Eye Temple is not entirely clear. The latest level of the Eye Temple incorporated distinct southern Mesopotamian architectural traits (a Mittelsaal plan, decorations with niches, buttresses and clay cones) and replaced earlier levels that had been built following the northern tradition. This can be interpreted in two ways (following Emberling 2002:88): either the southern architectural tradition was considered so attractive or convenient 35

A Thousand Years of Farming

Around the settlement mound eleven satellite sites have been investigated, all dated to the Northern Middle Uruk period (Emberling et al. 1999, Emberling and McDonald 2001). It has been suggested that these sites functioned as specialised agricultural sites, supplying the main settlement with agricultural produce on an either full-time basis or during dry years when the larger settlements were not able to produce sufficient crops for their inhabitants (Algaze 1993:24, 2001b:41, Wilkinson 2000:239). The sites may have either produced the crops or administered and stored crops imported from a greater hinterland. A similar arrangement of smaller sites around a larger settlement is seen at contemporary Hamoukar (Oates 2002:113).

orchards and small parks (the beginning of the Gilgamesh Epic, for instance, describes one third of Uruk as orchards; Dalley 1991:50) – the population estimates for the LC 3-4 settlement are here taken as including the population on the satellites sites. From his modelling of an early Near Eastern city state, Hunt (1987) concluded that a city state with 100.000 people, 10.000 of which were living in the central city and not participating in food production, would need a radius of 12-17 km. for the production of agricultural goods. This corresponds well with the calculations by Nissen (2002:8), who has estimated that the 40.000 inhabitants of the 250 ha Late Uruk city of Uruk would have needed a 5 km. radius of intensively cultivated agricultural land in order to produce enough cereal crops. Nissen, however, makes the point that despite this low figure, the city of Uruk was still dependent on the crop surpluses from an agricultural hinterland, as much of the land in the hypothesised 5 km. radius was either already occupied by villages or covered by swamps (ibid.).

4.2.1. Late Chalcolithic population density and carrying capacity of Tell Brak During the Late Chalcolithic, settlements in northern Mesopotamia grew from the size and complexity of villages to that of towns, and in the case of some settlements, to large cities and regional centres. Studies have been carried out to assess the area of land needed for the agricultural and pastoral economies of the ancient cities in the Jezira. This has implications for the organisation of agriculture and the administration and movement of agricultural produce across the region.

Wilkinson (1990, 1994, 2000) suggests that the majority of food production around major northern Mesopotamian sites in the third millennium BC took place within a 10-15 km. radius (1994:483); from the distribution of sherd scatters around settlements and the so-called “linear hollows” which are thought to be remains of tracks used to access pasture land and fields from the settlement, Wilkinson deduces that manured cultivated soil usually lies within a 3-4 km. radius, with less intensive cultivation taking place between two and five km. from the settlement (2000:239), and that territorial limits of larger sites appear to be of a maximum of 5-6 km. (1994:492). This corresponds well with studies of modern agriculture in the Near East: Oates and Oates (1976:120) maintain that seven km. is the upper limit for village-to-field travel by a farmer in modern northern Iraq, a figure that seems agreed upon by other researchers (Weiss and Kislev 2004:11). Later, third millennium BC towns in the Jezira are generally placed in 10 km. intervals, thus with a catchment area of 5 km. for each settlement (Wilkinson 1990:87), whereas major centres from the same period are generally about 40 km. apart, with lesser settlements between them, (though in some areas, such as along the wadis Jaghjagh and Jarreh, distances are shorter (Wilkinson 1994:489-90)). Wilkinson (ibid.) concludes that settlements in northern Mesopotamia were never too large for their agricultural surroundings, but were always self-sufficient.

Though Tell Brak lies on the margin of reliable dryfarming land, farmers at Tell Brak may have had more suitable conditions available in the fourth millennium BC due to a combination of higher levels of usable rainfall and a higher watertable, especially in the vicinity of the wadis Jaghjagh and Radd. As can be seen on Fig. 2.4, the oak, pistachio and almond steppe forests of the Taurus, Abd el Aziz and Sinjar mountains can be reached within 100 km. of Tell Brak, and may have been exploited for nuts and building quality wood (most probably in low quantities, given the transport distance) by the inhabitants of the settlement. Tell Brak may, however, have depended on its hinterland to produce a sufficient agricultural crop to feed its citizens. The site can be said to form part of both a micro- and a macro-system of settlements, i.e. a micro-system comprising the main settlement and the satellite sites around it, and a macro-system comprising the settlements within the wider Khabur region (Eidem and Warburton 1996:51). The focus of a recent regional survey (Ur et al. 2007), Tell Brak is thought to have covered about 50 ha during the LC 2, and to have been over 130 ha in LC 3-4, as mentioned above. Using the conventional demographic figure of 150 persons/ha (population densities of between 100 and 200 are most commonly used; Wilkinson 1994:483, Pollock 1999:64), Tell Brak could have accommodated from about 7500 citizens in the LC 2 to more than 20.000 citizens in the LC 3-4. Given than not every hectare of the main mound would have been inhabited – some areas would have been occupied by monumental architecture and green areas such as

Weiss et al. (1993:997) have estimated the proposed area of land needed for agriculture and grazing by the major sites of Tell Mozan, Tell Brak and Tell Leilan in the Khabur region in the third millennium BC (Fig. 4.4). The area needed to feed the citizens of Tell Brak is suggested to be within a roughly 20 km. radius. All three sites were, however, smaller in the preceding fourth millennium BC – only Tell Brak had reached urban proportions by this time.

36

Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south

Fig. 4.4. Map of the third millennium BC Khabur region settlement system with estimated land needed for agriculture and pastoralism around the major sites (after Weiss et al. 1993:997). The number of citizens at Tell Brak was roughly calculated to 20.000 during the LC 3-4; following the above estimates, a radius of 2-3 km. of agricultural land would be needed for Tell Brak, and considering the number of smaller sites occupying the land around the main site within that radius, a 6-7 km. radius is probably more realistic. Considering the agriculturally marginal situation of Tell Brak, and estimating that agriculture in northern Mesopotamia would have needed a larger area of land than in the south (as discussed in section 2.2 above), a 10 km. radius of agricultural land around Tell Brak should be a reasonable amount of land for the settlement to be selfsufficient, which has also been suggested by Emberling (2003:264). This estimate would also leave room for agricultural land between the many smaller sites in a 20 km. radius around Tell Brak that have been noted by recent survey work (Ur et al. 2007). Preliminary results from the survey (P. Karsgaard, pers. comm.) show that from the LC 1-2, 135 sites have been observed, while 168 sites were dated to LC 3-4/5. Even considering that these sites are unlikely to have been occupied all at the same time, the region around Tell Brak was certainly far from empty of settlements during the Late Chalcolithic.

such as pots and what appeared to be storage areas, and secondary to tertiary contexts such as pits, bins, hearths, and deposits on floors. Information on context and chronology for all samples is listed in Table 4.1; only deposits from TW have been given a level number by the excavators. The formation of the deposits are likely to have taken place with varying speed, the deposition of grains in storage vessels as a single event, whereas the deposits in the remaining contexts may have been the result of multiple discard events. 4.3.1. TW Excavations in area TW, on a slope in the north-eastern part of Tell Brak (Fig. 4.1), were begun in 1981 and the area is still under investigation. TW covers nearly 600 m2; over 10 metres of fourth and early third millennium BC deposits have been excavated so far, from LC 2 (c.4400-3900 BC) to early Ninevite V (c. 2800 BC), and so far twenty levels of deposits have been distinguished, including twelve levels covering almost the entire Late Chalcolithic, the only excavation area in the Near East to do so (Table 3.3). The present study examines samples from levels 9 to 20 taken from five excavation seasons, 1997-2002. The excavated areas in TW are discussed below within the relevant groups of levels.

4.3. The excavation areas

Levels 20-19

The present analysis has been undertaken on archaeobotanical samples from four excavation areas on and off the main mound, which are presented in turn below. The samples were taken from primary contexts

A massive gateway with a large basalt threshold and substantial, two metre-thick walls were excavated in 37

A Thousand Years of Farming

Period Early 3rd millennium

Post-Late Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Post-Late Uruk Late Uruk LC 5

Middle/Late Uruk Middle Uruk - LC 4 Northern Middle Uruk LC 3

Sample 98/24 98/50 98/40 01/330 01/57 01/41 01/59 01/84 01/80 01/82 01/192 01/102 01/105 98/59 98/86 01/376 01/410 01/411 01/416 01/428 02/22 02/33 02/55 02/54 01/186 97/41 97/46 02/56 01/261 01/282 98/20 01/198 02/69 02/43 02/50 02/80 02/75 98/5 98/11 98/10 98/23 98/26 98/36 98/28 98/33

Trench Locus Object TWCD 1222 2 TWCD 1231 1 TWCD 1124 1 TWCD 1777 1 TWCD 1732 1 TWB 1621 2 TWCD 1733 1 TWCD 1763 1 TWCD 1784 1 TWCD 1738 2 TWCD 1750 4 TWCD 1785 2 TWCD 1802 6 TWB 1031 3 TWB 1038 6 TWCD 971 1 TX 61 TX 61 TX 87 TX 94 UA 31 UA 33 UA 35 UA 36 TWCD 1895 1 TW 697 TW 723 TW 2277 TWCD 1947 TWCD 1967 1 TWB 1012 7 TWE 964 TW 2239 TW 2239 1 TW 2239 1 TW 2293 1 TW 2301 TWB 1010 5 TWB 1013 2 TWB 1014 2 TWB 1017 1 TWB 1017 1 TWB 1017 4 TWB 1019 1 TWB 1019 3

Context fill fill ? pit pit fill pit pit pit fill floor floor bricky packing pit pit content of pot ashy layer ashy layer midden ashy fill pit pit pit pit fill fill floor pit fill fill pit fill pot/tray content fireplaces collapse/ burnt brick collapse/ burnt brick collapse/ burnt brick oven floor fire pit fill fire installation oven fill next to bin floor next to oven floor next to oven next to oven fill next to pot content of pot 2

Level 1 1 ? 9 9/10 10? 9/10? 9/10? 9/10? 11 11 11 11/12 12 12 ? --------12/13 13 14 14? 14/15 14/15 15/16 15/16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Table 4.1. The Tell Brak archaeobotanical samples, contextual and chronological data. “Double samples” from the same context are marked in grey.

38

Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south

Period Northern Middle Uruk LC 3

Northern Early Uruk LC 2

Sample 98/32 01/181 01/188 01/124 01/123 01/143 01/289 01/309 01/307 01/310 01/311 01/354 01/308 01/280 01/392 01/318 97/212 01/347 01/298 97/200 02/3 02/16 02/40 02/28 02/32 02/118 00/88 00/20 00/60 00/100 00/14 00/62 00/26 01/364 00/31 00/214 00/215 00/211 00/212 00/158 00/208 00/209 01/346 01/375 01/380 01/372 97/232

Trench Locus Object TWB 1019 5 TWB 1648 6 TWB 1648 7 TWB 1648 10 TWB 1649 2 TWB 1651 7 TWCD 1974 2 TWCD 1987 2 TWCD 1987 3 TWCD 1987 4 TWCD 1987 5 TWCD 1987 13 TWCD 1992 4 TWB 1679 2 TWB 2135 1 TWCD 2000 6 TW 556 TWCD 2037 1 TWB 1681 1 TW 577 TW 2211 TW 2217 TW 2222 1 TW 2224 1 TW TW TWB TWB TWB TWB TWB TWB TWB TWB T2B T2B T2B T2B T2B T2B T2B T2B TWB TWB TWB TWB TW

2238 2354 1507 1513 1513 1514 1516 1523 1524 1603 146 148 148 158 158 160 167 170 2103 2112 2130 2127 837

1

C

1 1 1 1 1 1

4 1 1

Table 4.1, continued.

39

Context content of pot 4 pot content pot content pot content collapse floor fill in room 18 pot content in room 11 room 11 fill pot content in room 11 pot content in room 11 pot content in room 11 fill fill, N half of domed oven hearth fill pot content in room 13 fill of room 3 pot burial ashy fill fill on floor bin fill ash on floor content of pot ash under sherd paving surface ash on floor fill in hearth ashy fill pit fill pit fill fill floor/sherd paving pit fill floor in level 18 building pit fill north of domed oven fill contents of basin contents of basin fill fill fill fill fill tannur fill floor courtyard surface hearth/ash pit fill

Level 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16? 16 16/17 16/17 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18.2 18.2 18.1 18 --------18b/19 18b/19 18b/19 late 19 19/20

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 4.5. TW level 20 with monumental gateway. 1997 and further investigated in 2002 (Fig. 4.5). The gateway and walls have been dated to level 20 and are thus earlier than the Level 18 Building discussed below, but were probably still in use during the lifetime of the latter, and possibly associated with it. A soil sample from the area immediately in front of the gateway has been analysed. In front of the gateway, towards the north-west, the corner of an elaborately niched building has been uncovered, dated to level 19 and possibly a precursor to the non-domestic Level 18 Building.

One unusual feature of the Level 18 Building is a closed courtyard built as a north-west extension to the building. The courtyard contained various mudbrick fire installations, a grill structure, and a large domed oven in the northern end of the courtyard. In the southwest corner an area containing a bin and an oven had been walled in. The Level 18 Building clearly served some sort of official function, judging from its size and layout, but the specific purpose of this building is unknown. A preliminary study of the botanical and zoological debris on the courtyard floor (Charles et al. 2001) suggested that the courtyard had been used for the cooking of food, including whole sheep and parts of cattle, which may have been consumed during events of communal feasting.

Level 18 The main structure in TW level 18 is an elaborately decorated building in the western end of the trench that may have served some official function (Fig. 4.6); it is dated to the LC 3 and thus contemporary with early levels of the Eye Temple. The Building covers several occupation levels, including its re-use in level 16. Several features of this building are typical of Mesopotamian architecture: the foundation was laid on top of a thin layer of gravel covering the whole extent of the building, a practice that seems to have been in use for the foundation of religious/official buildings in general. The architectural outline of the house was that of a tripartite building (or Mittelsaalhaus) with smaller rooms surrounding a larger central room, and walls decorated with niches and buttresses and covered in several layers of white plaster, all of which is the standard architectural style for public buildings in Mesopotamia throughout the history of the region, and reminiscent of the architectural style used in southern Mesopotamia.

Levels 17- 16 During the level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building, the use of the large oven in the courtyard was discontinued, and another domed oven was built in the centre of the courtyard. The northern end of the courtyard was used for the storage of crops in large vessels. The rooms of the building seemed to have been filled with soil immediately after abandonment – the level 16 re-use of the building appears to have been destroyed by fire at the same time as the Level 16 Houses (Emberling and McDonald 2003:8-9) preserving the walls to a height of up to 1.5 metres (Emberling and McDonald 2001:24). Two complete tripartite houses, as well as parts of two others, have been excavated over several seasons,

40

Tell Brak: Gateway between south and north

level 18 oven

level 16 oven northern courtyard NW House

Late Uruk West Pit Late Uruk East Pit

NE House

semi-columns

SW House SE House

Fig. 4.6. TW with the Level 18 Building (left) and the Level 16 Houses (right). covering the eastern end of TW (Fig. 4.6). As mentioned above, the Level 18 Building was still in use at this time, whereas the impressive Level 20 Gateway was no longer in use and had become buried under the Level 16 Houses. Unlike the Level 18 Building, the Level 16 Houses seem to be of a primarily domestic character but were associated with the former; a row of semi-columns along the northern wall of one of the rooms in the NW House (Fig. 4.6) implies that this building may have had some ceremonial function (Oates and Oates 1993:174, Oates 2002:116).

Levels 15-13 Levels 15-14 consist of several smaller buildings constructed on top of the Level 16 Houses (Emberling et al. 1999:6) and are not considered in the present study; some of the archaeobotanical samples dated to these levels are from pits cut into the earlier buildings. Level 13 is the first level containing southern Uruk pottery as well as local chalcolithic wares; not much archaeobotanical information has been gathered from this level at it has been destroyed by later pits (ibid. and Oates and Oates 1993:171).

As in the courtyard of the level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building, several of the houses contained storage jars, the contents of some of which have been analysed, as well as the usual local chaff-tempered types of cooking ceramics such as casseroles and hammerhead bowls, and large numbers of small objects made from precious materials such as gold, silver, lapis lazuli, carnelian, ivory and ostrich shell, testifying to the exchange relations of the inhabitants of ancient Nagar. Even more interesting are the finds of a numerical tablet, several geometric tokens, and two pictographic dockets, all evidence for the development of an administrative system and increasing specialisation of labour, well underway in northern Mesopotamia before the advent of southerners. A C14 sample from one of the Level 16 Houses has been dated to c. 3500 BC (Oates and Oates 1997:290). Tell Brak reached its greatest size, over 130 ha, during the lifetime of these buildings, and the satellite sites, presented below, are thought to have been established during this time as well.

Levels 12-11 Levels 11 and 12 are contemporary with the occupation of Habuba Kabira, and dated to the Late Uruk period. During the occupation of these levels the Northern Middle Uruk buildings described above were levelled by what appears to be Late Uruk colonists (Oates and Oates 1997:295) who also dug large pits through the earlier occupation levels. These pits have been dated to level 12; in the West Pit the ceramics consist of predominantly mass-produced wares such as bevelled rim bowls and “flower pots”, obsidian covers about 60% of the material used for blades, there is very little chipping debris, and of the faunal remains, sheep and goat make up roughly 90% (Emberling et al. 1999:6), following the pattern of a specialised pastoral economy also seen at Hacınebi (section 3.3.2.3).

41

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 4.7. TW, the Level 11 House. From level 12 a large building has been uncovered, containing ceramic wares similar to what was found at Habuba Kabira (Oates and Oates 1993:171). From this house large flint cores, probably used for the manufacture of Canaanean blades, were found, similar to those seen at Hassek Höyük, as well as a large (2 kg.) lump of obsidian (ibid.:174). Canaanean blades long, wide flint blades with parallel dorsal ridges and a trapezoidal cross-section - have been characterised as diagnostic of local northern Mesopotamian material culture and described as “specialised products manufactured from a specific flint type at select production centres” (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:185), indicating a high degree of centralised tool manufacturing. A similar specialised Canaanean blade production area has also been found at Early Bronze Age Titris Höyük in southeast Anatolia (Matney and Algaze 1995:45-6). Large numbers of pierced spoollike objects were also found in the Level 12 Building (Oates and Oates 1993:177-178), which are apparently similar to the “spools” found in the Level 11 Building, below.

shape of a “positive” impression of a wooden form presumably used for the making of moulds (Oates and Oates 1997:295, Oates 2002:115) has also been found. Key-hole shaped fireplaces (in the annex to the Level 11 House, Fig. 4.7) similar to ones found in tripartite houses in Habuba Kabira, distinct southern ceramic types as well as the use of Riemchen bricks for the construction of the building suggest that this building was used by southern Mesopotamians; the building was abandoned by the end of the Late Uruk period. The courtyard associated with the Level 11 Building had been cut by a series of plaster-lined pits, one of which had four jars inserted into the sides, the use of which may have been for cool-storage (Emberling and McDonald 2003:3-8). Attached to the western side of the house was a row of rectangular rooms with keyhole hearths surrounded by small earth “supports” of an unknown function (Oates and Oates 1997:292-3), while in the courtyard between these rooms - which may have been used as workshops - and the Level 11 Building remains from the manufacturing of Canaanean blades have been found (ibid.).

The large Level 11 Building in TW (Fig. 4.7) appears to have been associated with the manufacture of a range of objects. Among the finds in this building were high levels of spindle whorls and a bone awl, and a large number of pierced ceramic objects that have been interpreted as spools for thread (Emberling and McDonald 2003:3), as well as finds of hammerstones and large flint and obsidian cores, suggesting that production of flint blades and textiles took place in this area, the centralised manufacturing of goods reminiscent of the finds at Tepe Gawra levels XII-VIII (section 3.3.2.2). Evidence for the casting of copper axes, in the

The size of the house (occupying an area within which the remains of no less than four houses were found in Level 16) and the indications of specialised production taking place inside the building and in the annex of rectangular rooms, does suggest that the Level 11 Building, rather than being a private household, is likely to have served some sort of, possibly communal, economic function, being used for the manufacture of a range of goods.

42

Tell Brak: Gateway between north and south

Levels 10-9

4.3.3. UA

Levels 10-9 are of Late Uruk to Jemdet Nasr date (Emberling et al. 1999:6). A particularly interesting find from these levels are a few Jemdet Nasr sherds (Oates and Oates 1993:170), which are normally not found outside of southern Mesopotamia and may indicate a continuous connection with the south after the colonies in the north are abandoned (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:200). The archaeobotanical samples from these levels are primarily from pits dug into the Level 11 House.

This excavation area, dug in 2002, is on the southern side of the tell (Fig. 4.1). A large Late Uruk pit of the same variety as the level 12 pits in TW was excavated, containing a mixture of southern and northern ceramics, animal bone, and sealings. Associated with the pit, floor surfaces of a Late Chalcolithic date were found by surface scrapings but not excavated. Nearby, another surface scraping revealed the plans of a southern-type Mittelsaalhaus (Emberling and McDonald 2003:11-12).

4.3.2. TX

4.3.4. Tell 2

This area was opened in 2001, c. 30 metres north-east of area TW (Fig. 4.1). Together with excavation area UA, this area is rich in southern Uruk ceramic surface finds and was excavated in order to get a better understanding of the extent and character of the southern Uruk occupation of Tell Brak (Emberling and McDonald 2003:11). The excavation uncovered a typical Late Uruk Mittelsaalhaus, with large numbers of pottery both inside and outside of the house, mainly bevelled rim bowls. The samples analysed for this study were all taken from large ash deposits outside the house.

Tell 2 is one of eleven satellite sites surrounding Tell Brak within a radius of between 500 and 1100 metres from the centre of Brak itself (Fig. 4.3). A survey undertaken by Larsen and Skuldbøl in 1998 (Larsen and Skuldbøl 1999) of the immediate region around Tell Brak showed that the smaller tells lying in a circle around the tell, none of them larger than 4 ha, had all been established in the Northern Middle Uruk period, and are thus contemporary with the Level 18 Building and Level 16 Houses in TW. Subsequent excavation in 2000 of Tell 2 southeast of the main mound has produced evidence of private residences and of pottery production (Emberling and McDonald 2001:45).

43

Chapter 5 Archaeobotanical methods 5.1. Introduction

5.1.1.1. What plants arrived and survived on site?

Charred plant remains arrive on archaeological sites by various routes and from a range of sources. To the extent that these sources and routes can be disentangled, archaeobotanical remains may be useful for answering questions about the economy of a site, such as the production and consumption of plants for food and fodder, exchange relations with other settlements, and the development of crop husbandry practices, including the timing and methods of tilling, weeding, fallowing and harvesting of fields, the use of drainage, irrigation or fertilisers, and the processing of the harvested crops (Bogaard et al. 1999, 2001, Charles, Jones and Hodgson 1997, Charles et al. 2003, Jones 1984, 1987). Remains of dung fuel, identified from charred plant remains, can potentially answer questions about the local vegetation.

Plants can arrive on a site for a number of reasons: they may have been brought to a settlement intentionally as human food or animal fodder, or to be used as, for instance, roof thatching, ceramic tempering, bedding or fuel for fireplaces. Plants may also have arrived on the site more indirectly, for instance when eaten by animals during grazing and later appearing in dung used for fuel. The question of dung-derived material in archaeobotanical assemblages has been discussed primarily by Miller and Smart (1984), and Charles (1998). Dung from domestic animals, often in the form of “dung cakes”, i.e. dung mixed with straw and chaff as a “temper”, is a popular source of fuel in many areas of the Near East, both because of its good burning qualities but also because it is an alternative to wood which is often a rare resource in arid regions. Today, the use of dung as fuel is often associated with deforested areas (Miller and Smart 1984).

Interpretation of the samples is based on several sources of information in addition to their taxon composition, such as their archaeological context, the composition of plant remains within individual samples, and ethnographic evidence of plant use and strategies of crop processing, distribution and storage. Ancient crop husbandry practices can be reconstructed partly from the presence and composition of crop species in the archaeobotanical samples, but most importantly from the weed species associated with these crops. Whereas crop species can often grow in a range of different habitats and are usually relatively tolerant of changes in humidity, salinity, or methods of crop husbandry, with certain limits, some weed species are often comparatively more habitat-specific. Weed species associated with certain crop species, therefore, may be useful indicators of the conditions under which these crops were growing (Bogaard et al. 1999, 2001, Charles and Hoppé 2003, Charles et al. 2003, Jones 1984, 1987).

Various plants are likely to be associated (though not exclusively) with dung. Some wild taxa are noted for their usefulness as grazing plants, such as Astragalus, Medicago and Trigonella sp. (Townsend and Guest 1974), the former of which has also often been mentioned as being collected for fuel on its own (Nesbitt 1995:77, van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:234). Prosopis sp., the fruits of which are known to be eaten by sheep and goats (though they are also edible for humans), has been associated particularly with dung-derived archaeobotanical material due to its late flowering season; since crops in the Near East are primarily winter sown and harvested in the spring, Prosopis sp., fruiting in September, is not a crop weed, and when present in archaeobotanical material, is more likely to have arrived with animal dung (Charles 1998:114). Bolboschoenus sp. has also been associated with dung in some archaeobotanical studies (Fairbairn et al. 2002:45-48). Considering that archaeological plant remains often come from domestic hearths where dung could have been used, it is important to identify and separate dung-derived plant material in an archaeobotanical assemblage before any conclusions on ancient plant use are made.

5.1.1. Taphonomic considerations While using archaeobotanical remains to reconstruct past environments and crop husbandry practices it is necessary to consider the way plants have entered a site and the likelihood of these plants, or parts of them, surviving in the archaeological deposits. Archaeobotanical questions on the food crop preferences of the inhabitants of an ancient settlement can only be answered through the analysis of plants intended for food, and not through plants intended for, for instance, animal fodder, or used for fuel or building construction. Before attempting to define the crop economy of a given site, therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the analysis is based only on samples containing crops and/or weeds of crops.

Given the right conditions, plant remains can survive in the ground for thousands of years. To avoid natural decay it is necessary for the plants to have become waterlogged, desiccated or charred. The climatic conditions in the area around Tell Brak - too wet for archaeological material to have become desiccated, but still too dry for waterlogged deposits to have been encountered in the archaeological levels so far - means that charring is the most common form of preservation. Charring may happen through the catastrophic burning of a house or a larger part of a site, through accidents 44

Archaeobotanical methods

during parching (to release glumes from glume wheat grain or to sterilise insect-infected crops) or cooking, or through the intentional burning of plants as fuel in hearths. In order for plant material to survive, the temperature of the fire has to be either relatively low (200-400º C), or the plant elements have to be buried in the ashes so that the lack of oxygen prevents the plants from being burned to ashes themselves (Hillman 1981:139). All the material analysed in the present study was charred.

prepare the crop for consumption. The various processes involved in cleaning a harvested crop have been observed to change the original composition of crops and weeds in an assemblage, at the same time leaving specific patterns in the relative abundance of plant components (grains and chaff) in the crop samples (Hillman 1981, 1984; Jones 1984, 1987, 1990). In order to be able to reach any conclusions about the habitat and crop husbandry of specific crops, the origin of our samples in terms of crop processing stages must be identified, and comparisons made only between samples from the same processing stage, thus eliminating the variation in the samples that is due to crop processing.

Another precondition for survival is connected with the nature of the plant parts themselves: to survive burning in a fireplace without being charred to ash, the plant parts need to be both heavy enough to fall into the lower parts of the fire and escape the flames, and dense enough to not burn away completely (Hillman 1981:139-40, 1984:11). They also have to be robust enough to survive the formation processes of the archaeological deposits. These plant parts - grains and seeds, the lower parts of glumes, rachis and straw nodes, and shells or stones from fruits and nuts - are the types of charred plant remains most commonly found on archaeological sites. Oil- or water-rich seeds or plants are comparatively less likely to survive burning; oil-rich seeds tend to boil and explode when exposed to fire, though if not undergoing too much post-depositional disturbance, the remains of them can still be found. Water-rich and soft tissue plants such as vegetables rarely survive charring, though seeds of vegetables may be found, and tubers and parenchyma are also occasionally observed (Nesbitt 1995:69).

The ways of processing a crop, especially in nonmechanised farming, are fairly constant (Hillman 1984:8). Even though there will be variation in, for instance, the location or the tools used in crop processing, the aim of the methods is always the same, i.e. to remove straw, chaff and weed seeds from the crop (Hillman 1981, 1984; Jones 1984, 1987, 1990). The order of the stages is also constant, because it is easier to, for instance, remove smaller bits of chaff and weed seeds after having removed the larger straw and chaff (Hillman 1984:9; Jones 1984:46-8). The ethnographic observations made by Hillman and Jones are therefore applicable to archaeobotanical interpretation, both temporally and across a wider geographical area. Hillman has summarised his observations in Turkey in a diagram of all the processes a harvested crop goes through, and the by-products of plant components that are generated along the way, as well as the products/by-products most likely to be exposed to fire (Hillman 1984:4-6). Plant material from three crop processing stages, the by-products of winnowing, coarse and fine sieving, and the fine sieving products, are long-lived enough in the process to be the most likely plant parts to be exposed to fire and therefore to be preserved by charring. The four major crop processing stages are summarised in Table 5.1.

The archaeological deposits at Tell Brak vary from deep, undisturbed levels from where extremely wellpreserved archaeobotanical material including oil-rich seeds such as flax have been uncovered, to less well preserved, shallow deposits, disturbed by erosion and burrowing. The varied nature of the contexts, varying from whole pots to tertiary contexts such as fill deposits, also means that preservation of charred plant remains on the site is variable, but generally good.

The processing of glume wheats and free-threshing cereals differ from each other; whereas the grains of free-threshing cereals are released from their glumes by threshing, in the case of glume wheats, during threshing the ears are broken up into individual spikelets, which need pounding in order to be released. Because of the character of the two types of wheat, free-threshing wheat is stored as cleaned grains while glume wheat tends to be stored as whole spikelets. Thus, for the cleaning of glume wheats a new crop cleaning stage is introduced, as well as an extra winnowing and fine sieving stage to remove the glumes (Hillman 1984:4-5). This has implications for the assemblage of weed seeds associated with each processing stage for the two types of crops, as discussed below.

5.1.1.2. The effect of crop processing on archaeobotanical assemblages The sections above have discussed the need to distinguish between samples that have arrived on site as part of a harvested crop, and thus useful for answering questions about ancient crop husbandry, and those samples that have a different derivation. Once we have determined which samples are crop harvest samples, there is a further aspect to consider, namely the effect of crop processing on the composition of archaeobotanical assemblages. Ethnographic studies of non-mechanised farming economies, primarily by Gordon Hillman in Turkey (1981, 1984) and Glynis Jones in Greece (1984, 1987, 1990), have shown that a harvested crop goes through a range of some 30 operational sequences in order to “clean” the crop, i.e. remove unwanted items and 45

A Thousand Years of Farming

Crop processing stage Threshing Winnowing

Coarse sieving

Fine sieving

Purpose breaking off straw and chaff from grain separating straw and chaff from grain

separating large weed seeds, seeds in heads and unthreshed ears from the grain separating small weed seeds from the grain

Agent animal hooves or stick for pounding wind: lighter plant parts (e.g. light chaff and weed seeds) are carried to the side by the wind while heavier parts (cereal grains and heavier chaff and weeds) travel less distance coarse sieve: retains larger plant items while the threshed grains go through fine sieve: retains the grains while small seeds go through

Table 5.1. Summary of major crop processing stages, the products and by-products of which are most likely to become charred. the same context. These “double samples” are marked in table 4.1, but they were analysed separately to monitor within-context differences in plant composition.

5.2. Data collection 5.2.1. Sampling on site In order to assess the nature of the crop economy of Tell Brak during the Late Chalcolithic, soil samples were taken from four excavation areas on the main mound and on one of the satellite sites, described in Chapter 4. To ensure that the plant assemblage was representative of the excavated areas, the sampling strategy was to sample every well-defined context. Context types commonly found include pits, bins, hearths, pots, and floors in houses and courtyards; wherever possible, multiple samples were taken horizontally across floors and vertically in pits. In the case of floors, this should enable a determination of the extent of spatial differentiation within and between individual rooms, whereas earlier studies of vertical multiple sampling in pits have been useful in determining seasonal differentiation in the deposition of bioarchaeological waste and thus helping to determine seasonal events (Wright, Redding and Pollock 1989).

Samples were taken of the deposits including all the objects within it, that is, pottery, bone, stone tools, small objects, etc., to provide a control for material excavated and dry-sieved on-site. The volume of every soil sample was measured before flotation in order to be able to compare the densities of plant items between the individual samples. Density is a reflection of the rate of deposition of plants; a large amount of crops, for instance, spoiled in storage or during cooking and deposited in a pit or bin as a single event, will tend to have been less mixed with other kinds of refuse than the crops which may have been discarded in smaller amounts over longer periods of time, for instance during day-to-day fine sieving and hand-sorting of grains before cooking. Calculating the density of plant items per litre of floated soil for each sample is thus useful for distinguishing between single and repeated events of discard (Jones 1987:317). 5.2.2. Extraction of plant remains by flotation

Sample size depends on the richness of plant remains in the soil. Whereas only small samples may be needed from deposits with rich concentrations of seeds, from deposits with low seed density, large-volume samples are needed to recover a sufficient number of plant remains. At Tell Brak the aim was to recover >500 charred plant items per sample. The standard size of samples taken was set as 40 litres when sampling larger contexts such as floors, whereas smaller contexts (pots, bins, hearths, small pits) were sampled in their entirety. Deposits rich in charred plant remains were subsampled before flotation when it was clear that a smaller portion of the sample would yield the sufficient number of plant remains. There is, thus, quite wide variation in sample size, with the samples used for the present study ranging from 0.7 to 116 litres. The samples analysed in this study make up a total of 2315 litres, with an average sample size of 28 litres. Some of the Tell Brak samples analysed here have come from

All samples were processed on site by machine flotation based on the French design (French 1971), using a 1 mm and 300 micron sieve to collect the floating component (flot), and a 1 mm mesh in which the heavy residue was retained. All the material was dried; the flots were stored for later off-site laboratory analysis, whereas the heavy residues were sieved through 1 mm and 5 mm sieves. The 5 mm residues were sorted in their entirety for both charred plant remains and archaeological remains such as pottery, bone, chipped stone, and small objects. Fractions of the 1 mm heavy residues were sorted by eye for plant remains and small archaeological objects such as beads.

46

Archaeobotanical methods

5.2.3. Sub-sampling of sample flots in the laboratory

Common name Wild einkorn Einkorn wheat Emmer wheat Spelt Macaroni/hard wheat Bread wheat Two-row barley Six-row barley

All the flots were analysed in the laboratory of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sheffield. Samples were scanned initially to assess the richness and variety of plant remains. While on-site a target of >500 identifiable items had been set for each sample, when assessing the samples in the laboratory a minimum of 300 crop items and 30 wild/weed seeds was aimed for in order to give as broad a coverage of archaeological deposits as possible. Ninety-two samples were chosen for further analysis using this criterion. The minimum number of 300 items aimed for is based on the estimations made by van der Veen and Fieller (1982:296), that in order to reach an accuracy to within 5% of the percentage content of a sample with an estimated total of 1000 seeds, 278 seeds are needed for the analysis. The flots were passed through 2 mm, 1 mm and 300 micron sieves and, where necessary, split down with a riffle box (ibid.:292) to give fractions estimated to contain 300-500 identifiable items, prior to sorting by microscope.

Latin name Triticum boeoticum Triticum monococcum Triticum dicoccum Triticum spelta Triticum durum Triticum aestivum Hordeum distichum Hordeum hexastichum

Table 5.2. Common and scientific names of the cereal crops in the Tell Brak samples. account when identifying the archaeological specimens. As described in Chapter 2, Tell Brak is situated in the dry-steppe zone of northern Mesopotamia. Thus for the weed species listed in the Flora of Iraq, only species that occur in the steppe regions have been included, and for species in the Flora of Turkey, only those occurring in the Urfa, Mardin and Hakkari regions (Davis, Cullen and Coode 196588, vol 1:2), i.e. directly north of the Syrian part of the Jezira (Fig 2.1), were included. In the case of both floras, species determined as an Irano-Turanian (following Zohary’s (1973) geobotanical definition of the primary zone, i.e. where Tell Brak is situated) element have been included, whereas for the Flora of Turkey, species designated “Eastern Mediterranean elements” have been left out. The determination of zones is based on Fig. 15 in the Flora of Iraq vol. I (Guest 1966:64); the zones are listed in Table 2.1.

5.3. Identification of plant remains The plant remains were identified using a stereoscopic microscope with magnification up to x80. The identifications were made using comparative modern material from the reference collection in the Department of Archaeology in Sheffield, illustrations in seed atlases (Anderberg 1994, Beijerinck 1947, Berggreen 1969, 1981) and published archaeobotanical reports, mainly van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1988) and Kroll (1983), as well as descriptions in the Flora of Turkey (Davies, Cullen and Coode 1965-88), the Flora of Iraq (Guest 1966, Townsend and Guest 1966, 1968, 1974, 1985), the Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai (Post 1932) and the Flora of Lowland Iraq (Rechinger 1964). Specifically for grasses, the grass seed catalogue compiled by Nesbitt (2006) was used. Nomenclature follows that of the Flora of Iraq.

5.3.2. Identification of crops The crops encountered in the Tell Brak samples (Table 5.2) are common species of cereals and pulses, and their identification criteria are well rehearsed (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985) and not described here. Both scientific and common names are used when a crop is introduced in the text, and thereafter the common crop name is used.

The Floras of the Near East are relatively limited compared to European Floras, both in the number of genera that have been recorded overall, and in the amount of detail concerning the ecological information on plants. This has somewhat limited both the identification of the charred plant remains, and the interpretation of the assemblage in terms of the ecology of the plants. The final working identifications are listed in Appendix I. The presentation of ecological information is discussed below.

For one crop a few comments are appropriate: Linum usitatissimum: the distinction between wild and domesticated flax is based on the size of the seeds; seeds longer than 3 mm are generally considered to be of the domesticated variety, L. usitatissimum (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985:206). All the Tell Brak flax seeds were longer than 3 mm and were therefore identified as L. usitatissimum.

5.3.1. Determination of ecological zones

Weed/wild taxa were initially divided into distinct types. Further identification was then attempted in the case of common types, i.e. types present in more than 10% of the samples. The description of the identification criteria in Appendix II are for those wild taxa only that are used in the later stages of the data analysis. Table 5.3 presents the measurements for the archaeological

5.3.3. Identification of weed/wild taxa

As part of the work of identifying the plant taxa present at Tell Brak, a list of species was compiled based on the members of the genera that occur in the major ecological zones in a roughly 200 km. radius of the site. This was done in order to ensure that the taxa most likely to have arrived at Tell Brak were taken into 47

A Thousand Years of Farming

Description

Measurements (mm) Drawing

Seen? Modern seed

Species/Types

Other characteristics/features

length

breadth

width

Heliotropium A

1.1-1.3

0.8-0.9

0.8-0.9

rounder than type B

Heliotropium B

2.2-2.6

1.5-1.9

1.1-1.4

flat side

H. circinatum

No

No

No

--

--

--

H. lasiocarpum

No

No

No

--

--

--

H. myosotoides

No

No

No

H. suavolens

Yes

Silene B Silene aegyptiaca

No

Silene colorata

Yes

Silene coniflora

No

No No

No yes

Echinochloa colona/crus-galli

--

--

--

1.5-1.8

1.2-1.5

1.0-1.2

1.3-1.7

1.1-1.5

0.7-1

--

--

--

1.4-1.7

1.2-1.6

0.4-0.7

--

0.6-1

--

0.6-0.7

0.3-0.4

0,2

Echinochloa colona

No

No

No

--

--

--

Echinochloa crus-galli

No

No

No

--

--

--

2.5-3.1

0.6-0.9

0.7-0.9

Eremopyrum confusum Eremopyrum bonaepartis

Yes

4,5

0.9-1.1

0.5-1.0

Eremopyrum confusum

Yes

3

0,8

0.3-0.4

Eremopyrum distans

Yes

5

1.0-1.1

1.0-1.2

0.5-0.7

0.3-0.4

0.3-0.4

Eragrostis-type Eragrostis diarrhena

No

No

No

--

--

--

Eragrostis diplachnoides

No

No

No

--

--

--

Eragrostis pilosa

Yes

0.7-0.8

0.3-0.4

0.3-0.4

Eragrostis poaeoides

No

--

--

--

Lolium rigidum

3.5-4.3

1.0-1.4

0.5-0.8

Lolium C

2.5-3.1

0.9-1.2

0.6-1.0

No

No

Lolium rigidum

Yes

3.5-4.8

1.2-1.5

0.7-0.9

Lolium temulentum

Yes

2.4-3.9

0.8-1.1

0,5

1.5-1.7

1.0-1.1

1.0-1.2

--

--

--

1.7-2.0

1.1-1.3

1.2-1.4

Teucrium orientale/polium Teucrium orientale

No

Teucrium polium

Yes

No

No

spiky surface pattern wavy edges papillate

embryo covers c.1/4-1/3 of seed

embryo covers c. ½ of seed

Table 5.3. Measurements of the archaeological weed/wild taxa in the Tell Brak samples (bold types) and modern seeds.

48

Archaeobotanical methods

Description

Measurements (mm) Drawing

Seen? Modern seed

Species/Types

Bellevalia

length

Breadth

1.3-1.9

1.3-1.8

Other characteristics/features

width 1.3-1.8 rounder than Muscari

Bellevalia glauca

No

No

No

--

--

--

Bellevalia kurdistanica

No

No

No

--

--

--

Bellevalia latifolia

No

No

No

--

--

--

Bellevalia longipes

No

No

No

--

--

--

Bellevalia macrobotrys

No

No

No

--

--

--

Bellevalia mosheovii

No

No

No

--

--

--

Bellevalia olivieri

No

No

No

--

--

--

1.4-2.0

1.3-1.5

Muscari

more elongated than Bellevalia; 1.3-1.5 clear "pitted" pattern

Muscari comosum

No

No

No

--

--

--

Muscari inconstrictum

No

No

No

--

--

--

Muscari longipes

No

No

No

--

--

--

Muscari neglectum

Yes

1.8-1.9

1.7-1.9

1.7-1.9

1.1-1.6

1.2-1.5

0.8-1.1

--

--

--

Malva aegyptia/parviflora Malva aegyptia

No

No

Malva nicaeensis

Yes

2.6-2.8

2.2-2.7

1.6-2.2

Malva parviflora

Yes

1.5-1.8

1.6-1.9

1.1-1.2

Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus

1.6-2.0

1.4-1.7

1.4-1.7

Rumex conglomeratus

Yes

1.5-1.8

1.7-2.8

1.7-1.8

Rumex crispus

Yes

2.0-2.2

1.3-1.5

1.3-1.5

Rumex dentatus

No

--

--

--

Rumex pulcher

Yes

2.8-3.0

2.6-2.9

2.6-2.9

No

No

No

2-2.7

2.1-2.3

1.3-1.9

Adonis aleppica

No

No

Yes

5-7

--

--

Adonis dentate

No

No

Yes

2-2.5

--

--

Adonis microcarpa

No

No

Yes

2.75-3.25

--

--

1.6-2.5

0.7-1.1

0.7-1.0

Adonis sp.

Ammi majus/visnaga Ammi majus

Yes

2.0-2.4

0.8-1.4

0.7-0.9

Ammi visnaga

Yes

1.8-2.0

0.8-0.9

0,7

Table 5.3, continued.

49

A Thousand Years of Farming

and modern seeds where available, which are referred to in the sections below.

feature of identification. The largest number of either embryo or apical ends was then entered in the score sheet.

5.4. Quantification of plant items The commonest methods of charcoal and dung remains quantification are by measuring either volume (Charles et al. 2001, Colledge 2003, Hald 2001), or weight (Miller 1994, 1997a, 1997b, 1994, Nesbitt 1993). The latter method is probably the better choice of method, as measuring volume cannot always be done accurately due to the “bulkiness” of the material. The weight of charcoal, however, varies according to the temperature by which it was burned, and so does not provide a secure source for comparing with other charred assemblages. For both types of quantification, therefore, the results are merely rough measures of the quantities of dung and charcoal. In earlier archaeobotanical studies from Tell Brak (Charles and Bogaard 2001, Charles et al. 2001, Colledge 2003, Hald 2001) quantification of dung remains and charcoal was done by measuring volume, and for the sake of consistency, and to be able to compare the levels of dung and charcoal with the earlier studies, quantification in the present study was done by volume.

As plant remains are often found as fragments it is necessary to ensure that counts are not skewed by the same plant part being counted more than once. To calculate a minimum number of plant parts (Jones 1990:92, 1991:65-6), it is necessary to choose plant items that are durable enough to survive burial and be found in the samples, and distinct enough to be easily identified. Jones (1991:65-6) has proposed that these items could be the embryo ends of cereal grains and grass seeds representing the whole seed, glume bases and rachis internodes representing chaff of glume wheats and free-threshing cereals, respectively, and culm nodes and culm bases representing straw. These methods of quantification are followed in the present study. 5.4.1. Quantification of the Tell Brak assemblage Following the considerations discussed in the section above, the plant remains were quantified in the following manner:

Uncharred/silicified seeds were ignored as they are most likely modern contaminants. van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985:212) have discussed the characteristic effect on Boraginaceae seeds upon burning: due to their silica skeleton the seeds turn a white-grey colour, which makes a distinction between archaeological and modern silicified seeds difficult; although occasionally such white-grey boraginaceous seeds were observed in the samples, they were ignored due to their uncertain date. It is unlikely that the very low number of silicified seeds encountered in the samples overall would have affected the interpretation of the Tell Brak plant assemblage if they had been included in the analysis.

Of the cereal grains, only embryo ends were counted, and cereal chaff was counted as glume bases, one spikelet fork counting as two glume bases. Terminal spikelets were counted as whole spikelets. Pulse fragments were only counted if they included the hilum, though in samples were no hilum was observed, an estimation of the number of pulses was made from the fragments in the sample. Pulses split into two cotyledons were each counted as half an item. Of the flax seeds the “hook” ends were counted; in cases where a seed had split down the middle, this was counted as half a seed. In the case of two samples, 01/198 and 01/261, consisting almost entirely of flax, the seeds had fused together, making it impossible to count the flax seeds without damaging them. The number of seeds was therefore estimated by covering the clusters of fused seeds with sand in a measuring glass, noting the level of sand with and without the flax, “topping up” the lowest level of sand in the measuring glass with modern flax seeds and then counting the modern seeds.

5.5. Statistical methods To explore variation in the data a range of statistical techniques have been applied, including correspondence and discriminant analysis. The incompatibility of the data in earlier studies with that of the present, due to differences in methods of quantification, means that a direct comparison, by the means of multivariate statistics, has not been made between the two.

For wild taxa such as, for instance, the Polygonaceae, in cases where the inner seed was separated from its outer shell, only the former was counted, as it appeared more likely to survive in the archaeological deposits than the relatively more fragile seed shell. For other weeds, fragments with distinctive features, such as the round concavity in Galium seeds, were counted and the minimum number of whole seeds was estimated. For the grass seeds, only embryo ends were counted, though in the case of Bromus sp. apical ends were counted as well, as the apical ends were used as a

5.5.1. Standardisation of data Before attempting to explore any patterns in the data, it was necessary to take certain steps to standardise the data and to reduce the number of variables, without losing actual scores. As described above (section 5.2.1), both the size of the original sample taken on-site and the proportion of the sample sorted and quantified in the laboratory varied due to a number of factors such as the amount of deposit available (i.e. small contexts such as pits and pots versus larger contexts such as 50

Archaeobotanical methods

fill), and richness in plant remains of the samples (i.e. rich samples being sub-sampled already before flotation). During sub-sampling in the laboratory further variation between the samples was made by choosing differently sized fractions of the sample parts for analysis. In order to be able to make comparisons between the samples, the data therefore needs to be standardised by eliminating the differences in both sample and sub-sample size.

identifications were grouped together, as were the identifications for, respectively, barley, free-threshing wheat, indeterminate wheat, and indeterminate cereal grains. The reason for doing this is that these groups of cereals, i.e. for instance glume wheats such as emmer and einkorn, and free-threshing cereals such as tworow and six-row hulled barley may very well have been grown together; they have the same crop processing requirements, and can be treated as a single crop. Another reason is related to preservation; groups of “emmer/einkorn” and “two-row/six-row barley” are, as the “cf.” identifications discussed above, more related to differential preservation than actual morphological variation related to species differences. Especially in the case of two-row and six-row hulled barley, though they have been treated as two separate species, H. distichum and H. hexastichum, for this study, Zohary and Hopf (2000:60) argue that they should in fact be treated as one species, H. vulgare. Table 5.6 lists the identifications that make up these larger crop groups.

The Tell Brak plant remains were identified and scores entered into a spreadsheet. Where different fractions of the sieved portions of a flot were sorted, the values of each plant type were calculated by multiplying up the score in each fraction to equal the largest fraction scored. Thus, if 1/4 of the >2mm, 1/8 of the >1mm and 1/16 of the >0.3mm were sorted, then 1/8 is multiplied by 2 and 1/16 by 4 to estimate the number of items in 1/4 of the sample. Finally, calculation of the total number of plant remains within a sample was done by multiplying up the largest fraction to its whole number; i.e. the score of 1/4 of a sample was multiplied by four. The scores of charred plant remains are listed in Appendix I.

3) Rare identifications, i.e. taxa/types occurring in less than 10% of the samples (i.e. in less than 10 samples of a total of 92 samples), were left out at this stage for two reasons: a) given their low frequency, these taxa are unlikely to have played a significant role in the crop economy we are trying to reconstruct, and b) rare taxa tend to be treated as outliers by statistics programmes, and may therefore obscure any real patterns within the samples (Jones 1984:49, 1991:68).

Sample size differences are overcome by calculating the density of plant remains, i.e. the number of plant items per litre of floated soil in a sample, which is done by calculating the total number of plant items in a sample and dividing that number with the number of litres floated for each sample. Density of plant remains and its applicability to archaeobotanical interpretation was discussed in section 5.2.1 above. Density for each sample is presented in Table 5.4 and is also listed in Appendix I.

Though the cut-off point of 10% is an arbitrary one, it has been tested by Jones (1984) who concluded that leaving out species occurring in less than 10% of samples was “more than adequate and inclusion of rarer species would have been distinctly less cost effective” (ibid.:52). Cut-off points of 5% and 15% were also tested for the Tell Brak assemblage before settling on the 10% cut-off point as being the most useful.

5.5.2. Reducing the number of variables The calculations described in the section above already simplify the data sheet by amalgamating several lists of counts, i.e., the plant identifications made within each sample part, into one list of totals per sample. Still, at this stage the data sheet contains 292 categories of plant identifications, and to further simplify the data sheet to make it more useful for the data analyses described below, the following steps were taken:

Following these steps, the initial 292 categories were reduced to 105 categories (Appendix I). Among the cereal grain identifications, the initial 37 categories were reduced to 12 categories, without losing any of the actual scores. Similarly, the original 31 cereal chaff categories were reduced to seven, but keeping all scores of the original categories.

1) Cf. categories (from the Latin imperative “confer”, compare), i.e. items that strongly resemble a taxon but where full identification was not possible due to the condition of individual items, were amalgamated with the certain identifications of the same taxon in cases where it seemed likely that these two categories were indeed the same, for instance, if they consistently occurred in the same samples. This was done on the grounds that in many cases the “cf.” identifications are related to differential preservation rather than actual morphological variation of the seeds. Table 5.5 lists the amalgamated wild taxa and their final identifications.

For the weed/wild taxa, the original 193 categories were reduced to 71, partly by amalgamating definite and “cf.” identifications, partly by deleting rare taxa. The latter step meant that 1466 seeds of weed/wild taxa were left out, but out of a total of 48700 seeds of weed/wild taxa, the number of seeds not included in the data analysis is negligible – only 3% of the total weed/wild taxa. The data sheet resulting from the above calculations is the one used for multivariate statistics as described below, and is presented in Appendix I.

2) The crop identifications were amalgamated into a number of larger groups. All glume wheat 51

A Thousand Years of Farming

Sample number 01/143 01/41 01/372 01/380 01/375 02/33 01/186 01/84 01/347 01/411 01/59 01/330 01/105 02/40 00/100 01/410 02/22 01/298 01/416 01/282 01/80 01/188 98/86 97/232 01/192 01/307 01/310 01/309 01/311 01/308 01/123 01/289 01/181 97/41 98/26 98/23 01/198 98/32 98/36 98/33 01/261 97/212

Volume processed (litres) Density GROUP A 8 504 21 423 13 360 31 193 31 187 28 186 31 185 24 156 37 149 36 142 44 142 49 135 25 117 20 107 30 105 40 90 22 84 40 65 28 62 32 53 32 50 40 49 50 48 13 27 116 21 62 20 GROUP B 4 13536 50 5806 29 1699 23 445 10 405 19 103 20 62 ? ? GROUP C 0,7 17783 46 950 1 890 20 498 28 388 15 95 n/a ? ? ?

Volume Sample processed (litres) number Density GROUP D 01/124 7 6374 02/50 12 1521 01/376 7 791 00/212 10 546 02/75 20 439 02/43 15 414 01/364 8 352 00/88 5 325 00/211 20 256 01/318 21 239 98/59 45 229 00/60 12 212 98/40 55 208 02/80 20 199 02/28 12 189 98/24 12 180 02/3 17 156 02/16 25 140 00/215 10 135 00/62 20 133 00/208 13 132 00/20 30 107 98/10 37 103 02/32 13 97 01/392 38 96 01/428 33 95 00/26 20 92 01/57 34 86 02/118 37 84 02/54 30 77 02/55 24 74 01/354 54 73 98/20 41 65 98/50 32 64 00/214 21 48 01/102 38 47 98/11 40 47 01/280 24 45 02/56 16 41 98/28 28 36 98/5 15 30 01/346 26 20 01/82 52 11 00/209 97 8 97/46 ? ? 97/200 ? ? 00/14 ? ? 00/31 ? ? 00/158 ? ? 02/69 ? ?

Total plants 4032 8876 4674 5984 5808 5204 5728 3737 5522 5128 6256 6600 2936 2143 3141 3592 1848 2594 1744 1706 1606 1961 2402 355 2452 1234 54144 290304 49280 10240 4048 1960 1246 ? 12448 43696 890 9960 10864 1432 179 ?

Table 5.4. Density of plant items per litre of processed soil in each sample. 52

Total plants 44621 18256 5536 5462 8784 6208 2812 1627 5112 5024 10304 2542 11456 3974 2266 2157 2660 3504 1354 2658 1711 3220 3820 1265 3632 3140 1833 2938 3114 2298 1770 3932 2646 2055 1016 1794 1876 1090 657 1012 443 507 556 774 ? ? ? ? ? ?

Archaeobotanical methods

FINAL ID ORIGINAL ID Vaccaria pyramidata Vaccaria pyramidata cf. Vaccaria sp. Carthamus sp. Carthamus sp. cf. Carthamus sp. Compositae B/C Compositae type B Compositae type C Compositae F/K Compositae type F Compositae type K Carex indet. Carex sp. cf. Carex Aegilops sp. glume bases Aegilops sp. glume bases Aegilops sp. rachis internodes Bromus sp. indet Bromus sp. indet. cf. Bromus sp. Eremopyrum confusum Short Eremopyrum sp. (3.5mm) cf. Eremopyrum sp. Medium grass Barley weed-type, long embryo Medium grasses indet. Medium grass A cf. Stipa sp. Triticoid type Gramineae indet. Grain Lolium sp, non-temulentum Lolium sp., non-temulentum cf. Lolium Small grass Tiny Eremopyrum-type (70% in any one sample, the status of crops were also determined by their presence in at least 50% of the samples. As discussed above, to be able to explore ancient crop management practices it is necessary to separate samples which may have been generated from the burning of dung fuel from samples that have arrived with the harvested crop. Judging from the low presence of dung in the samples in general (Appendix I), it seems unlikely that any of the samples are primarily dung-derived; however, determining the crop processing stage of each of the samples using discriminant analysis, discussed below, is also useful for determining whether this initial interpretation is valid.

The percentage calculations of crops were made within the total number of crops only, not including the weed/wild taxa. The usefulness of the 70% arbitrary indicator of crop rich samples is explored further when the samples are subjected to correspondence analysis, below. In an earlier study of archaeobotanical samples

57

A Thousand Years of Farming

SPECIES

LIFE CYCLE

Adonis sp. Aegilops sp. Ammi majus/visnaga Astragalus sp. Bellevalia sp. Bolboschoenus sp. Bromus sp. Bromus japonicus/scoparius Carex sp. Carthamus sp. Convolvulus sp. Echinochloa colona/crus-galli Eremopyrum confusum Galium spurium Galium canum/ghilanicum /humifusum/nigricans Galium ceratopodum/tenuissimum Gypsophila sp. Heliotropium sp. Lolium sp. Lolium rigidum Malva aegyptia/parviflora Medicago sp. Medicago coronata Muscari sp. Papaver dubium Papaver glaucum Papaver hybridum Prosopis farcta Rumex comglomeratus/crispus Silene sp. Teucrium orientale/polium Trigonella astroites Trigonella sp. Vaccaria pyramidata Valerianella sp. Verbascum sp.

annual annual annual/perennial annual/perennial perennial perennial annual annual perennial annual perennial annual annual annual

desert

x

ZONE dry wet steppe steppe (x) x x x x x x x (x) x x

x x x (x) x

x

annual/perennial annual annual annual annual annual annual annual annual perennial annual annual annual perennial perennial annual perennial annual annual annual annual biennial/perennial

x x x

x x

x

x x x x

x

x (x) x x

x

(x)

x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x

x x x x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x x x

x

x x x

(x)

x x (x) x

other weed disturbed grassland x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

(x)

HABITAT

(x) (x)

Table 5.9. Ecological information on the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa. x = species occasional in this zone. A range of ecological information was used in the interpretation of the Tell Brak plant assemblage. Information on life cycle and habitat preferences (Table 5.9), moisture requirements (Table 5.10), plant height (Fig. 5.1) and flowering/fruiting times (Table 5.11) of the wild taxa found in the Tell Brak samples was gathered from the volumes of the Flora of Iraq, Flora of Lowland Iraq, Flora of Turkey and Flora Palaestina (Davies, Cullen and Coode 1965-88, Guest 1966, Post 1932, Rechinger 1964, Townsend and Guest

1966, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1985), as well as from the “reputation” of individual species gathered from ethnographic observations (e.g. Charles and Bogaard 2001). Table 5.11 presents the flowering/fruiting times of the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa; this table was used both as a tool for distinguishing between crop weeds and wild taxa, and for exploring whether ecological factors associated with flowering/fruiting times could be a 58

Archaeobotanical methods

SPECIES

MOISTURE LEVEL dry dry/damp x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x?

Echinochloa colonum/crus-galli Astragalus sp. Bellevalia sp. Bromus sp. Bromus japonicus/scoparius Eremopyrum confusum Filago pyramidata Galium ceratopodum/tenuissimum Gypsophila sp. Heliotropium sp. Lolium rigidum Malva aegyptia/parviflora Muscari sp. Papaver dubium Papaver glaucum Papaver hybridum Prosopis farcta Teucrium orientale/polium Trigonella astroites Vaccaria pyramidata Verbascum sp. Adonis sp. Aegilops sp. Alopecurus sp. Ammi maius/visnaga Carthamus sp. Convolvulus sp. Eragrostis sp. Lolium sp. Lophochloa sp. Rumex conglomeratus/crispus Silene sp. Trigonella sp. Valerianella sp. Galium spurium Galium canum/ghilanicum/humifusum/nigricans Medicago sp. Medicago coronata Carex sp. Bolboschoenus sp.

damp

wet

x x x x x x

Table 5.10. Moisture requirements of the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa. factor in sample variation. The underlying assumption of this method is that crops were harvested in spring/early summer in the past as they are today in the region around Tell Brak. The weed/wild taxa were divided into groups according to the length of time after the May harvest they were known to be flowering/fruiting, on the assumption that the longer into autumn/winter this took place, the less likely the taxa were to have produced any fruit to be harvested with the crop in May. Based on this grouping, wild taxa in groups +2b to +6 (i.e. flowering/fruiting twothree to six months after May) were considered too late

for their seeds to have arrived on site with the harvested crop, and were thus treated as wild taxa rather than crop weeds. For some of the ambiguous taxa, such as Bolboschoenus sp. which may begin its flowering/fruiting season early enough for its fruits to be harvested with the crop, field observations are relied on, such as that which has shown that at least Bolboschoenus maritimus fruits after the cereal harvest (Charles and Bogaard 2001:309). Only in a few cases do the Floras distinguish between the two stages of flowering and fruiting, which is why they are not treated separately here. 59

A Thousand Years of Farming

group Species/Month -1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

Malva aegyptia/parviflora

x

x

(x)

x

x

x

x

Bromus sp.

(x)

x

x

x

Bromus japonicus/scoparius

(x)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Muscari sp.

(x)

Medicago coronata

0

Medicago sp.

x

x

x

Papaver hybridum

x

x

x

Trigonella sp.

x

x

x

Lophochloa sp.

x

x

x

Alopecurus sp.

x

x

x

Bellevalia sp.

x

x

x

Adonis sp.

(x)

x

x

Aegilops sp.

(x)

x

x

Trigonella astroites

+1

+2a

+2b

x

x

x

x

x

Papaver glaucum

x

x

x

x

Galium spurium

x

x

x

x

Silene sp.

x

x

x

Eremopyrum confusum

x

x

x

Valerianella sp.

x

x

x

Galium canum/ghilanicum/humifusum/nigricans

x

x

x

(x)

Galium ceratopodum/tenuissimum

x

x

x

x

x

Lolium sp.

x

x

x

x

x

Filago pyramidata

x

x

x

x

Vaccaria pyramidata

x

x

x

x

Lolium rigidum

x

x

x

x

Verbascum sp.

(x)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

x

x

x

(x)

(x)

x

x

x

Astragalus sp.

(x)

x

x

Ammi majus/visnaga

+6

crop

crop/late (or later) (x) crop?/late (x)

Convolvulus sp.

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

Heliotropium sp.

(x)

(x)

x

x

x

(x)

(x)

(x)

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

Carthamus sp.

x

x

x

x

Teucrium orientale/polium

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bolboschoenus sp. +4

crop/early

x

Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus +3

crop/early

Papaver dubium

Gypsophila sp.

(x)

Echinochloa colona/crus-galli

(x)

Prosopis farcta

Table 5.11. Flowering/fruiting times of the Tell Brak weed/wild taxa.

60

Dec

late (x) Late Late

Archaeobotanical methods

DA classification winnow by-pr winnow by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr AVERAGE f-s product f-s product f-s product f-s product f-s product f-s product f-s by-pr f-s product winnow by-pr winnow by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr f-s by-pr

Sample

Ratio glume wheat grain:chaff GROUP A 00/100 1:18 01/298 1:20 97/232 1:6 98/86 1:67 01/41 1:48 01/59 1:50 01/80 1:20 01/84 1:11 1:14 01/105 01/143 1:12 01/186 1:8 01/188 1:48 01/192 1:32 01/282 1:10 01/307 1:11 01/330 1:16 01/347 1:14 01/372 1:21 01/375 1:9 01/380 1:5 01/410 1:4 01/411 1:9 01/416 1:29 02/22 1:13 02/33 1:7 02/40 1:63 1:22 GROUP B 97/41 491:0 01/310 408:0 01/289 371:0 01/311 346:0 01/123 207:0 01/308 267:1 01/181 144:1 01/309 32:1 GROUP D 00/88 1:2 02/55 1:5 97/46 1:3 97/200 1:5 98/5 1:13 98/10 1:5

DA Sample Ratio glume wheat classification grain:chaff GROUP D, continued f-s by-pr 98/11 1:9 f-s by-pr 98/20 1:4 f-s by-pr 98/24 1:2 f-s by-pr 98/28 1:13 f-s by-pr 98/40 1:17 f-s by-pr 98/50 1:10 f-s by-pr 98/59 1:4 f-s by-pr 00/14 1:2 f-s by-pr 00/20 1:6 f-s by-pr 00/26 1:3 f-s by-pr 00/31 1:1 f-s by-pr 00/60 1:4 f-s by-pr 00/62 1:4 f-s by-pr 00/158 1:3 f-s by-pr 00/208 1:3 f-s by-pr 00/209 1:3 f-s by-pr 00/211 1:3 f-s by-pr 00/214 1:2 f-s by-pr 00/215 1:1 f-s by-pr 01/57 1:20 f-s by-pr 01/82 1:1 f-s by-pr 01/102 1:3 f-s by-pr 01/124 1:15 f-s by-pr 01/280 1:4 f-s by-pr 01/318 1:6 f-s by-pr 01/346 2:1 f-s by-pr 01/354 1:2 1:6 f-s by-pr 01/364 f-s by-pr 01/376 1:4 f-s by-pr 01/392 1:6 f-s by-pr 01/428 1:2 f-s by-pr 02/3 1:3 f-s by-pr 02/16 1:3 f-s by-pr 02/28 1:3 f-s by-pr 02/32 1:2 f-s by-pr 02/43 1:7 f-s by-pr 02/50 1:3 f-s by-pr 02/54 1:3 f-s by-pr 02/56 1:9 f-s by-pr 02/69 1:1 f-s by-pr 02/75 1:3 f-s by-pr 02/80 1:10 f-s by-pr 02/118 1:4 Mixed 00/212 1:4 AVERAGE 1:5

Table 5.12. Ratios of glume wheat and barley grain to chaff.

61

A Thousand Years of Farming

Crop

Grain

Chaff

Emmer

2

1 spikelet fork

Jones during her study of non-mechanised farming techniques on Amorgos, and by running discriminant analysis on the composition of weed seeds from the ethnographic samples it was possible to separate the samples into the known crop processing stages.

(2 glume bases) Barley

1 or 3

1 rachis internode

Pulse

1

0

Flax

1

0

Jones (1984, 1987, 1990) has produced a crop processing model based on discriminant analysis using characteristics of weed seeds rather than weed species. These characteristics are related to the behaviour of the weed seeds during crop processing, i.e., how they react to for instance being winnowed or sieved, and the characteristics they have been divided into are in terms of size, weight or aerodynamic properties (i.e. whether, for instance, seeds have “wings” to aid dispersal by wind), and whether they tend to remain in heads or easily break up into individual seeds.

Table 5.13. Ratios of grain to chaff for emmer wheat, barley and flax. 5.5.4. Determining crop processing stage of the samples As discussed above, when exploring variation in crop husbandry techniques using the archaeobotanical samples, it is important to compare samples deriving from the same crop processing stage. One way of estimating the crop processing stage of the Tell Brak samples is to calculate the ratios of grain to chaff of different crops, which are presented in Table 5.12 for each sample. Since a spikelet of emmer wheat commonly consists of two grains and two glumes, the grain:glume ratio is 1:1 for unprocessed emmer wheat (Table 5.13). Glume wheat samples with a high ratio of grains to glumes are therefore likely to be (semi-) cleaned crop products, whereas samples containing a low ratio of grains to glumes are likely to be byproducts of crop cleaning. Barley follows a similar principle with one or three grains per rachis internode; barley rachis, however, tends to survive charring less well than glume wheat chaff (Boardman and Jones 1990) and therefore may be biased against, as mentioned in section 5.5.3. The cleanness of flax and pulse samples is less easy to determine from this method, since flax and pulse “chaff” (pod fragments, stems) is not often found archaeologically.

There are several advantages to the use of weed characteristics (Jones 1984:53): different archaeobotanical deposits cannot be expected to contain the exact same weed species, and the composition of weeds accompanying a crop may change through time – relying on the characteristics of weed seeds means archaeological samples can be compared not only with other archaeological assemblages, but also with modern samples from a known crop processing sequence. The range of weed characteristics used are (Jones 1984:54): a) Aerodynamic properties of seeds – relevant to winnowing. b) Tendency of seeds to stay in heads – relevant to coarse sieving c) Size of seeds – relevant to fine sieving Using all three characteristics together enables discriminant analysis to distinguish between samples even better (Jones 1984:55, 1991:74). The weeds are therefore grouped into classes of big-free-heavy, smallfree-light, etc.

The variability in presence and “survivability” of the different types of crop chaff means that this approach is of limited use when assessing crop processing stage of the samples; Jones (1984:48), therefore, argues that using the accompanying crop weeds are more useful when assessing crop processing stage of different types of crops.

Discriminant analysis, in the words of Shennan (1997:350), “presupposes that we can divide our observations into groups on the basis of some criterion and then attempts to find ways of distinguishing those same groups on the basis of some independent criterion derived from the data”. Unlike correspondence analysis, discussed below, which looks at each variable independently, discriminant analysis will reduce the variables to composite discriminant functions, thus maximising statistical separation (Jones 1984:49). The variables used are the character-groups discussed above (i.e. big-free-heavy, etc.) and using these, discriminant analysis classifies each of the Tell Brak samples into the most appropriate of the four ethnographic groups, and lists the probability of each classification. The

An external approach (i.e. one that includes variables from outside the data assemblage, as opposed to an internal approach using only variables within the data set itself), using discriminant analysis and based on the ethnographic observations made by Glynis Jones on the Greek island of Amorgos (Jones 1984, 1987, 1990, 1991), is used here to determine which crop processing stage each of the Tell Brak samples belongs to. Byproducts of winnowing and coarse sieving and the byproduct and product of fine sieving were sampled by 62

Archaeobotanical methods

Big, Free, Heavy Aegilops sp. Convolvulus sp. Eremopyrum confusum Big, Headed, Heavy Medicago type A Prosopis sp. Small, Free, Light Bromus indet. Bromus japonicus/scoparius Bromus type A Echinochloa colona/crus-galli Filago pyramidata Small, Headed, Heavy Malva aegyptia/parviflora Medicago cf. coronata Silene type A Silene type B Silene type C Small, Headed, Light Lolium rigidum

Small, Free, Heavy Adonis sp. Ammi maius/visnaga Astragalus indet. Bellevalia sp. Carex cf. otrubae Carex cf. remota Galium canum/ghilanicum/humifusum/nigricans Galium ceratopodum/tenuissimum Galium spurium Galium indet. Gypsophila sp. Heliotropium type A Heliotropium type B Lolium sp., non-temulentum Lolium type C Muscari sp. Papaver dubium Papaver glaucum Papaver hybridum Papaver sp. Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus Bolboschoenus type A Teucrium orientale/polium Trigonella astroites Trigonella indet. Vaccaria pyramidata Valerianella sp. Verbascum sp.

Table 5.14. Weed characteristics used in discriminant analysis. probabilities work as indicators of how similar a given sample is to one of the groups as opposed to the other ones, but are not absolute indicators of the origin of a sample (Charles and Bogaard 2001:312-13).

under the name of Filago pyramidata at a later stage in the study were thought to consist of more than one species (see Appendix II), the very small size of these seeds meant that they were still very likely to be smallfree-light as F. pyramidata has been categorised as, and they should, therefore, not distort the pattern generated by discriminant analysis.

To run the analysis, the wild taxa from the Tell Brak samples that were considered likely crop weeds were categorised according to the groups of characteristics described above, which were used as the discriminative variables (Table 5.14). The characterisation of weeds was done following data compiled at Sheffield and where no information was found of specific species, by observing modern reference material. In the case of genus identifications, unless one common character could be found for all species, these were left out. For the taxa observed in the laboratory in Sheffield, the cut-off between big and small seeds was set at a 2 mm diameter, following an earlier archaeobotanical study from Tell Brak (Charles and Bogaard 2001:312). In some cases, where a taxon had been categorised differently in different earlier studies, the category that appeared closest to the particular taxon found at Tell Brak was used. Though the seeds grouped together

To run discriminant analysis successfully, a minimum of ten weed seeds per sample were required (Jones 1987:313). Seven of the Brak samples contained less than ten weed seeds each and were thus left out of the analysis, but as these particular samples included one pure flax sample (sample 01/261) and the remaining six samples contained 85% or more barley grain (samples 97/41, 01/123, 01/308, 01/309, 01/310 and 01/311), these samples can safely be considered fine sieving products based on their composition alone. All variables in the resulting data sheet were squarerooted to make the data more normally distributed (Jones 1984:49, 1991:69, Shennan 1997:94). The Brak data was then entered into SPSS (Norusis 2002), using 63

A Thousand Years of Farming

Winnowing

Coarse sieving

Fine sieving

Fine sieving

by-product

by-product

by-product

product

Free-threshing

SFL, SHL

SHH, BHH

SFH

BFH

Glume wheat

SFL, SHL

SFH, SHH,

BFH, BHH

Table 5.15. Differences in crop processing methods between free-threshing cereals and glume wheat as reflected in the characteristics of the respective crop weeds present in the by-products/products (SFL = small-free-light; SHL = smallheaded-light; SFH = small-free-heavy; SHH = small-headed-heavy; BFH = big-free-heavy; BHH = big-headedheavy). the direct method (Jones 1984:49), alongside the Amorgos data acting as control groups. Discriminant analysis then attempted to separate the Brak samples into the four ethnographically observed processing stages, the results of which are discussed in the following chapter.

5.5.5. Pattern searching in the Tell Brak samples The Tell Brak samples were analysed using correspondence analysis to identify the major compositional patterns present within the data set. Particular attention was given to exploring variation in the weed assemblages associated with individual crops indicative of crop management. Correspondence analysis was also used to display compositional aspects of the dataset.

It should be kept in mind that the ethnographic samples from Amorgos consisted of free-threshing cereals, whereas the Tell Brak samples include a mixture of glume wheats and free-threshing, hulled barley, and there are no ethnographic models available for the processing of glume wheats. The crop cleaning processes of glume wheat and free-threshing cereals differ in a number of stages in the process, as discussed above (section 5.1.1.2) and in the range of plant elements that are left out at each stage of the cleaning process (Hillman 1984:4-6).

The multivariate ordination technique correspondence analysis detects variation in the composition of samples by comparing the species composition of each sample with every other sample. This is done by placing each variable (in this study, samples or taxa) in a plot along axes according to the similarities or differences between the variables. The point where the two axes meet is neutral, that is, variables placed in this area show similarities, and the greater the distance from the neutral point and from each other, the greater the differences between the variables (Shennan 1997:321). Axis 1 (horizontal) and Axis 2 (vertical) account for most of the variation in the data plots (ibid.:318-21), and are the axes most commonly represented in the plots discussed in the following chapter. The statistical computer programme CANOCO, which is designed to analyse vegetation survey data (ter Braak and Šmilauer 2002), was used to run the analyses, and CANODRAW (ibid.) was used to draw the correspondence plots.

A major difference regarding the weed seeds accompanying the crops is that, unlike free-threshing cereals, glume wheat spikelets need to be pounded in order to release the grain, which, in terms of the weed seeds, which are of primary interest when running discriminant analysis, means that headed seeds are broken up into their smaller seed components (Charles 1989:176). Unlike in the process of cleaning a freethreshing cereal crop, where heavy, headed weed seeds will tend to be left out at the coarse sieving stage, when cleaning a glume wheat crop, heavy headed weed seeds - after the pounding stage present as individual seeds rather than in heads - are likely to stay with the cereal crop for longer in the cleaning process. In short, headed seeds are likely to behave in a similar manner to the equivalent free seeds when processing glume wheats. The presence of small-headed-heavy and big-headedheavy seeds are likely to reflect coarse sieving byproducts in the Amorgos, free-threshing, samples, but likely to reflect fine sieving by-products, and products, respectively, in the Tell Brak, predominantly glume wheat, samples (Table 5.15). A comparison of the two groups of samples should be possible, however, when keeping these differences in mind (van der Veen 1992:84).

Samples from the working data sheet in Excel (Appendix I) were imported into CANOCO once a certain amount of clarifying the data assemblage had been done by eliminating outliers and ecologically vague identifications (i.e. types), in order to get a clearer pattern of the variation among samples; symmetric correspondence plots were then created. Correspondence analysis was used in this study to explore the overall composition of the samples in terms of crops, weeds and wild taxa, thus assessing the validity of the grouping of the samples based on their percentage composition of crop elements. The analysis was also used to explore whether methods of crop 64

Archaeobotanical methods

husbandry were factors of sample variation. Information on archaeological contexts and periods, and aspects of weed ecology, was displayed by coding the sample and taxon points, to determine whether botanical variation between samples was related to any of these factors.

It is important that only crop weeds are considered in the analysis, leaving out wild taxa brought onto the site by other means. The division between potential crop weeds and other wild taxa was mainly based on the flowering/fruiting times of the wild taxa relative to the crop harvest around Tell Brak (section 5.5.3. and Table 5.11). Taxa flowering/fruiting after the crop harvest in the region (May-June), and thus unlikely to have been brought to the site with the harvested crop, were left out of the analysis.

To assess the crop husbandry methods applied to a crop is it necessary to ensure that the samples used in the analysis are as unmixed as possible, i.e. that they contain crops grown under the same conditions, and undergoing the same stages of crop processing. The group C, flax-dominated, samples were easily identified as representing a single crop. For the glume wheat and barley samples, on the other hand, there was no obvious point at which mixed and pure samples were divided, but rather each of the pure crop groups and the mixed group formed a continuum of percentage levels. The first stages of analysis were therefore aimed at defining at what level the glume wheat and barley dominated samples could be successfully distinguished from the more mixed samples.

Analysis was carried out on the entire data sheet, as well as parts of it – crop dominated samples only, crops and wild taxa together, crops only, wild taxa only, crop weeds only, samples from one crop processing stage only, etc. The clearest patterns were generated by using the crop weed taxa of glume wheat-dominated fine sieving by-products only. The correspondence analysis plots are presented and discussed in the following two chapters.

65

Chapter 6 Results of the archaeobotanical study Flax is represented by seeds which are all cleaned, with only very few fragments of capsules observed in the samples, though a fair number of flax capsule stalks were seen (a total of 236 in 34 samples).

6.1. Crops, non-domesticated taxa and other botanical finds in the Tell Brak samples In the following, the results are discussed in terms of the identified crops present at Tell Brak, before presenting the results of the statistical analyses of the crop groups.

Though lentil (Lens culinaris) never gets above the 70% cut-off point in per-sample predominance and is present in large proportions in only two samples (50% in sample 01/102 and 37% in 01/364, both of which are mixed samples, see below), it is common throughout the assemblage (occurring in 64 (70%) samples). The low numbers of lentil, despite its ubiquity, may in part reflect the fact that pulses tend to survive charring less well than cereals, as well as the fact that pulses, because of the way they are processed before consumption - parching not being necessary to release the seeds - are less likely to be charred than cereals (Colledge 2003:399). It should be noted, however, that even though lentils account for only 8% of the crop composition in sample 01/372, for instance, the number of lentils identified from this sample is 104, and four samples contain well over 50 lentils (up to 275 in sample 01/364), which is the amount suggested by Charles and Bogaard as a minimal indicator of crop use (Charles and Bogaard 2001:308). The importance of lentils as a crop at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak is ambiguous, but given its ubiquity it may well have been among the major crops at the site.

6.1.1. Major crops The major crops in the Late Chalcolithic samples from Tell Brak are glume wheats (Triticum dicoccum/ monococcum) occurring in 89 (97%) samples and predominant (i.e. with a >70% proportion) in 26 (28%) samples; the free-threshing cereal, hulled barley (Hordeum distichum/hexastichum), occurring in 88 (96%) samples and predominant in 8 (9%) samples; and flax (Linum usitatissimum), occurring in 54 (59%) samples and predominant in 8 (9%) samples. The glume wheats consist mainly of glume bases and are predominantly of emmer wheat (T. dicocccum) with a fair proportion of einkorn wheat (T. monococcum); the identification of grain and chaff as emmer/einkorn is more a reflection of the level of preservation of the plant remains than a reflection of actual morphological differences. Barley is mainly represented by grains, which appear to be predominantly straight, i.e. two-row (H. distichum). The distinction between two-row and six-row barley (H. hexastichum) is most easily made on the cereal chaff, a large proportion of which has been identified as two-row; only a single barley rachis has been identified as six-row and as in the case of the glume wheat chaff, the amount of barley rachis identified as two-row/six-row barley is primarily a reflection of the preservation level of the rachis. The hulled barley chaff thus seems to reinforce the impression given by the barley grains that the hulled barley in the Tell Brak samples is predominantly of the two-row variety.

6.1.2. Other cultivated and collected plants Some of the non-domesticated taxa found in the Tell Brak samples could, potentially, have been collected by people for use in a number of ways: Among the more obvious is Ficus carica, fig. A few seeds of Vitis sp., grape, and Pistacia sp., pistachio, as well as indeterminate nut shells and possible fragments of fruit skin were also found in the samples. Apart from lentils, other pulses encountered in the samples include Pisum sativum, common pea, Lathyrus sativus, grass pea, and a single find of Cicer sp., chickpea.

As mentioned in the previous chapter (section 5.5.3.), experiments on modern plant material have shown that barley (and free-threshing wheat) rachis is generally less likely to survive charring than glume wheat chaff (Boardman and Jones 1990), though the overall good preservation of the Tell Brak plant material suggests that the temperature of charring was relatively low (probably around 250°C, which is the lowest temperature estimated to be able to carbonise plant material within a reasonable length of time (ibid.:2)) and thus insufficient to be responsible for the loss of material differentially. The differences in predominant plant elements between the barley and glume wheat rich samples therefore most probably reflect the different derivation of the samples in terms of crop processing stages.

The seeds of Carthamus sp. could potentially be C. tinctorius, safflower, the flower heads of which contain the dye safflower carmine, which is used for the dyeing of textiles (van Zeist 2003b:16). The seeds of C. tinctorius can also be used for the extraction of a viscous material used for waterproofing (Charles 1985:52). The seeds of Prosopis farcta are eaten by humans as well as grazed by animals, but are generally only collected as a famine food – it is known as “poor woman’s dates” (‫@ة‬ABCD‫@ ا‬FGH) in Iraq (Townsend and Guest 1974:41).

66

Results of the archaeobotanical study

The bulbs of some species of the Muscari genus are edible (Townsend and Guest 1985:126-34). Lepidium sativum, common or garden cress, is used in salads.

6.1.4. Other Sheep/goat dung fragments are present in 52 (57%) samples and generally in low amounts - the average volume is 2 ml. The highest amounts of dung encountered in the Tell Brak samples are present in samples 98/40 (a group D sample, see below) and 00/60 (group A), both of which contain 5 ml of dung (Appendix I).

Some species of the Malva genus, mallow, are considered useful food plants, eaten cooked or raw, and used for medicinal purposes as well (Townsend and Guest 1980:231). The roots of some species of Convolvulus sp., bindweed, also have medicinal properties.

Charcoal is present in 64 (70%) samples but, like dung, generally in low levels. The average volume is 4 ml; the largest amount of charcoal – 26 ml – was observed in sample 01/188, a glume wheat chaff dominated sample (Appendix I).

Astragalus sp. is known to be collected for fuel in the Taurus Mountains (Nesbitt 1995:77) and in Iran gum tragacanth is extracted from some species of this genus, a method which has been known from at least the 7th century BC (Townsend 1974:233-4).

6.2. Sample composition For the wild taxa above one needs to keep in mind, however, that only their seeds have been uncovered from the archaeological levels at Tell Brak, and not the leaves, bulbs or roots that served the culinary, medicinal or other purposes (though some indeterminate tubers were observed in the samples). The presence of the above seeds thus merely attests to the fact that these plants were brought to Tell Brak in one way or the other - not necessarily intentionally but does not provide any secure evidence for these plants being taken into use by the inhabitants of the settlement.

The samples from Tell Brak can be divided into four relatively coherent groups based on their crop composition according to the relative abundance of a crop component (grain/seed or chaff) in any sample, and the number of samples in which it occurs, as discussed in section 5.5.3. The Tell Brak samples have been divided into the following groups (Table 5.8): Group A: 26 samples containing more than or equal to 70% glume wheat chaff, Group B: 8 samples containing more than or equal to 70% hulled barley grain,

6.1.3. Non-cultivated taxa A total of 71 identifications, from type- to species level, and present in more than 10% of samples, has been made of the non-domesticated taxa in the Tell Brak samples, the most common type of which is the grasses (Appendix I). Of the grasses, goat-face grasses (Aegilops sp.), both glume bases and grain, are present in practically every sample.

Group C: 8 samples containing more than or equal to 70% cultivated flax seeds, Group D: 50 samples with a mixed composition of the plant categories above, none of which reach the level of 70%. The validity of these groups is further explored through discriminant and correspondence analysis, below, and various aspects of this division are discussed in the later sections of this chapter.

Looking at the habitat information of the noncultivated taxa encountered in the Tell Brak samples (Table 5.9), it is apparent that most of the weed species are found in fields and disturbed habitats today. Many of the weeds in the Tell Brak samples could therefore potentially have been growing in fields in the past (the range of weeds of cultivation would have been well established by the fourth millennium BC) and may thus have arrived on site with the harvested crop. Other wild taxa, however, though present in fields, are unlikely to have been in fruit at the time of harvest (cf. Table 5.11), and may therefore have arrived on the site by some other means, while some taxa may not have been growing in fields at all. The importance of distinguishing between potential crop weeds and wild taxa not associated with the crop harvest was discussed in the previous chapter, as were the methods used in this study for distinguishing between the two groups of weed/wild taxa (section 5.5.3.).

Charles and Bogaard (2001:310) made a similar division of groups within third millennium BC charred plant samples from Tell Brak. They settled on a level of 80% crop element domination, which could be used in the present study as well, in the case of the barley grain and flax rich samples, whereas this level would have reduced the number of glume wheat chaff dominated samples to 14, almost half its present number. Since the division between crop rich and mixed samples is ambiguous especially in the case of the glume wheat rich samples, in order to keep as many samples as possible within group A while still keeping them as “pure” as possible, the level of 70% richness was chosen.

67

A Thousand Years of Farming

a common method of separating flax seeds is rippling (Pals and Dierendonck 1988:242, Keijzer 1989:27), where the flax stems are drawn through a rippling comb that retains the seed heads, which are then threshed. Uprooting and rippling are both methods where few plants (relative to cereals) are processed at a time; this would affect the numbers of weeds accidentally processed along with the crop, as fewer weed plants would have been overlooked and therefore accidentally harvested with the flax crop. The most ubiquitous weed taxon in the flax samples, Lolium sp., is similar to flax in height range, which is probably why it had not been completely removed in the cleaning of this crop; flax stems are 10-100 cm in height (Davis, Cullen and Coode 1965-88, vol. 2:448) whereas Lolium sp. is 0-80 cm (Fig. 5.1).

6.2.1. Group A - >70% glume wheat chaff The predominant element in this group is glume wheat chaff, with much less, but roughly equal, amounts of glume wheat and barley grain, and even less barley rachis. Pulses and flax seeds are present but at low levels (Table 5.8). Weed/wild taxa are abundant, contributing an average 36% (calculated from Table 5.7). The weed/wild plant component is primarily made up of crop weeds, presumably of the glume wheat crop (Aegilops sp., Alopecurus sp., Lophochloa sp., Medicago sp., and Trigonella sp.), though there are also low levels of contamination by non-crop weeds, e.g. Bolboschoenus sp. (Appendix I). 6.2.2. Group B - >70% hulled barley grain The barley-dominated samples comprise mainly hulled barley grains, with much smaller proportions of glume wheat grain and chaff, and hardly any barley rachis. There are no pulses in the group B samples and only one sample (01/181) contains any flax (1%). The levels of weed/wild taxa are also relatively low, contributing an average 12%. The weed/wild component is made up of primarily crop weeds, and of these Aegilops sp. is the most common overall, corresponding with the late crop processing stage of the group B samples, though one sample (01/181) also contains comparatively high levels of Papaver spp., and Eremopyrum confusum is present in two samples. The different species of Papaver may have survived the processing of the barley grain as whole capsules, which would explain why these seeds are present among otherwise large seeds (both Aegilops sp. and Eremopyrum confusum are big-free-heavy), though no capsule fragments were observed. The finds of primarily Aegilops sp. in these samples corresponds to this weed mimicking the crop, as described above for the group A samples. No noncrop weeds were observed in any significant amount.

6.2.4. Group D – mixed composition Generally a fairly even mix of hulled barley grains and glume wheat chaff, as well as two samples with comparatively high percentages of lentils (50% in sample 01/102 and 37% in sample 01/364), and one sample (98/28) containing 41% flax seeds. Seven samples also contain relatively high percentages of barley rachis (25-52%), while five samples contain more than 50% barley grain. Weed/wild taxa make up roughly half of each sample (49%) on average, though ranging from 18% to 79%. The most common crop weeds are Aegilops sp., Lolium type C and L. nontemulentum, whereas Eremopyrum confusum, Trigonella sp., Papaver glaucum, Malva aegyptia/ parviflora and Bellevalia sp. are also common in a number of the samples. The weeds are more or less equally divided between big-free-heavy and small-freeheavy, reflecting the mixing of by-products from more than one crop processing stage. Among the wild taxa, Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus and Astragalus sp. are most common. This group is characterised by its mixed composition and by a steady “increase” - on the glume wheat chaff scale of Table 5.8 – in glume wheat chaff throughout the samples, with no point at which they are definitely different from the group A samples, and with the highest levels of barley grain and chaff at the other end of the scale. The mixed and unmixed samples have therefore been arbitrarily separated at the level of 70%. The validity of the separation at this level is assessed below.

6.2.3. Group C - >70% cultivated flax seeds All but one of the flax-dominated samples contain more than 96% flax seeds, one other sample (98/33) containing 63% flax seeds. The sample containing only 63% flax seeds also includes a much higher proportion of weed/wild taxa (76%) than the remaining flaxdominated samples. The weed/wild taxa (averaging 22%) are primarily crop weeds such as Aegilops sp., Lolium sp. (type C and non-temulentum) and Silene type C, with lower levels of Vaccaria pyramidata and Trigonella sp., all of which are assumed to have grown with the flax. Two types of taxa, Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus and Astragalus sp., are also present in a few samples; both types belong in group +2b and are thus less likely to be crop weeds, though Astragalus sp. begins its flowering/fruiting early (February/March) and thus could be fruiting in May.

The different processing strategies used for cleaning the glume wheats and the free-threshing hulled barley, respectively, in the mixed samples means that these two crops cannot have been grown together in a field as a maslin (Jones and Halstead 1995), and consequently this group of samples must be derived from more than one source of crop processing. A number of mixed samples containing comparatively high levels of lentils and flax, crops not grown with cereals for the same reason, supports this interpretation.

Flax is usually harvested by uprooting rather than cutting (Sultana 1989:96), and though the seeds can be separated from the stems by pounding as with cereals,

68

Results of the archaeobotanical study

100% 80% 60%

>30 cm 0-30 cm

40% 20% 0% L01/80

L01/376

L01/411

L01/186

L01/410

L98/59

L01/59

L01/416

L02/22

L02/33

L01/105

L01/84

L01/330

L01/192

E02/40

E01/380

E97/232

E00/20

E01/347

E01/392

E02/80

E00/209

E01/372

E01/307

E01/188

E98/5

E01/282

Fig. 6.1. Bar chart showing the groups of minimum plant height of the crop weeds in group A+D>60% fine sieving byproduct samples; samples are divided into the two chronological groups (Northern Early and Middle Uruk (E) and Late/post-late Uruk (L) samples) and sorted on the tallest plant group. The following taxa were used for this table: Aegilops sp., Bromus japonicus, Lolium type A and C, Eremopyrum confusum, Malva type A, Vaccaria sp., Bellevalia sp., Muscari sp., Trigonella astroites, Medicago type B, Valerianella sp., Silene type B, Adonis sp., Galium spurium. For the interpretation of farming practices, therefore, this group of mixed crops is of limited use.

culm node richness, shows how the earlier Late Chalcolithic samples contain higher numbers of culm nodes than the later Late Chalcolithic samples. This is not necessarily a direct indication of harvest height, however, but could also be a result of changes in the distribution and storage of crop processing byproducts.

6.3. Determination of harvesting height using sample composition Harvesting height of the crops may be assessed using two types of information: the minimum height of the weed species associated with the crop and the proportion of culm nodes present in the samples.

6.4. Determination of crop processing stages As discussed in the previous chapter (section 5.5.4.), it is possible to roughly assess how a crop has been processed by calculating the cereal grain:chaff ratio in the sample. This ratio was calculated for sample groups A, B and D (Table 5.12). The glume wheat chaff dominated (group A) samples contain ratios of between 1:4 and 1:67, and averaging 1:22, i.e. few grains and high levels of chaff, indicating the generally late crop processing stage – and the by-product character - of the samples. The group D samples contain glume wheat grain:chaff ratios of 2:1-1:20, averaging 1:5, and it could be argued that these samples, though they appear most likely to be by-products of crop cleaning, also contain some amount of what may be unprocessed glume wheat grain, that may have been discarded by accident, or mixed with by-products to be used as highquality animal fodder. The barley grain rich samples contain between 491:0 and 32:1 grain:chaff ratios, indicating how carefully the grain has been separated from the chaff.

The minimum height of the crop weeds in the Tell Brak samples reflects the harvesting height of the crops these weeds were associated with; in order for the present assemblage of weed seeds to have arrived on the site with the harvested crop, the crops would have had to be harvested below the level of the lowest type of these weed species in the field. Fig. 6.1 presents a bar chart of the minimum heights of the crop weeds in the glume wheat chaff fine sieving by-product samples, divided into groups; there is a significant proportion of low-growing weeds in the samples, indicating that the glume wheat crop may have been harvested relatively low on the straw. On Fig. 6.1 the samples have been divided into their chronological groups to explore any changes in time. Samples from the later half of the Late Chalcolithic contain comparatively higher levels of the lowest-growing group of taxa, indicating that the glume wheat crop may have been harvested lower on the straw at this time than in the first half of the Late Chalcolithic.

To assess crop processing stage of the samples independently from the crops, the method by Jones, using discriminant analysis and described in Chapter 5 (section 5.5.4.), was used. Fig. 6.3 presents the discriminant plot of 85 samples from Tell Brak (those containing more than ten weed seeds relevant to the analysis), plotted against the ethnographic samples from Amorgos. The plot shows clearly that most of the Tell Brak samples resemble those of the fine sieving by-product category. They all appear within the

Hillman (1981:150) has suggested that a useful indicator of the practice of harvesting low on the straw is the number of culm nodes present in the samples, since the more straw brought on-site, the higher the number of culm nodes. Culm nodes are generally present in the Tell Brak assemblage in high levels. A bar chart presenting the number of culm nodes in each of the glume wheat chaff rich fine sieving by-product samples (Fig. 6.2), grouped on period and sorted on 69

A Thousand Years of Farming

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 L01/410

L02/33

L01/80

L01/411

L01/186

L01/416

L02/22

L01/192

L01/59

L98/59

L01/376

L01/330

L01/84

L01/105

E01/282

E97/232

E01/372

E01/307

E98/5

E00/209

E01/392

E01/380

E02/40

E00/20

E01/347

E01/188

E02/80

Fig. 6.2. Number of culm nodes present in group A+D>60% fine sieving by-product samples, divided into the two chronological groups (Northern Early and Middle Uruk (E) and Late/post-late Uruk (L) samples) and sorted on culm node richness. Table 6.1 presents the classifications of the Tell Brak samples made by discriminant analysis, and the probability of each classification. Discriminant analysis also calculates the second-most probable classification for each sample and its probability, also listed in Table 6.1. Most of the samples have been classified as fine sieving by-products; some samples have been categorised as winnowing by-products or fine sieving products, whereas none of the Tell Brak samples have been categorised as coarse sieving by-products.

ethnographic groups, indicating that the samples are similar in their weed seed composition to the ethnographic crop processing stage samples. The “tail” in the fine sieving by-product end of the plot appears to imply that this group of Tell Brak samples conforms very well to the weed seed composition of ethnographically observed fine sieving by-products. The major difference in weed seed composition for each crop processing stage of free-threshing and glume wheats, respectively, was discussed in the previous chapter (section 5.5.4.). The weed seeds of fine sieving by-products are likely to be small-free-heavy for both types of crops, while the processing of glume wheats means that small-headed-heavy seeds are also likely to reflect fine sieving by-products for this type of crop (Table 5.15). By comparing with the ethnographic, free-threshing, crops, the samples should, therefore, be more likely to be classified as coarse sieving byproducts if a sufficient number of small-headed-heavy seeds are present in any one sample. However, as discussed below, none of the archaeological samples have been classified as coarse sieving by-products, and it is assumed - from the way sample composition corresponds with the results of this analysis - that most samples have been correctly classified by discriminant analysis. Ambiguous samples are discussed in the sections below.

Most of the samples have been placed in the first classification with a probability of more than 0.95, that is, with a very high possibility that this is the correct classification. Ten samples, however, have been classified with probabilities below 0.75, and others, though classified with a high probability, do clearly not correspond with their primary classification, judging from their plant element composition. Table 6.1 lists the final classifications reached in the case of doubtfully classified samples. The classifications are discussed within each group below. The square-rooted numbers for each weed seed category per sample is listed in Table 6.2. Seven samples, one group C and six group B samples, were not included in the discriminant analysis, as they contained less than ten weed seeds sufficiently identified for the purpose of this analysis. Furthermore, in the case of the flax rich group C samples, the model used here is inappropriate as this crop has significantly different processing requirements from the freethreshing cereals that the analysis is modelled on. The six group B, barley rich, samples are very likely to be fine sieving products as they all contain at least 87% barley grain, with only minor amounts of cereal chaff and weed seeds. The flax rich group C sample contains 100% flax seeds and is clearly a crop product.

The mixed group D samples were plotted on their own along with the Amorgos samples (Fig. 6.4), to determine to what degree these particular samples differ from the crop rich samples in terms of their spatial distribution. The mixed crop samples are distributed evenly among the Tell Brak samples (comparing this plot with Fig. 6.3), not forming any distinct groups, reflecting the continuum of crop richness throughout the samples, as discussed above.

70

Results of the archaeobotanical study

4

2

0

group centroids

-2

Tell Brak samples -4

fine sieve prod fine sieve by-prod

Function 2

-6

coarse sieve by-prod winnowing by-prod

-8 -6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Function 1

Fig. 6.3. Discriminant plot of 85 charred plant samples from Tell Brak plotted in relation to the ethnographic samples from Amorgos, from known crop processing stages. 4

2

0

Group Centroids -2

Tell Brak samples fine sieve product

Function 2

-4

fine sieve by-prod -6

coarse sieve by-pr winnowing by-prod

-8 -6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Function 1 Fig. 6.4. Discriminant plot with Amorgos and Tell Brak samples as above, showing mixed samples only. two group D samples were classified with high probabilities, whereas the remaining group A sample and four group D samples were grouped with classifications below 0.75. The second classification of the latter five samples is as fine sieving by-products;

6.4.1. Samples classified as winnowing by-products Nine samples were classified as winnowing byproducts by discriminant analysis: six mixed crop samples and three group A samples. Two group A and

71

A Thousand Years of Farming

discriminant grouping probability winnowing by-product 1,00 0,99 0,61 0,99 0,98 0,73 0,6 0,59 0,59 fine sieving by-product 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,74 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,99 0,99 0,94 0,94 0,88 0,82 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

major crop wheat wheat wheat mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed barley flax flax flax flax flax flax flax wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat wheat mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed

sample 00/100 01/298 97/232 00/88 02/55 00/209 98/40 01/392 00/158 01/181 98/36 97/212 98/32 98/23 98/33 98/26 01/198 01/416 02/22 01/59 01/375 01/330 01/372 01/307 01/80 98/86 01/188 01/347 01/380 01/186 01/192 02/40 01/84 01/282 01/41 01/411 01/105 02/33 01/143 01/410 01/354 01/376 02/54 02/75 00/214 00/26 02/32 02/28 98/5 01/82 00/20

2nd grouping 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4

probability 0,00 0,00 0,40 0,01 0,02 0,18 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05 0,05 0,09 0,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

final classification

fine sieving by-product

fine sieving by-product fine sieving by-product fine sieving by-product fine sieving by-product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product

Table 6.1. Discriminant analysis of the Tell Brak samples and their probabilities. For the second groupings, 1 = winnowing by-product, 3 = fine sieving by-product, 4 = fine sieving product.

72

Results of the archaeobotanical study

discriminant grouping

fine sieving by-product

Fine sieving product

probability 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,99 0,99 0,98 0,98 0,98 0,96 0,96 0,93 0,93 0,84 0,67 0,56 0,54 0,92 0,96 0,95 0,51

major crop mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed mixed barley mixed mixed mixed

sample 00/60 02/56 00/208 02/80 02/16 01/280 97/200 01/364 01/102 98/28 02/3 01/318 97/46 98/20 98/11 01/57 00/62 98/10 00/215 01/428 02/118 00/31 98/50 01/346 00/14 02/43 98/59 00/211 98/24 02/69 01/289 02/50 01/124 00/212

Flax Barley Barley Barley Barley Barley Barley

01/261 97/41 01/123 01/308 01/309 01/310 01/311

2nd grouping 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 3 3 3 1

samples not included in DA

probability 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,06 0,07 0,15 0,30 0,44 0,46 0,08 0,04 0,05 0,31

final classification

fine-sieving by-product fine-sieving by-product fine-sieving by-product fine-sieving by-product fine-sieving by-product mixed origin classification fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product fine sieving product

Table 6.1, continued.

winnowing by-product fine sieving by-product fine sieving product mixed origin total samples

A (3) 2 23

26

B

C

(1) 8

(7) 8

8

8

D (6) 2 47 (2) 1 50

Table 6.1a. Summary table of classifications in the four groups, including samples not analysed by discriminant analysis; numbers in brackets represent classifications which were later changed.

73

A Thousand Years of Farming

Sample BHH BFH SHH 97/46 0,64 4,00 3,39 97/200 0 3,49 0 97/212 0 1,92 0 97/232 1,10 3,98 0 98/5 0 8,72 4,50 98/10 1,14 11,25 2,94 98/11 0 1,50 0,36 98/20 2,76 4,69 4,81 98/23 0 2,80 1,91 98/24 1,27 3,27 2,18 98/26 1,07 1,52 2,40 98/28 0 3,06 4,19 98/32 0 1,65 2,27 98/33 0 3,08 2,07 98/36 0 0 3,33 98/40 2,35 3,65 3,43 98/50 0 8,32 3,86 98/59 0,93 3,35 0,76 98/86 0,85 1,12 3,81 00/14 1,08 4,94 0 00/20 0,75 4,80 3,00 00/26 0,93 6,58 2,24 00/31 0 8,52 2,53 00/60 0 5,31 3,19 00/62 0 5,79 0,92 00/88 0,57 4,55 0 00/100 1,40 2,85 3,51 00/158 2,26 7,14 1,85 00/208 1,66 4,86 1,04 00/209 0 8,02 0 00/211 0 9,74 0 00/212 0 9,46 0 00/214 0 4,03 1,77 00/215 1,58 9,10 2,80 01/41 0 3,73 0 01/57 0 6,48 0 01/59 0 4,29 4,88 01/80 0 4,97 0 01/82 0 6,49 3,15 01/84 0,99 3,94 5,05 01/102 0 0 0 01/105 1,47 4,02 6,22

SHL 1,81 0 1,11 0 1,66 0 0 0,93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,26 2,12 0 1,08 0 0 0 0 0,92 0,40 1,21 1,07 1,05 2,84 0 1,62 0,79 0,58 1,67 3,11 1,43 0 0 3,04 0 0

SFH 19,25 22,55 17,21 18,84 24,30 22,68 25,22 32,90 19,20 21,75 13,45 25,07 16,12 23,20 20,21 21,89 15,76 19,04 21,48 22,21 22,29 23,95 19,07 25,86 24,38 11,98 16,36 19,94 28,24 9,48 12,67 8,33 22,43 21,57 23,55 17,17 22,49 21,57 22,74 25,25 30,83 16,03

SFL 0 3,12 0 8,05 3,10 0,93 2,89 0,76 0 8,02 0 4,18 0 1,38 0 7,57 4,35 5,32 0 6,73 0 5,10 5,98 1,28 6,29 8,40 10,70 7,22 6,14 5,08 4,81 4,86 3,95 5,04 5,69 1,80 0 0,62 2,89 3,65 0 2,93

Sample BHH BFH SHH 01/124 0 10,25 0,46 01/143 0,86 8,39 1,24 01/181 0 7,47 3,56 01/186 0 8,15 1,35 01/188 0,37 6,24 4,49 01/192 0,38 4,44 2,73 01/198 0 6,71 0 01/280 2,13 6,53 3,90 01/282 0,73 6,01 2,31 01/289 0 12,40 0 01/298 2,77 5,06 2,26 01/307 0,63 3,97 3,71 01/318 1 4,17 3,12 01/330 0 1,25 1,25 01/346 1,06 8,55 2,12 01/347 1,15 6,06 3,22 01/354 0 4,61 5,35 01/364 1,03 3,55 2,05 01/372 1,60 4,54 1,13 01/375 0 4,04 5,33 01/376 0,96 5,56 1,36 01/380 2,06 4,84 6,19 01/392 0 3,24 6,88 01/410 0 7,92 5,14 01/411 0 6,11 5,21 01/416 0 4,08 0 01/428 0 7,91 1,90 02/3 0,75 5,11 3,90 02/16 0,63 5,13 1,26 02/22 2,71 5,39 0 02/28 0,91 6,83 4,78 02/80 2,16 5,37 6,11 02/32 0 6,76 1,84 02/33 1,02 8,02 0 02/40 0 5,83 2,51 02/43 0,44 9,33 2,27 02/50 0 10,21 0 02/54 1,20 4,93 0 02/55 0,69 4,09 2,77 02/56 0 1,91 10,56 02/69 0 9,86 1,67 02/75 0,89 5,22 2,68 02/118 0 7,98 8,96

SHL 0 0 0 0,78 0,52 0,38 0 1,10 0,73 0 0 0 0 3,95 0 0 0 0 0,80 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,89 0 0 0 3,49 0 0 0 1,31 0 0 0 2,25 0,98 0 0 0 0

SFH 4,78 13,09 18,53 22,29 24,55 22,58 7,42 26,61 25,64 9,24 14,22 28,17 31,82 29,20 14,44 31,13 26,97 33,06 31,30 21,51 18,17 17,21 15,19 8,84 12,79 23,35 14,99 29,27 24,02 23,14 22,80 23,16 16,66 19,60 21,50 14,09 4,43 24,21 14,97 15,42 10,16 20,31 14,18

SFL 0,64 3,43 1,50 3,57 3,12 4,28 0 5,05 5,34 0 7,84 0 2 1,25 0 2,88 5,16 2,05 2,26 0 0 0 5,80 1,82 0 1,67 1,70 0 3,44 0 0 0 1,30 6,06 5,01 1,25 0 3,81 8,26 0 1,57 2,53 2,16

Table 6.2. Square-rooted numbers of weed seed categories per sample used in discriminant analysis. apart from one of these samples, they all contain high proportions of glume wheat grain to chaff (1:3 – 1:6; Table 5.12), suggesting that they derive from one of the later crop processing stages. All of the samples contain high proportions of small-free-heavy weed seeds (Table 6.2), characteristic of fine sieving by-products regardless of whether free-threshing or glume wheats are being processed (Charles 1989:177); the amounts

of small-headed-heavy seeds in sample 01/392 also indicate a fine sieving processing stage following the discussion on the differences in cleaning processes between glume wheats and free-threshing cereals, above. The amounts of either big-free-heavy or smallfree-light seeds in the remaining four samples may be the result of the mixing of several crop processing stages of the same or several crops (given the amounts

74

Results of the archaeobotanical study

of free-threshing hulled barley in the samples). The five samples have been finally classified as fine sieving by-products, but their behaviour is monitored throughout the later analysis.

is high (63-100%); given these observations, all the flax samples are here considered fine sieving products. Only three samples (all group D) were classified with low probabilities (0.54-0.67) in this category; of these, the second classification was as fine sieving product for two of the samples (00/211 and 02/69) and as winnowing by-product for sample 98/24. For the latter sample, the glume wheat grain to chaff ratio of 1:2 corresponds better with a later crop processing stage, as does the large proportion of small-free-heavy weeds in the sample. Sample 98/24 is therefore left with the primary fine sieving by-product classification. Samples 00/211 and 02/69 contain high numbers of big-freeheavy weeds, explaining why they have been given secondary classifications as fine sieving products. They also contain large numbers of small-free-heavy weeds, however, and are generally too mixed - containing high levels of both glume wheat and barley elements - to classify as fine sieving products. The two samples are therefore kept at their original classifications as fine sieving by-products.

6.4.2. Samples classified as fine sieving by-products The majority of the Tell Brak samples were classified by discriminant analysis as fine sieving by-products, most of them with very high probabilities (0.83-1.00). The samples include 23 group A samples, one group B sample, seven group C samples and 41 group D samples. The glume wheat rich, group A, samples were classified as fine sieving by-products with very high probabilities (0.82-1.00). This is consistent both with the high proportion of glume wheat chaff in the samples in general (i.e. all group A samples contain >70% glume wheat chaff), with the ratios of glume wheat grain to chaff calculated for each sample, averaging 1:22 (Table 5.12), and with the generally high proportion of small-free-heavy seeds in the samples (Table 6.2).

For the fine sieving by-product samples overall, their spatial distribution in Fig. 6.3 shows that the samples form a much longer tail at the fine sieving by-product end of the plot than the ethnographically observed Amorgos samples. The Tell Brak samples thus appear to be more “fine sieving by-product-like” than the Amorgos samples, which is probably a result of the very high proportions of small-free-heavy weed seeds present in the samples (Table 6.2).

The barley rich, group B, sample classification (sample 01/181, probability of 1.00) is also straightforward in terms of the weed seeds, which are mainly small-freeheavy. This sample contains 89% barley grain, however, and though half the sample consists of wild taxa (Table 5.7), by far the majority of the wild taxa are either small-free-heavy or big-free-heavy; this composition of weed seeds implies that the barley grain rich sample is likely to be a crop product that has not yet been fine sieved.

6.4.3. Samples classified as fine sieving products Four samples have been classified as fine sieving products; one group B and three group D samples. The group B sample (01/289) was classified with a high probability (0.92), corresponding to its crop richness of 89% barley grain and the predominance of big-freeheavy seeds in the sample.

The flax-dominated, group C, samples were all classified as fine sieving by-products with a probability of 1.00, apart from one sample with a probability of 0.74. These classifications should be treated with caution, as the method used here for distinguishing between samples of different crop processing stages was developed using cereal crop samples, and the processing of flax, and thus the character of the weed assemblage associated with this crop, is different from that of cereals. Because of the differences in processing, a major difference between the cereals and the flax is in terms of weed seed size – Lolium sp., nontemulentum seeds, for instance, are small compared to cereals (i.e. they have been categorised as small-freeheavy for discriminant analysis), but compared with the flax seeds, the size difference is not that significant. The weed seed composition that is usually characteristic of fine sieving by-products, i.e. seeds smaller than the crop, when associated with cereals, is more likely, when associated with flax and thus containing comparatively bigger seeds, to be a characteristic of fine sieving products. The Tell Brak flax samples generally contain much larger proportions of small-free-heavy weed seeds than other weed categories and the richness of the samples in flax seeds

Two of the group D samples (02/50 and 01/124) were also classified with high probabilities (0.96 and 0.95). This seems to be a reflection of both the larger proportion of big-free-heavy seeds in the two samples, and the crop richness continuum between the glume wheat chaff rich and the mixed samples; the two samples contain 60% and 69% barley grain, respectively, in the percentage calculation of crops (Table 5.8). In the overall percentage calculations of plant elements, however, seeds of wild taxa are by far the most common in the two samples (72-79%; Table 5.7), and it is thus more likely that the two samples should be treated as fine sieving by-products. The last group D sample (00/212), classified as a fine sieving product with a probability of 0.51, has been given a secondary classification as winnowing byproduct. The sample contains even amounts of bigfree-heavy and small-free-heavy weed seeds, and significant amounts of small-free-light weed seeds, as

75

A Thousand Years of Farming

SAMPLES Barley fine sieve products 01/310

RATIO OF

TO

barley grains

weed seeds

58

1

97/41

56

1

01/309

53

1

01/123

15

1

01/308

9

1

01/311

9

1

01/289

6

1

01/181

1

1

Flax products 01/261

flax seeds 89

1

01/198

28

1

98/36

14

1

97/212

10

1

98/26

7

1

98/23

2

1

98/32

2

1

Based on his ethnographic studies in Turkey, Hillman (1984:34) notes that hand-sorted crops ready for consumption will typically contain less than one weed seed for every 20 cereal grains. Following this, it should be possible to distinguish between crop products that have been fine sieved but not yet handsorted, and those products that have gone through the last stage of hand-sorting before cooking. Table 6.3 presents a list of the flax and barley fine sieving products with calculations of the ratios of weed seeds to barley grain/flax seed for each sample. Of the barley grain rich samples, three samples, 97/41, 01/309 and 01/310, contain well over 20 barley grain to weed seeds and, following Hillman’s criteria, should thus be considered hand-sorted crops. Of the flax samples, two samples (01/198 and 01/261) appear to contain more than 20 flax seeds to weed seeds, whereas the rest contained much higher weed proportions and thus did not appear to have been hand-sorted. It has to be noted, however, that the two, possibly hand-sorted, flax samples consisted of lumps of fused seeds (discussed in the previous chapter, section 5.4.1.) which were treated as clean flax seeds, though this could not be definitely established. The two samples may therefore not be as clean as the calculations indicate.

Table 6.3. Ratios of crop seeds to weeds in the barley and flax product samples.

6.5. Exploring variation in sample composition

well as relatively large amounts of both glume wheat chaff (47%) and barley grain (24%). The mixed composition, both in terms of crops and weed categories, makes it likely that this sample is a mixture of several processing stages of the two crops and it has therefore not been given a final classification.

In the attempt to explore any variation within the Tell Brak samples, initially all samples were subjected to correspondence analysis. Rare taxa, i.e. plant items occurring in less than 10% of all samples, were left out of the analysis, and the simplified data sheet (Appendix I) was used from the beginning (section 5.5.5). Table 6.4 lists the taxa used in the analysis, and their CANOCO codes.

6.4.4. Hand-sorting of stored fine sieving products Though the crop cleaning stage of hand-sorting is not explored by discriminant analysis, it is appropriate here to briefly discuss methods of determining whether a crop has been hand-sorted after fine sieving. Ethnographic studies (i.e. Hillman 1981, 1984, Jones 1984) have shown that “traditional” farmers in dry environments such as the Near East tend to process their crops in bulk immediately after harvest until the stages of fine sieving and hand-sorting the crops for weed seeds. The dry environment makes crop cleaning a very dusty operation which is most easily carried out in bulk away from the settlement, and, unlike in wetter environments where the wheat crop is often stored as whole spikelets (or even sheaves) to avoid them being spoilt by the damp, in drier environments the crops may be stored as (semi-)clean grain. Usually, fine sieving and hand-sorting of the crops is done piecemeal throughout the year just before cooking, thus spreading out the amount of labour needed for cleaning the crop. The composition of crop and weed taxa in the crop product samples is a useful indicator of how clean a crop is before it is stored.

Correspondence analysis was carried out on all categories (all crops and weed/wild taxa present in more than 10% of the samples), as well as on each category (crops, wild taxa, crop weeds) separately. In the initial plot (not shown) the small cluster of flax dominated samples was separated off from the remaining samples, demonstrating their distinct composition. These samples (all group C samples) were excluded from subsequent analyses, along with three samples (01/124, 01/143 and 02/50) dominated by Aegilops grain and chaff, in order to investigate variation in the remaining samples. The remaining crops (in groups A, B and D) and weed/wild taxa were plotted together, as illustrated in Figs. 6.5 (samples coded on crop composition) and 6.6 (species). In Fig. 6.5 the distribution of samples closely follows the proportion of crop material, indicating that much of the variation in the samples is accounted for by this feature of sample composition rather than weed/wild taxa. There is a clear separation of the barley grain rich samples (bottom right hand corner of the plot) and glume wheat chaff rich samples (centre

76

Results of the archaeobotanical study

Canoco code EINK GLWHGR FRTHRGR WHINGR HULBAR NAKBAR BARIN AVENA CERGRIN HORSPON SMLBAR LGRCULGR GLWHCH CERCHIN FRTHHRA HDIRA HDIHERA CERINRA TSPIK CUNO CUTOP LENTIL PEA LATHVIC LATH LARLEG FLAXC FLAXW FIG CONVOL CRUCA HELIOA HELIOB GYPSO SILENA SILENB SILENC VACC CARYC CARTH COMPA COMBC COMPFK COMPG COMPIN CRUCC CRUCE CRUCH CAROTR CARREM

Species name Wild einkorn grain Glume wheat grain Free-threshing wheat Wheat grain indet. Cultivated barley, hulled Cultivated barley, naked Barley grain indet. Oat grain indet. Cereal grain indet. Hordeum cf. spontaneum Hordeum sp., small Large grass/cultivated Glume wheat chaff Cereal chaff indet. Wheat, free-threshing rachis Barley, two-row Barley, two-row/six-row Cereal rachis indet Emmer terminal spikelets Culm nodes Tops of culms Lentil Pea Lathyrus/Vicia indet. Grass pea Large legume indet. Flax, cultivated Flax, wild Ficus carica Convolvulus sp. Small Lepidium sativum Heliotropium type A Heliotropium type B Gypsophila sp. Silene type A Silene type B Silene type C Vaccaria pyramidata Caryophyllaceae type C Carthamus sp. Filago pyramidata Compositae B/C Compositae F/K Compositae type G Compositae indet. Cruciferae type C Malcolmia sp. Cruciferae type H Carex cf. otrubae Carex cf. remota

Canoco code CARA CARIN SCIRPA CYPERIN AEGCH AEGGR ALOPE BROJAP BROA BROIN ECHIN ERAGRO EREMCON MEDGRS LOLIUMA LOLIUMC LOLNTEM LOPHOCH SMLGRS TEUCRIUM ASTR LEGUIN MEDICA MEDICB MEDICSP MLTRIMED PROSOPIS TRASTROI TRIGIN BELLEV MUSCARI BELMUSC MALVAA PAPAA PAPAB PAPAC PAPASP RMXCONGL ADONIS GALIUMA GALCGHN GALCERTEN GALSPU GALIN VERBASC AMMI VALERIAN TYPE6 TYPE7 TYPE8

Species name Carex type A Carex indet. Bolboschoenus type A Cyperaceae indet. Aegilops chaff Aegilops sp. (grain) Small Alopecurus sp. Bromus japonicus/scoparius Bromus type A Bromus indet. Echinochloa sp. Eragrostis-type Eremopyrum confusum Medium grass Lolium rigidum Lolium type C Lolium sp., non-temulentum Lophochloa-type Small grass Teucrium orientale/polium Astragalus indet. Leguminosae indet. Medicago type A Medicago cf. coronata Medicago sp. Melilotus/Trifolium/Medicago Prosopis sp. Trigonella astroites Trigonella indet. Bellevalia sp. Muscari sp. Bellevalia/Muscari sp. Malva type A Papaver hybridum Papaver dubium Papaver glaucum Papaver sp. Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus Adonis sp. Galium type A Galium canum/ghilanicum/humifusum/nigricans Galium ceratopodum/tenuissimum Galium spurium Galium indet. Verbascum sp. Ammi sp Valerianella sp Type 6 Type 7 Type 8

Table 6.4. CANOCO codes used for the plant taxa in correspondence analysis. and left hand side of the plot). Within the glume wheat chaff dominated and mixed samples there is a clear separation between those samples containing >70% glume wheat chaff and those with 50-55-60-65 and >70%). Mixed samples with a glume wheat chaff proportion of more than 60% appeared to behave in a similar way to the group A samples and were therefore included in the next level of analysis along with the group A samples. Fig. 6.9 presents these seven mixed samples among the glume wheat-dominated samples, on Fig. 6.10 they are represented by their sample 78

2.5

Results of the archaeobotanical study

RMXCONGL COMPG

VERBASC GALSPU COMPA COMBC FLAXW EREMCON CRUCA

BELLEV

MEDICSP CARA HDIRA HDIHERA LATHVIC LATH LENTIL VALERIAN BROJAP AMMI AVENA MALVAA ASTR CERCHINVACC MLTRIMED BROA CONVOL LARLEGBROIN

CYPERIN FRTHHRA PAPAC LOPHOCH PROSOPIS GALCERTE PAPAA PEA GALCGHN SCIRPA SMLBAR PAPAB ERAGRO PAPASPLOLIUMCBELMUSC GALIN MUSCARI MEDICA HORSPON CUNO MEDGRS ECHIN ALOPE FRTHRGR ADONIS COMPFK CUTOP EINK TEUCRIUM SMLGRS CAROTR GALIUMA LOLIUMA TYPE8LOLNTEM TRASTROI HELIOA TYPE6 SILENB CERINRA TRIGIN NAKBAR CARIN WHINGR MEDICB FLAXC

CRUCH TSPIK GLWHCH CRUCE FIG CARREM

COMPIN GLWHGR GYPSO TYPE7 BARIN HELIOB CERGRINLGRCULGR AEGGR SILENA AEGCH CARYC SILENC CRUCC HULBAR

-1.0

CARTH LEGUIN

-1.0

1.5

Fig. 6.6. Correspondence analysis using all samples (minus eight flax and three Aegilops dominated samples) and species present in >10% of samples. Plot of taxa labelled by their code (see Table 6.4 for full names). number, and Fig. 6.11 presents the associated species plot. Throughout the analysis it has been shown that the division between the glume wheat rich and mixed samples is not clear-cut, and the two groups of samples, at least at the level of >60% glume wheat chaff domination, appear to be similar in composition when comparing the fine sieving by-product samples.

was a group A sample. For the final stages of analysis, using only group A samples and group D samples with >60% glume wheat chaff, as discussed below, the effect of leaving out the above samples was minor in terms of the final interpretation of the samples, as only one relevant sample had been left out. Sample variation is explored by considering archaeological factors such as chronology and context types and rates of deposition, as well as ecological factors such as moisture requirements and seasonality of the weed taxa. The results are discussed below. All correspondence plots show the first two axes, axis 1 (horizontal) and axis 2 (vertical), unless otherwise stated. The 27 samples (20 group A and 7 group D samples containing >60% glume wheat chaff) and 15 variables (i.e. plant taxa) used for this analysis are listed in Table 6.5 and the codes used in the plots are listed in Table 6.4.

Throughout this initial part of the analysis, it was clear that Aegilops grain and chaff dominated samples were obscuring the patterns of sample variation. To counter for this factor, samples containing more than 70% Aegilops grain and chaff, as well as the variable Aegilops chaff, were left out of the analysis. Of the 11 Aegilops rich samples that were left out of further analysis on these grounds (97/200, 98/10, 00/158, 00/212, 00/215, 01/310, 01/311, 01/346, 01/375, 02/43, and 02/69), seven were mixed crop samples with 60% glume wheat chaff dominated fine sieving by-product samples used in the final stage of correspondence analysis.

80

-1.0

2.0

Results of the archaeobotanical study

-1.0

2.5 >40%

30-39%

20-29%

10-19%

10% of samples. Plot of samples coded according their relative proportion of barley rachis. designations collapse, floor and paving used by the excavators and listed in Table 4.1 are treated as fill samples for the sake of clarity. The major trend that can be discerned on the first axis is the separation of the majority of fill samples towards the left hand (negative) side, while the majority of pit samples are towards the right hand (positive) side. The second axis shows that fill, pots and hearths are more or less restricted to the lower half of the diagram while the pit samples occur all along it and form the majority of samples (5 out of 6) in the top right quadrant. Three of the four pot samples are clustered together, implying that they have a similar composition. The presence of other pit samples throughout the plot, apart from the far left of axis 1, suggests that the pattern is not solely the result of context type.

6.5.1. Archaeological factors of variation 6.5.1.1. Sample chronology Fig. 6.12 presents the 27 samples coded according to the archaeological period that each of them belongs to – from Northern Early and Northern Middle Uruk to Late and post-Late Uruk. Fig. 6.11 presents the corresponding species plot, representing the position of each taxon based on the composition of the samples. This plot is discussed in more detail in the sections below, as species are coded on possible factors of sample variation. On Fig. 6.12, Northern Early and Middle Uruk samples are more or less restricted to the lower half of the sample plot, with the majority of these samples (eight to five) positioned in the negative (left) end of axis 1. Late Uruk samples are present throughout the plot, with a group of four Late Uruk, one post-Late, and one Northern Middle Uruk sample in the top right hand corner of the plot, suggesting that these differ from the rest.

6.5.1.3. Plant remain density The density in plant items per litre of floated soil is noted for each sample in Appendix I and is also presented in Table 5.4 within the major crop groups. The average density of plant remains overall is 734; highest density is 17783 (98/26; fill next to an oven), while lowest density is 8 (00/209; fill). Correspondence plots were made with samples coded according to the density of plant items per litre of floated soil, grouping the samples according to their density levels. Several

6.5.1.2. Sample context The samples were coded according to archaeological context and are shown in Fig. 6.13. The context 81

-1.5

1.5

A Thousand Years of Farming

-1.0

2.5 glume wheat chaff free-threshing

glume wheat grain pulse

barley rachis

culm

barley grain

flax

Fig. 6.8. Correspondence analysis using all samples (minus eight flax and three Aegilops dominated samples) and species present in >10% of samples. Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of major crop components (“free-threshing” represents free-threshing wheat grain). groupings were tried, none of which provided a clear pattern, and the plots are not shown here. There did not seem to be a clear association between density and context, samples with a density of over 150 plant items per litre coming from both pits, pots, hearth areas and fill.

Weed taxa coded by their flowering/fruiting group are presented in the species plot, Fig. 6.14, and in the sample pie plot, Fig. 6.15. Looking at the crop weeds present in the samples, coded on their flowering times (Fig. 6.14), intermediate flowering taxa (0/+1) are present everywhere, the only pre-harvest flowering taxon is present on the left hand side of the plot, whereas the late post-harvest (+2a) taxa are present on the left hand side. The group of predominantly lateflowering taxa in the top right hand corner corresponds with the group of predominantly Late Uruk samples as seen in Fig. 6.12, and pit samples (Fig. 6.13). In Fig. 6.15 the pre-harvest, early-flowering taxa are present on the left hand side of the plot but absent elsewhere; intermediate flowering taxa are present more or less throughout the plot, whereas the post-harvest flowering taxa do occur on the left hand side of the plot but are much more common on the right hand side, especially in the top of the plot. The samples are thus separated into groups dominated by the later-flowering taxa in the top right hand corner, a group with a high proportion of +1 taxa in the lower right hand corner, and a group on the negative (left) side along axis 1 containing a large proportion of the earliest (-1) flowering taxa. To summarise, along axis 1 the distribution of the samples reflects the presence of

6.5.1.4. Summary of archaeological variables Sample variation appears to be related, to a certain degree, to the chronological and contextual information available for each sample, whereas density in plant remains per sample does not seem to influence the variation in sample patterns. 6.5.2. Ecological factors of variation 6.5.2.1. Flowering/fruiting time Table 5.11 presents the flowering/fruiting time of the crop weeds associated with the glume wheat crop relative to the crop harvest in the area. The pre-harvest group 0 represents taxa fruiting until, and in, the month of harvest (May), group +1 represents taxa fruiting one month after the harvest, etc., as discussed in the previous chapter (section 5.5.3.). 82

-1.5

2.0

Results of the archaeobotanical study

-1.5

1.5 mixed>60% glume wheat chaff

glume wheat >70%

Fig. 6.9. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to original dominant crop group. early- to late-flowering species, whereas along axis 2, samples with +1 species are separated from samples with +2a species, that is, the two latest-flowering groups are separated from each other.

growing tall) tending to do well in good growing conditions, as they tend to be fast growing and competitive, whereas smaller plants tend to do well under poorer conditions, as there is less competition and they have lower requirements for water and nutrients (Charles et al. 2003).

Four of the group C samples (those with more than ten weed seeds) were reintroduced in the analysis along with the group of glume wheat fine sieving by-product samples, using the same fruiting-flowering variables as above. In Fig. 6.16 the flax rich samples can be distinguished from the glume wheat rich samples on the basis of their weed seed assemblage alone; the flax rich samples are all grouped along the positive (right) end of axis 1, in the lower end of the plot. Fig. 6.17 presents the corresponding species plot, where it can be seen that the flax samples are mainly associated with late, post-harvest flowering taxa. The same sample distribution is presented in Fig. 6.18, with the flax rich samples grouped among the samples containing a high proportion of later-flowering species.

The taxa in the Tell Brak samples were coded according to their normal maximum height (Fig. 5.1) in plots of species (Fig. 6.19) and of sample pie charts (Fig. 6.20). From the species plot it is apparent that shorter plants (61 cm) are mainly situated in the top right hand corner, though with two taxa placed in the middle of the plot. The sample pie chart plot, Fig. 6.20, shows that while plants of all heights occur more or less throughout the samples (except at very extreme ends), shorter taxa (61 cm) are dominant in the top right hand corner.

6.5.2.2. Plant height reflecting growing conditions The potential maximum height of plants growing with a crop is an indirect reflection of the conditions the plants were growing in, taller taxa (i.e. taxa capable of

83

A Thousand Years of Farming

2.0

01/330

01/84 02/22 01/416 98/59 00/209

01/376 01/380 01/80 01/307 02/40 00/20 97/232 01/347 01/392

01/188

01/411 01/105 01/410 01/186 01/372

02/80

98/5 01/282 02/33

-1.5

01/59

01/192

-1.5

1.5

Fig. 6.10. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples labelled by their number.

Alopecurus sp. Lophochloa sp. Medicago sp. Aegilops sp. Trigonella sp. Papaver hybridum Papaver sp. Eremopyrum confusum Papaver glaucum Silene C Vaccaria pyramidata Lolium C Lolium non-temulentum Bellevalia sp. Malva aegyptia/parviflora

Group A X X X X X

Group B

Group C

Group D

X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

Table 6.6. Major crop weeds present in each of the four crop groups. Highlighted crosses indicate those taxa that are present in only one of the crop-rich groups, or present in a crop-rich group as well as in the mixed group D. made with the variables coded according to weed life cycle, and with sample pies of the proportion of each type of weed. None of the plots showed any patterns in the distribution of annuals and perennials, and they are not shown here, though the information to be gained

6.5.2.3. Life cycle By far the majority of the weed species in the samples are annuals – only Bellevalia sp. and Muscari sp. are perennials (Table 5.9). Correspondence plots were

84

2.0

Results of the archaeobotanical study

BROJAP

GALSPU LOLIUMA

LOLIUMC

ADONIS SILENB BELLEV AEGGR MUSC+BEL MALVAA

VACC VALERIAN

EREMCON

TRASTROI

-1.5

MEDICB

-1.5

1.5

Fig. 6.11. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa labelled by their code (see Table 6.4 for full species names). from the proportion of annuals to perennials will be further explored in the following chapter.

and with the samples containing the highest proportion of later-flowering taxa, as seen in Fig. 6.15.

6.5.2.4. Moisture requirements

6.5.2.5. Summary of ecological variables

In Table 5.10 the moisture requirements of the weed species that were found in the Tell Brak samples are listed. The weeds were categorised in groups of taxa requiring dry, dry-damp or wet habitats, and correspondence plots of the proportions of each group of weeds in the samples were made. The plots illustrated are the species plot (Fig. 6.21) and sample pie chart plot (Fig. 6.22). None of the plots are very clear, but they do show that wetter taxa are restricted to the right hand side of the plots, whereas dry and drydamp taxa are present everywhere. The pie chart plot, Fig. 6.22, does provide a clearer pattern of the distribution of taxa; along axis 2, samples go from drydamp dominated in the top (positive) end, to dry along the middle of the axis and with the samples containing the highest levels of wet-loving taxa placed in the negative (bottom) end of axis 2. The clearest pattern is that of the samples with the highest levels of dry-damp loving taxa in the top right hand corner, corresponding to the predominantly Late Uruk samples in Fig. 6.12

Plant height, flowering/fruiting times and moisture requirements all appear to be factors of sample variation, and to be related: taller, later-flowering taxa are generally damp-loving species. There also appears to be a relation between earlier-flowering (Fig. 6.14), dry-damp-loving (Fig. 6.21) and predominantly shorter plants (Fig. 6.19). 6.5.3. Correspondence between archaeological and ecological variables The pattern of variation within the ecological variables appears to correspond with the chronological patterns in the assemblage, with later Late Chalcolithic samples dominated by later-flowering taxa. This change in flowering/fruiting times of the wild taxa through time could reflect changes in moisture levels, with more water being available in the summer months. The change seen in the Tell Brak samples would suggest that the crops in the later Late Chalcolithic were

85

-1.5

2.0

A Thousand Years of Farming

-1.5

1.5 NEU

NMU

LU

post-late

Fig. 6.12. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to archaeological period; NEU = Northern Early Uruk, NMU = Northern Middle Uruk, LU = Late Uruk. exposed to water for a longer period than previously, as a result of extended rainfall, artificial watering or the growing of crops in wetter locations. The flax samples (Fig. 6.18) also contain the most late-flowering species of the sample groups, probably a reflection of the water levels in the flax field, as this crop is known to have higher water requirements than cereals (Körber-Grohne 1988). The barley rich samples did not contain sufficient numbers of weed seeds (a minimum of ten) to be included in the analysis at this stage, but at an earlier stage in the analysis the barley grain richsamples did seem to be associated with earlierflowering species, probably reflecting their earlier harvesting time relative to the wheat crop.

to-tall growing taxa in the samples divided into the two groups of early (Northern Early and Middle Uruk) samples (E) and late (Late and post-late Uruk) samples (L). Crop weeds with a height of >61 cm are clearly more abundant in the Late Uruk samples, possiblyindicating an improvement in crop growing conditions in the later half of the Late Chalcolithic. There is an apparent association between the group of pit samples in the upper right hand corner of Fig. 6.13 and primarily damp/wet-loving, tall, and relatively lateflowering plant taxa, whereas the fill samples appear to be associated with taxa requiring lower levels of moisture. This association between context and ecological requirements of plants is not entirely clear.

Plant height also appears to correspond with the archaeological period assigned to each sample: Of the six samples dominated by tall taxa, four are of Late Uruk date, one is of post-Uruk/Jemdet Nasr date, while the last sample is dated to the Northern Middle Uruk period, as was illustrated in Fig. 6.12. All but the latter sample are thus dated to the later Late Chalcolithic, after the appearance of southern Uruk material culture. The higher proportion of taller taxa in the later Late Chalcolithic samples is also clearly distinguishable in Fig. 6.23, a bar chart presenting the proportion of low-

6.6. Assessing the Tell Brak sample groups in the light of the statistical analyses As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, the Tell Brak samples were initially divided into four groups, three crop-rich and one mixed, based on the relative proportions of dominant crop remains. The threshold was initially set at 70% crops. The validity of the groups, as well as their derivation in terms of crop processing, were then assessed and refined by the use of discriminant and correspondence analysis, and the 86

-1.5

2.0

Results of the archaeobotanical study

-1.5

1.5 fill

pit

pot

hearth

Fig. 6.13. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to archaeological context. factors behind sample variation were explored. The results for each group are presented below and discussed in the following chapter.

glume wheat chaff and very low levels of glume wheat grain and barley rachis, flax, and weed/wild taxa, almost all crop weeds. The samples are generally very rich in plant remains; five samples contain more than 400 items per litre of soil, the richest sample, 01/310, containing over 13000 items per litre (Table 5.4). The samples are also very clean in terms of their non-crop component; only two samples contained enough crop weeds to be included in discriminant analysis, and the remaining samples were all considered fine sieving products on the basis of their plant composition. Three of the barley samples contain a barley grain:weed seed ratio of more than 50:1, which, following Hillman (1984:34), indicates that the crops have been handsorted.

6.6.1. Group A The original threshold for this group was 70%, but correspondence analysis showed that samples containing over 60% glume wheat chaff behaved in a similar way, and seven samples originally placed in group D were therefore included in the glume wheat chaff group used in the final stages of correspondence analysis. This group of samples is discussed on its own in the following chapter. In addition to glume wheat chaff, there are low levels of glume wheat grain, barley grain and chaff, flax and pulses, and an average of 36% weed/wild taxa, predominantly crop weeds. Most of the group A samples were classified as fine sieving byproducts, corresponding well with their plant element composition and the crop weed characteristics.

6.6.3. Group C Flax seeds make up the most common crop in these samples, the majority containing 99-100% flax. The weed/wild taxon component averages 22% but is varied, ranging from 1% to 76%. All the samples were classified as fine sieving products, corresponding with the plant composition and their overall high density of plant items.

6.6.2. Group B The most abundant crop component in the group B samples is barley grain, with a minor component of

87

2.0

A Thousand Years of Farming

BROJAP

GALSPU LOLIUMA

LOLIUMC

ADONIS SILENB BELLEV AEGGR MUSC+BEL MALVAA

VACC VALERIAN

EREMCON

TRASTROI

-1.5

MEDICB

-1.5

1.5 -1

0

+1

+2a

Fig. 6.14. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to their flowering-fruiting times. 6.6.4. Group D

• •

The similarities of the group D samples with the group A samples have been discussed above. Apart from glume wheat chaff and grain, these samples also contain significant amounts of barley grain and rachis, as well as pulses and flax, and an average of 49% weed/wild taxa, of which the majority are crop weeds. Two samples contain relatively high levels of lentil, while two other samples contain comparatively high levels of flax seeds. Seven samples also contain over 25% barley rachis, and, as discussed above, were treated separately by correspondence analysis. Most of these samples were classified as fine sieving byproducts, and appear to be mixed from the cleaning of several types of crops. The mixing of several stages of crop processing by-products is also indicated by the variety of crop weeds in the samples with different characteristics in terms of size, headedness and weight.

The samples rich in glume wheat chaff, barley grain, and flax seeds, respectively, derive from two different crop processing stages – i.e. the barley and flax samples are crop products while the majority of the glume wheat chaff samples are fine sieving byproducts. The weed assemblages of the two groups were not compared to each other on ecological grounds in the final stage of correspondence analysis, as variation is likely to be a result of crop processing. However, a few words should be said about the crop weeds predominant in the respective groups, and a comparison made of the two crop product groups. The fine sieving by-product samples are discussed in the following chapter. Though correspondence plots of the group A, B and D samples based on weed seeds alone did not result in a clear distinction between the groups, some weed species did appear to be primarily associated with a particular group, which was often confirmed by checking with the working data sheet (Appendix I). Table 6.6 summarises the data on the crop weeds

6.6.5. Comparison of the sample groups The four sample groups represent •

stored crops of barley and flax (B and C) the mixed by-products of several stages of the cleaning of all these crops (D).

the by-product of the cleaning of a glume wheat crop (A),

88

Results of the archaeobotanical study

present in each of the four crop groups. The taxa have been sorted on their ubiquity in the assemblage, and it is clear that a number of taxa are present (in significant amounts) in only one crop-rich group, while other taxa are present in one crop-rich group as well as in group D, which, as discussed above, appears to represent the mixed by-products of the three other groups.

Based on their respective weed composition, the following interpretation can be made on the growing conditions of the barley and flax samples: The barley crop is likely to have grown on relatively dry ground, whereas the flax crop appears to have grown on slightly better watered soil, given that the associated crop weeds are taller and have a longer flowering/ fruiting period. Barley tends to be less demanding in terms of nourishment and water, whereas flax, though fairly drought-tolerant, requires good quality soil to grow in. Both crops are winter sown, and both were harvested close to the ground. The logic of this interpretation is explained in the following chapter.

The taxa represented only in the barley grain rich, group B samples, are Papaver hybridum, Papaver glaucum, Papaver sp., and Eremopyrum confusum. They have been placed mainly in group +1 of flowering/fruiting times, and are all drought-tolerant taxa. Maximum plant height is between 30 and 50 cm, while minimum plant height is 0-15 cm. The group C, flax rich, samples are represented by Silene type C, Vaccaria pyramidata, Lolium type C and Lolium nontemulentum. These weeds belong primarily to flowering/fruiting group +2a, and are placed in the dry to dry-damp group of moisture requirements. Maximum plant height is 15-80 cm, and minimum 0-15 cm.

-1.5

2.0

The glume wheat chaff rich samples contain a richer crop weed assemblage, and are therefore more useful for a detailed discussion of the results presented above. The information to be gained on the crop husbandry practices at Tell Brak from these results, and a comparison with earlier archaeobotanical studies, is presented and discussed in the following chapter.

-1.5

1.5 -1

0

+1

+2a

Fig. 6.15. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of early-to-late flowering/fruiting taxa.

89

2.0

A Thousand Years of Farming

01/192

02/33 98/5 01/59 01/282 01/372 01/186

01/188

02/80

00/20

98/33

02/22

01/376 01/380 01/80 01/347 02/40

01/84 98/59

01/416 01/330 98/32

01/410

-1.0

01/411 01/105

01/307

98/23

97/212

-1.5

2.0 glume wheat

flax

mixed>60%

Fig. 6.16. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product and four flax dominated samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of samples coded according to original dominant crop groups.

90

1.5

Results of the archaeobotanical study

MEDICB

TRASTROI EREMCON

BELLEV

VALERIAN

VACC

MUSC+BEL SILENB ADONIS AEGGR

GALSPU

LOLIUMA BROJAP LOLIUMC

-1.0

MALVAA

-1.0

1.5 -1

0

+1

+2a

Fig. 6.17. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product and four flax dominated samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to their flowering-fruiting times.

91

2.0

A Thousand Years of Farming

01/192

02/33 98/5 01/59 01/282 01/372 01/186

01/188

02/80

00/20

98/33

02/22

01/376 01/380 01/80 01/347 02/40

01/84 01/416

98/59

01/330 98/32

-1.0

01/410 01/411 01/105

01/307

98/23

97/212

-1.5

2.0 -1

0

+1

+2a

Fig. 6.18. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product and four flax dominated samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of early-to-late flowering/fruiting taxa.

92

2.0

Results of the archaeobotanical study

BROJAP

GALSPU LOLIUMA

LOLIUMC

ADONIS SILENB BELLEV AEGGR MUSC+BEL MALVAA

VACC VALERIAN

EREMCON

TRASTROI

-1.5

MEDICB

-1.5

1.5 15-30

31-45

46-60

>61

Fig. 6.19. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to plant height in cm.

93

-1.5

2.0

A Thousand Years of Farming

-1.5

1.5 15-30

31-45

46-60

>61

Fig. 6.20. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of short-to-tall taxa (in cm).

94

2.0

Results of the archaeobotanical study

BROJAP

GALSPU LOLIUMA

LOLIUMC

ADONIS SILENB BELLEV AEGGR MUSC+BEL MALVAA

VACC VALERIAN

EREMCON

TRASTROI

-1.5

MEDICB

-1.5

1.5 dry

dry-damp

wet

Fig. 6.21. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot of taxa coded according to moisture requirements.

95

-1.5

2.0

A Thousand Years of Farming

-1.5

1.5 dry

dry-damp

wet

Fig. 6.22. Correspondence analysis using >60% glume wheat dominated fine-sieving by-product samples and species present in >10% of samples (minus Aegilops chaff). Plot showing samples as pie charts indicating the relative proportion of dry-to-wet loving taxa.

100% 80% >61

60%

46-60 31-45

40%

15-30

20% 0% L01/80

L01/411

L01/410

L01/105

L01/192

L01/186

L01/59

L02/33

L01/376

L01/416

L98/59

L02/22

L01/84

L01/330

E01/380

E02/80

E02/40

E01/347

E00/20

E97/232

E01/307

E98/5

E01/282

E01/392

E01/372

E01/188

E00/209

Fig. 6.23. Bar chart of the group A and D (>60% glume wheat chaff) fine sieving by-product samples with the proportion of crop weeds in the four maximum plant height groups. The samples are divided into early (E) and late (L) sample groups and sorted according to the proportion of wild taxa in group >61 cm.

96

Chapter 7 Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak stored before fine sieving and cleaned on a day-to-day basis within individual households (Charles and Bogaard 2001:320, Jones 1987:314, van Zeist 2003b:15).

7.1. Crops at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak As was established in the previous chapter, the major crops present at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak are: • Glume wheat, primarily emmer, present as stored or discarded crop cleaning by-products, i.e. chaff • Two-row hulled barley, present as cleaned, stored grain • Flax, present as cleaned, stored seeds • Lentil, present as seeds in mixed discarded plant material

Within the context of household production this strategy means that the final crop cleaning stages can be spread out over the year, thus limiting the workload during harvest. It is also a cost-effective way of dealing with the redistribution of agricultural goods within a larger community – the crops are relatively easy for a central institution (such as a city-state) to produce and distribute, leaving the time-consuming job of dehusking and fine sieving the wheat to the individual households (Weiss et al. 2002:12). This way of processing a crop, leaving the later stages of cleaning to be done on a small-scale stage on-site, appears to have been the practice at Tell Brak, as is discussed in the following sections.

Other crops include free-threshing wheat (predominantly bread wheat), common pea, grape, fig, grass pea and bitter vetch, which have all been found in lower quantities. Given the complex nature of the relationship between crop plants and their preservation by charring, the variation in numbers of seeds of each crop does not, however, directly reflect the economic significance of each crop (Colledge 2003:399).

7.2.1. Glume wheat The bulk of the glume wheat material at the site seems to comprise the by-product of a late stage of glume wheat processing. This material is likely to have become burnt as either plant waste disposed of on a fire, used as kindling to start a fire, or, given its proportions of wheat and barley grain and pulses, as fodder for livestock and subsequently burned on a fire as dung fuel.

The assemblage of crops is similar to that of earlier archaeobotanical studies from Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak (summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.2). Barley, represented as semi-clean or clean grain, and glume wheat, represented as chaff with lesser amounts of grain, are the most common crops (Colledge 2003:3934). While flax had been observed in earlier studies, it had not been found in high-level concentrations in storage contexts until now. Grape and fig are also known in Late Chalcolithic levels from earlier studies. As in the present study, lentil is consistently present in samples in the earlier studies, but generally in low numbers, as is also the case with other pulses such as grass pea and bitter vetch. Common pea and chickpea had not been found in Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak until the present study. Two-row hulled barley, glume wheat (emmer and einkorn) and flax are now well established crops at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak, all of which (apart from einkorn) have been found in storage contexts.

The presence of crops other than glume wheat, as well as wild taxa unlikely to have been crop weeds, may either be explained by them having been fed to, or grazed by, livestock, and ending up as dung fuel, or by the mixing of the glume wheat processing by-product with plant refuse from the processing of different crops. It is unlikely that the glume wheat chaff rich samples are dung-derived; there is only little evidence for dung in the samples in general, they were classified within their crop processing groups by discriminant analysis with high probabilities, and the general composition of the samples, including the weed seed characteristics, is consistent with their classified crop processing stage.

7.2. Crop storage at Tell Brak Tell Brak offers an unprecedented opportunity to consider the growing, processing, storage and use of crops during the Late Chalcolithic, as this is the only archaeological site from this period where charred plant remains have been reported from storage contexts.

Glume wheat grain to chaff ratios (Table 5.12) show how chaff is clearly the predominant crop element, which is also evident from Table 5.7. The weed/wild taxa are primarily represented by the crop weed Aegilops sp., again dominated by chaff, suggesting that it has undergone the same cleaning process as the glume wheat crop. The more crop weeds tend to “mimic” the crop (i.e. by similarities in size, headedness and aerodynamic properties) the longer in the crop processing sequence they tend to stay with the crop (Jones 1992:137); Aegilops grain, being big-freeheavy, is similar to cereal grain and can be expected to

As discussed in the previous chapter, traditions differ as to when in the processing sequence a crop is put into storage, often depending on the humidity of the environment in which the crop is grown. In drier environments like the Near East, glume wheats are generally not dehusked as part of the larger-scale crop processing sequence immediately after harvest, but are

97

TX UA T2

Late Uruk Late Uruk Northern Middle Uruk

4 3 4

5 5 5

1 2 2

2

2 1 2

2 1

1 2

1

2 2 1 1

1

Fig

1 1 1 1

Grape

Common pea

2 4 4 4

Chick pea

Lentil

2 3 5 2

Grass pea/Bitter vetch

Flax

4 2 2 1

Bitter vetch

Free-threshing wheat

5 5 5 5

Grass pea

Glume wheat, unspecified

Einkorn wheat

Emmer wheat

Excavation Period area Samples analysed for the present study TW post-Uruk 4 TW Late Uruk 4 TW Northern Middle Uruk 4 TW Northern Early Uruk 4

Two-row/six-row barley

Two-row hulled barley

A Thousand Years of Farming

1 1 1

1 1 2 1

1

References

2

Samples analysed for previous studies of Tell Brak HH

Mitanni - Middle Assyrian

2

AL HN HS3,HS5 FS, AL, ST, CH, DH TC HS4, HF TW HS1 TW HS6 TW

Old Babylonian period Early 2nd mill. BC Late 3rd mill. BC ER, 3rd mill. BC 3rd mill. BC Ninevite V Late Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Middle Uruk Northern Middle Uruk Northern Early Uruk Northern Early Uruk

2 5 5

storage context

5 5 5 2 4 3 3 2

1

1

2 2

2 2

4 5 4 4 2 3 4 2

3 2 4 2 3

1

4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4

1

1

4 2

1 2

3 2 2

1

1 2

1 3 5 1 1

1 3 2 5 1 4 1 2 1 2 2

2 1

2 1

5 1 1

1 1

3 1

2

1 1

2 1

2 1

2

1 1

1 1 1

Charles and Bogaard 1997 Charles and Bogaard 1997 Colledge 2003 1 Colledge 2003 Charles and Bogaard 2001 Hald 2001 Colledge 2003 Vandorpe 1999 1 Colledge 2003 Vandorpe 1999 1 Colledge 2003 Vandorpe 1999

x = recorded, not quantified; 1 = rare/present; 2 = 500 Table 7.1. Crops from Tell Brak, from the present study and reported from previous studies.

be found within the fine sieving product before it is hand-sorted.

spikelets and cleaned on a day-to-day basis, which partly explains the high levels of glume wheat chaff on the site compared to, for instance, the free-threshing barley rachis, which tends to be left out at an earlier processing stage and is therefore less likely to arrive on the site with the harvested crop.

The glume wheat material is most likely to be the result of regular and small scale crop processing activities onsite to produce clean glume wheat grain for human consumption. Storage appears to have taken place before dehusking and fine sieving, and crop cleaning seems to have taken place at the level of the individual households. A sample of what, judging from the ratio of grain and glume bases, may have been whole glume wheat spikelets was found in a storage jar in a room in the SW Level 16 House, next to jars of stored barley grain. The processing sequence of glume wheat crops was summarised in Chapter 5 (section 5.1.1.2) and showed that this crop was often stored as whole

The generally high levels of plant remains found across the site suggest that overall the production and consumption of crops was large-scale (van der Veen and Jones 2006) - not surprising given the size of the settlement - but most likely the majority of crop processing took place off-site, given the relatively few samples found from early crop processing stages. The lower amounts of other crops in the glume wheat chaff dominated samples could probably represent either 98

Glume wheat

Free-threshing wheat

Flax

Lentil

Common pea

Grass pea

Bitter vetch

Chick pea

Grape

Fig

Period average 2nd mill. BC average 3rd mill. BC M/LU combined NMU combined NEU combined average 4th mill. BC AVERAGE 4TH-2ND

Barley (2 +/or 6 row)

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

4 5 3 4 3 3 4

2 5 5 4 5 4 4

3 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 3 4 2 3 2

2 3 2 2 3 2 3

2 2 1 1 1 1 2

2 1 1 2 0 1 1

3 1 1 0 1 1 2

1 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 0

1 0 1 2 1 1 1

Table 7.2. Major crops, summary of Table 7.1. “weeds”/contaminants, i.e. a small number of a different crop type growing with the glume wheat crop, refuse from other crop cleaning activities, or plants/dung brought onto the site to be used as fuel.

of the harvest; barley may originally have been intended for animal consumption but changed to serve as human food during lean years, or it may have been grown for food and used for fodder as well after a good harvest. The presence of low levels of glume wheat in the samples may be explained by this crop being present as a contaminant in the barley field; the two crops would not have been grown together intentionally due to their different processing requirements (ibid.).

The sample richest in glume wheat chaff, 01/41, is from a fill context. Though most glume wheat chaff rich samples are from fill and pit contexts, some have been found in pots, as mentioned above, indicating they were being either stored due to their value as fodder, fuel, tempering, etc., or kept in pots in transit to their final destination. Some of the samples have a high density of plant items, with 15 samples containing more than 100 items/litre, the richest sample, 01/143 sampled from a floor, having a density of 504 items/litre.

Samples rich in barley grain were found in storage contexts in the northern courtyard of the Level 18 Building. Three barley rich samples in the northern courtyard, samples 01/123, 01/124 and 01/181, came from a fill and two pot contexts, respectively. As there were a high number of pots in the area where the samples were taken, it is possible that the fill-context 01/123 sample, which also had the highest density of plant remains (405/litre) of the samples taken in the area, represents a crop spilled from a pot during the destruction of this building. Alternatively it may have been stored in a perishable container such as a basket. Three barley rich samples (01/309, 01/310, 01/311), all stored in pots, have been uncovered in a room in the SW Level 16 House; their very high densities – between 1699 and 13536 plant items/litre (Table 5.4) – and the cleanness of the crop (Tables 5.7, 5.8 and 6.3) show how the barley was stored in this house in a very clean state.

7.2.2. Barley The barley grain rich samples seem to represent the cleaned product of the barley crop. The ratios of weed seeds to crops in the barley product samples, as discussed in section 6.4.4 and presented in Table 6.3, indicate that whereas some of the barley crop apparently had been hand-sorted, others were still awaiting this final cleaning stage. The finds of relatively high amounts of barley rachis in the mixed samples suggest that the barley crop was either handsorted on-site, or the by-products of fine sieving were brought onto the site for the use as, for instance, fuel. The samples are likely to have been accidentally charred in their storage context – some of the samples were found in storage jars, discussed below – during the conflagration of the buildings they were stored in. The barley grain was most likely destined for human, rather than livestock, consumption, given its clean state, though relatively high levels of barley grain in some of the mixed samples suggest that some of the barley crop may also have been used for fodder. Ethnographic studies from Greece (Jones and Halstead 1995) have shown how the definition of a crop as food or fodder tends to be flexible depending on the richness

7.2.3. Flax The flax rich samples are almost all cleaned stored fine sieving products that have not yet been hand-sorted (apart from, possibly, two of the samples, section 6.4.4). The flax dominated samples are all but two (samples 97/212 and 01/261) found in definite storage contexts, in and among storage vessels, and like the barley grain rich samples, they are likely to have been accidentally charred in these contexts. They contain variable amounts of weed/wild taxa, and may represent flax crops in different stages of cleaning. 99

A Thousand Years of Farming

The flax crop may have been used for either human consumption in the shape of oil rich seeds and/or textile fibres. Körber-Grohne (1988:367) notes how flax grown for its fibres tends to have high water requirements, whereas flax grown for its oil often grows in hotter, drier climates, where the sun and drought results in lower growth but more oil rich seeds than that of the fibre-flax. The fibres of the oil-flax are coarser and less durable and tend not to be used (ibid.), though given the right conditions, a flax plant can apparently be harvested to provide both oil and fibre products (McCorriston 1997:519).

7.2.5. Minor crops Grass pea/bitter vetch and common pea None of these pulses have been found in storage contexts in the Late Chalcolithic levels. The generally low levels of these pulses in the archaeological contexts reflect the lower probability of these crops being charred due to the way they are processed (Colledge 2003:399), as discussed in the previous chapter (section 6.1.1). As with the lentils, they appear to have been primarily disposed of on fires.

Though flax seeds can be eaten, they may also have been processed for the extraction of oil, which involves hot pressing the seeds in boiling water in order to prevent the hydrogen cyanide naturally present in the flax seeds to contaminate the extracted oil (Charles 1985:52). From the extremely well preserved state of the flax seeds it is clear that the seeds had not been pressed for oil, if this was indeed their intended purpose.

Grape and fig Neither of the two fruits has been found in great numbers at Tell Brak; this is probably more a reflection of their not needing to be processed before consumption, and thus unlikely to accidentally be discarded on kitchen fires or in pits. 7.3. Crop husbandry practices as represented at Tell Brak

The fibre in the stems of flax plants is commonly used in the production of linen textiles. The flax seeds could, therefore, also be present as a side-product of the extraction of flax fibres, though no evidence for fibres has been observed. There is, generally, not much evidence for the production of linen in Mesopotamia, but finds of linen textiles from around 7000 BC in Nahal Hemar in Israel, and at Neolithic Çatal Höyük and Çayönü in Turkey (McCorriston 1997:519), shows that the production of linen was certainly known in the Near East before the Late Chalcolithic, and representations of flax plants on objects from the Late Chalcolithic have also been suggested to be related to the production of flax fibres rather than that of oil seeds (Crawford 1985:74). The economic importance of linseed oil is, however, also attested from textual evidence from the third millennium BC onwards (McCorriston 1997:519).

The crop weeds observed in those archaeobotanical samples that have been determined as belonging to a given crop processing stage reflect part of the assemblage of plants that were fruiting in the crop fields at the time of harvest. Obviously not all weeds in a field would have been harvested with the crop; weeds big enough to be obvious in the field, and therefore avoided, or low weed species, growing below harvesting height, would most probably have been left in the field, as would spiny plants like thistles (Jones 1984). Depending on the crop processing stage of the individual samples, some weeds may have been left out in previous processing stages. It also has to be kept in mind that crops may sometimes have arrived on a site from several different fields (Jones 1992:141), i.e. the material in a single sample may represent more than one crop from more than one field. This is especially relevant for a city the size of Tell Brak, which may have supplemented its own crop harvest with imports from further afield, and whose inhabitants may have included a large number of individuals who relied on the distribution of agricultural produce from others. However, from the weeds that are present with the crop, and from their known ecological preferences, a number of inferences can be made about the crop husbandry of Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak.

7.2.4. Lentil Lentils are persistently present in Late Chalcolithic levels. In the present study lentils have been found primarily in fill contexts, while one pit (sample 01/364) in the Level 18 Building northern courtyard contained relatively high levels of lentils (37% in crop composition). The sample with the highest proportion of lentils (sample 01/102; 50%) was found in a fill context in the central courtyard of the Level 11 House. Lentils have not been found as stored crops from the Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak, and seem, therefore, only to have survived in the archaeological record when they have been disposed of on fires, either on their own - possibly as spoiled seeds, or by accident - or as part of animal dung.

The most common weeds associated with each of the crops found at Tell Brak were summarised in the previous chapter. The following discussion is based on the crop weeds in the fine sieving by-product samples containing more than 60% glume wheat chaff. It is assumed that the ecological preferences of the weeds described reflect the growing conditions of the crops they are associated with (Bogaard et al. 1999:1211), in this case the glume wheat crop.

100

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

As mentioned above, the study on crop sowing time in Germany determined that a short flowering/fruiting time could be set at 1-3 months. In the same study, long flowering period was taken as lasting more than five months (Bogaard et al. 2001:1175). Given that the growing season is significantly shorter, i.e. lasting from October/December to June, in Syria compared to Europe where the growing season lasts almost the whole year, short, medium, and long flowering periods in Syria are probably more realistically two, four and six months, respectively, and are the flowering/fruiting times used here.

7.3.1. Crop sowing time and sowing practice As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2), in the area around Tell Brak today, cereal crops are sown in the winter (October-December) and harvested in spring/ early summer (May-June), barley usually a couple of weeks earlier than wheat. Glume wheats are not grown in the area today - emmer has been noted to disappear from the north Syrian Euphrates area after the Early Bronze age, which may have been the case in the Khabur region also (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988:311) - but are likely to have been winter-sown in the past. Wild emmer has been noted to naturally germinate in the autumn (Hillman 1981:147), and generally, most crops are more productive when winter-sown (ibid.). Percival (1974:5) notes that wheat grows best under the conditions of a cool and moist growing season followed by a dry and warm ripening period. Ethnographic studies of traditional Turkish farmers have shown that spring cereal crops are only sown as an extra crop if there is not enough time or land available for growing the sufficient amounts of cereal crops in the autumn, and that the spring-sown crops generally yield less than their autumn-sown equivalents (Hillman 1981:147). The nature of the environment of northern Mesopotamia means that summer crops, other than vegetables, appear not to have been grown in the area until artificial irrigation became possible with the introduction of petrol driven pumps. As mentioned in Chapter 2, only winter cereal crops are referred to in ancient Mesopotamian texts, suggesting that cereal crops were never summer-sown in the past (Oates and Oates 1976:117). The present evidence thus suggests that crops in the area around Tell Brak are most likely to have been winter-sown and spring/summer-harvested in the past.

The majority of the species in the Tell Brak weed assemblage begin their flowering/fruiting period in early spring (March-April), with a flowering/fruiting period lasting three, occasionally four, months (Table 5.11). The weeds are thus consistent with having grown among a winter-sown crop, and having fruited by the time of the crop harvest, the taxa in group +2a (Table 5.11) probably being on the limit between crop weeds and wild taxa, though they have been treated as crop weeds in this study. The Tell Brak crops therefore appear to have been sown in the winter in the past, as cereal crops still are in the area today. 7.3.2. Use of irrigation The position of Tell Brak, just below the border of the 300 mm isohyet and thus on the margin of reliable dryfarming today, but also within the Jaghjagh/Radd wadi system, suggests that the settlers of Tell Brak chose the location of their site with access to river water for consumption and, possibly, irrigation in mind (French 2003:235). As was discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1.5), however, given the suggestion that the climate was slightly warmer and wetter in the Late Chalcolithic than at present, the need for irrigation may have been less urgent than it is today.

Determining whether the Tell Brak crops match the hypothesized autumn crop sowing can be done by looking at the ecological characteristics of the crop weeds. The usefulness of weed flowering/fruiting data to determine crop sowing time has been confirmed in a study of spring- and autumn sown crops from Germany (Bogaard et al. 2001). Here it was shown that weed species with an onset of flowering in winter/spring and a brief flowering period (set as 1-3 months) would be fruiting before the spring harvest and the seeds could thus potentially be harvested with the crop; spring ploughing to prepare the ground for summer crops meant that these spring-flowering weed taxa would not be able to recover in order to be present among springsown, autumn-harvested crops (ibid.:1175). Springflowering/fruiting weed taxa are thus most likely to have grown with crops that are winter-sown. Similarly, spring-sown crops are most likely to be accompanied by spring-germinating, autumn-flowering/fruiting weed taxa, as these taxa, growing better in the warmer summer period, are not able to compete with the weed taxa growing among the spring-harvested crops, but are, on the other hand, at an advantage by not having reached maturity by spring, which means that they are not destroyed by the spring ploughing (ibid.).

The use of irrigation in the area around Tell Brak today was discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1.5.2). As is the case for northern Mesopotamia in general (Charles et al. 2003:1429), there is no conclusive archaeological evidence, in the form of irrigation works, for the use of irrigation of fields around Tell Brak in the past. The question of irrigation is interesting as regards the organisation of Tell Brak during the Late Chalcolithic: the construction of irrigation works would certainly have necessitated the involvement of a central administration, even though, as Hunt (1987:151) argues, the regular maintenance of the irrigation canals following construction would not need large-scale organisation. Regarding the questions on the influence of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site by the second half of the fourth millennium BC, the construction of irrigation works – an essential feature of southern Mesopotamian life - would certainly testify to, not only the presence of southerners, but also the influence they could potentially have had on the local population. The potential for the use of the wadis around Tell Brak is there, and the scale of the city, and

101

A Thousand Years of Farming

of the architecture found on the site, suggests that the necessary means of organising a labour force to dig and maintain irrigation canals were present, and it is likely that such irrigation works would have been very large and noticeable; however, no such evidence has been found. Crops may, therefore, have been sown next to rivers and streams to take advantage of the high water table in the past, rather than having been artificially irrigated.

watered fields than those from the earlier half of the fourth millennium BC. The climate of northern Mesopotamia in the past was assessed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1.3). It has been suggested that the fourth millennium BC was wetter and warmer than today, though with minor fluctuations towards a drier climate throughout the millennium. In conclusion, crops arriving at Tell Brak do not seem to have been grown in irrigated fields, but certainly in the later half of the Late Chalcolithic crops were grown in wetter conditions, possibly in fields located closer to the wadis than previously, or perhaps in generally wetter climatic conditions.

As in the case of crop sowing time discussed above, the ecological information on the flowering/fruiting times of crop weeds has been shown to be a useful indicator of the use of irrigation in the past (Charles et al. 2003). Annual taxa flowering early in relation to harvest (i.e. until or during harvest, which was established as taking place in the spring, above) avoid the later summer droughts by having a short life cycle, whereas laterflowering weeds need higher and longer-term levels of water provisioning in order to survive and complete their life cycle over the summer (ibid.:1423). A study of modern fields on the Kerak plateau, Jordan, undergoing a range of watering regimes from dryfarmed over biennially irrigated, to fully irrigated, has shown that early flowering species were associated with both irrigated and dry-farmed fields, whereas later-flowering weeds were clearly associated with fully irrigated fields (ibid.1436-7).

7.3.3. Intensity of weeding and tilling of fields Ethnographic studies have shown that, unlike within modern, mechanised farming, until recently, cereal fields were often carefully weeded and hoed in the tradition of more intensive garden agriculture (Jones 1992:142). The work force needed and the number of hours involved in tilling a field is considerable, and it is worth exploring whether some level of field disturbance, relating to intensive farming, can be distinguished in the glume wheat crop present at Tell Brak. A study on the agricultural practices on the Greek island of Evvia has suggested that the length of flowering of the crop weeds may be an indicator of the level of field disturbance associated with weeding or tilling (Jones et al. 2000:1081). Species flowering after a short growth period, and thus with a long flowering period, are able to produce several “generations” of seeds within the same growing season, and are therefore more likely to be at an advantage in fields disturbed by weeding or tilling such as hoeing, than species which produce less seeds (ibid.:1076).

Of the Tell Brak crop weeds listed in Table 5.11, roughly half are early-flowering taxa, finishing their flowering/fruiting period in May, i.e. at the time of the crop harvest, and following the results from the Kerak plateau study, could have grown in either dry-farmed or irrigated fields. The remaining crop weeds end their flowering/fruiting period 1-2 months after the crop harvest, in June or July; they would therefore have been in need of added water, and are thus more likely to have grown in irrigated fields. The glume wheat crop present at Tell Brak thus appears to have come from fields with varying levels of water availability.

As is evident from Table 5.11, most of the crop weeds at Tell Brak have medium-to-long flowering periods, most of them of three months, some of four or five months. None of the crop weeds flower for longer than five months, however, except for Lolium rigidum, which may go on flowering after July. Given the generally medium flowering season of this assemblage of crop weeds, with a few longer-flowering taxa among them, and following the logic of the Evvia study, it appears that the glume wheat crop present at Tell Brak may have been weeded or otherwise disturbed to some extent in the field.

From the correspondence plots discussed in the previous chapter, it is clear that flowering/fruiting accounts for some of the variation within the glume wheat samples, and that this pattern of variation corresponds to that for species coded on moisture requirements and plant height as well, i.e. taxa with higher moisture requirements tend to be tall and lateflowering, thus clearly reflecting the various levels of water availability and general growing conditions of the crops. It was also noted how these levels of growing condition quality appeared to vary with time; whereas the earlier Late Chalcolithic samples are dominated by crop weeds ending their flowering/ fruiting period by the time of the crop harvest, the later Late Chalcolithic samples contain a much higher proportion of taxa flowering/fruiting 1-2 months after May, i.e. after the crop harvest. Correlating this pattern with the connection between flowering/fruiting times and the use of irrigation, it appears that the later Late Chalcolithic glume wheat crop came from better

It has been suggested (Hillman 1981) that low numbers of perennials and biennials in the plant assemblage reflect a certain level of field disturbance, as these types of plants tend to be destroyed by ploughing. In her study of the archaeobotanical remains from Assiros Toumba in northern Greece, Jones (1992:140-1) found that the low frequency of perennials and biennials corresponded with her interpretation of these samples

102

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

having grown within an intensive garden cultivation regime.

crops arriving at Tell Brak is the presence of culm bases in the samples, which, if the straw has been cut rather than pulled from the ground, will be absent from the plant assemblage. Hillman (ibid.), however, notes that roots and culm bases may be cut off from uprooted crops before threshing to reduce the amount of soil and small stones being threshed with the cereals, thus separating the culm nodes from the remaining grains and chaff that make up the archaeobotanical assemblage (unless roots and culm bases were then thrown in with the threshing by-product and brought on-site). Despite this, absence, or low numbers, of culm bases is generally taken to be an indicator of the crop having been harvested by reaping rather than uprooting.

The crop weeds in the glume wheat chaff rich fine sieving by-product samples are mainly annuals, with Bellevalia sp. and Muscari sp. the only perennials present (Table 5.9). Given this low proportion of perennials - and absence of biennials - disturbance in the form of field tillage appears to have been relatively high, corresponding to the result from the analysis of the flowering/fruiting times of the Tell Brak crop weeds. As was determined by correspondence analysis in the previous chapter, longer flowering/fruiting taxa are associated with samples from the later Late Chalcolithic. This suggests that the level of field tillage may have increased from the earlier to the later half of the Late Chalcolithic.

Though a large number of culm nodes were observed in the samples overall (Appendix I), very few culm bases have been identified. The presence of culm nodes suggests that the low levels of culm bases is not due to a crop processing bias, and it is therefore assumed that the crops arriving at Tell Brak were harvested by reaping.

7.3.4. Crop rotation and fallowing practice As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2), farmers in northern Mesopotamia today practice field fallow and crop rotation, with a third to half of the agricultural land lying fallow for a year. The advantages of both types of practice in terms of soil fertility and moisture retention were discussed in the same section.

Harvesting time As in the case of the timing of crop sowing above, to determine the timing of crop harvest, the flowering/fruiting times of the weeds found in the Tell Brak samples are the most useful indicators. Since most of the crop weeds are flowering/fruiting until and in May (Table 5.11), in order for the plants to be present, and carrying seeds, at the time of the harvest – and thus for the seeds to have been brought on-site with the harvested crop – harvest must have taken place in May or early June.

A study of a number of fields under three different fallowing and crop rotation regimes (fallow-cereal, legume-cereal and legume-fallow-cereal) in northern Jordan has shown how these practices affect the composition of weeds accompanying the crop (Bogaard et al. 1999). As with exploring the intensity of weeding and tilling of fields, above, the length of flowering period has been shown also to be a useful indicator for a cultivated fallow regime, the length of flowering period – and thus the number of seeds generated by the plant - associated with growing conditions within a high level of soil disturbance caused by cultivated fallow (ibid.:1222).

Harvesting height A cereal crop can be harvested at several heights on its straw, depending on whether farmers are interested in retrieving the grain only, or whether the straw, as is most commonly seen in ethnographical studies, also carries economic value. A study of traditional agriculture in southern Iraq (Charles 1990:54) noted that the cereal crop was usually cut low on the stem, 10-15 cm from the ground.

The glume wheat crop weeds are, as mentioned in the section above, generally medium-flowering; some of them, therefore, should be able to survive well in the disturbed conditions caused by cultivated fallow, and as with the intensity of field tillage discussed above, the longer-flowering/fruiting taxa in the later Late Chalcolithic samples do suggest that cultivated fallow may have been practiced by the later half of the Late Chalcolithic.

Considering the general lack of trees for the use of firewood in northern Mesopotamia, (wood appears to have been scarce enough not to have been used for this purpose, though trees from the steppe forests of the mountain ranges may have been brought to the site for building purposes), straw may have been a valuable source of fuel, as well as a source of fodder. The construction of the mud brick buildings found in all archaeological levels at Tell Brak will also have consumed vast quantities of straw – David Oates has calculated that the construction of the foundations only for the outer walls of the Naramsin Palace, described in Chapter 4 (section 4.1), would have necessitated the straw from more than 13 km2 of cultivated land (Oates

7.3.5. Harvesting practice Harvesting method The two most common methods of harvesting cereals are uprooting and reaping with a sickle or scythe, of which the latter is the fastest and also most common method (Hillman 1981:150). An indication of whether uprooting was the preferred method of harvesting the

103

A Thousand Years of Farming

01/188 01/41 01/143 01/124 01/181 01/123 01/298 01/280 00/20

00/60

00/14 00/62 00/26 98/59 98/86

01/392

01/364 98/32 02/50 98/33 02/43 98/28 98/23 98/26 00/100 02/69 98/20 98/36

02/32

01/380 00/88 01/346 01/375 98/10 98/11 01/372

02/28 02/40

02/3

97/212 98/5

02/16 97/41 97/200 97/46 01/311 01/309 01/310 01/354 01/307

01/318

01/347 01/282

01/308

01/186 02/56

02/80 02/118 02/75

01/289

Fig. 7.1. Level 18 Building and Level 16 Houses with position of archaeobotanical samples from levels 19-10. 1990:390). It is therefore assumed that farmers harvesting the glume wheat crop to be consumed at Tell Brak would have harvested low on the straw to preserve as much of it as possible.

Table 4.1 lists the context information for the individual samples from the present study. Spatial analysis within a trench is possible in TW, from where plans are available; for this area the samples are discussed in the sections below, followed by comparisons with other trenches.

Fig. 6.1 presents the groups of minimum height of the crop weeds present in the glume wheat chaff samples, divided into their chronological groups. Samples from the later half of the Late Chalcolithic contain comparatively higher levels of lower-growing taxa, suggesting that the crop in these samples was cut lower on the straw than previously. This again may indicate an increase in the value of straw for use as fodder and/or building purposes. The presence of culm nodes in the Tell Brak samples (Fig. 6.2), may primarily be a reflection of changes in the storage and movement of straw once it had been harvested, with less straw arriving on site, possibly by more straw finding a use off-site, for instance in the construction of mud bricks.

7.4.1. Trench TW Figs. 7.1-7.13 show trench TW levels 20 to 9 with the location of the samples. Some samples are from earlier or later levels than the buildings they have been sampled from; their sample numbers have been placed on the plans in italics but are otherwise not represented. This is the case with samples taken from pits that have cut earlier levels, such as the samples from the level 9 pits in the Level 11 House (Fig. 7.10, below), and the Late Uruk and Northern Early Uruk samples in the Level 18 Building (Fig. 7.1). Figs. 7.1 and 7.3-7.9 show the location of the samples in the Northern Middle Uruk levels. These levels include the non-domestic Level 18 Building, its level 16 re-use, as well as a group of houses, the Level 16 Houses, which, though they are probably associated and contemporary with the Level 18 Building, appear to be of a more private household character. The samples from TW thus provide an opportunity to compare the range and types of plants encountered in public and private households, respectively, of a similar date. On a different level of comparison, the Late Uruk Level 11 House (Figs. 7.10-7.13) may have

7.4. Spatial variation in crop use in the Tell Brak excavation areas So far the Tell Brak samples have been discussed mainly in terms of their botanical composition and in terms of what inferences can be made from their internal patterns. In this section the location and character of the samples within each of the Late Chalcolithic excavation areas are presented and at the end of this section the information we may be able to gain from their spatial relation, regarding the function, use and interrelation of space, is discussed.

104

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Major crops:

Glume wheat grain Hulled barley grain Lentil

Glume wheat chaff Hulled barley rachis Flax

Major plant elements:

Cereal grain Pulse Weed/wild taxa

Cereal chaff Flax

Fig. 7.2. TW level 20 with pie charts of major crops (left) and plant elements (right) in the sample, and crop group designation below.

Fig. 7.3. Level 18 occupation of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major crops in each sample. served some public, economic, function, and its charred plant assemblage can be compared with those of the earlier, Northern Middle Uruk, private households and of the Level 18 Building, also serving a public, but here probably a more political/cultic, rather

than economic, function. More details on the architectural remains of the excavation areas were presented in Chapter 4.

105

A Thousand Years of Farming

Cereal grain Pulse

Cereal chaff Flax

Fig. 7.4. Level 18 occupation of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample. One sample contains significant proportions of lentil, suggesting that this crop may have been processed here, though it is not present as a stored crop. Two samples associated with the bin and an oven in the southeast corner of the courtyard contain comparatively higher amounts of barley grain and chaff, and may have been dung fuel from high quality fodder.

Levels 20-19 (Northern Early Uruk) Four samples have been dated to levels 20-19. One of the samples, 01/346, is associated with a tannur and comprises mixed glume wheat and barley. The three remaining samples (97/232, 01/375 and 01/380) are glume wheat rich and are from fill/surface contexts. Sample 97/232, taken from outside the gateway, is represented on Fig. 7.2.

Level 16 (Northern Middle Uruk)

Level 18 (Northern Middle Uruk)

In the northern end of the large northern courtyard of the level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building a group of samples rich in, respectively, barley grain and glume wheat chaff, was found inside and among a group of large storage vessels (Figs. 7.5 to 7.7). Three of the samples (01/124, 01/181, 01/188) were found in storage vessels; samples 01/124 and 01/181 are rich in barley grain, while sample 01/188 is dominated by glume wheat chaff. As mentioned above, the richest barley grain sample found in the area, sample 01/123, may have been stored in a basket or other container that did not survive the burning of the building, or alternatively it may have spilled out of a pot, of which a high number was found in this area. Five flax rich samples (98/23, 98/26, 98/32, 98/33, 98/36), associated with pots and an oven, have been uncovered outside of the northern courtyard of the Level 18 Building and are

Archaeobotanical samples from the level 18 occupation of the Level 18 Building contain mainly mixed plant material (Figs. 7.3-7.4). The samples have come from floor, fill, fireplace and pit contexts, and are likely to have been used for fuel, perhaps in the central oven or in the grill structure. As mentioned in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.1), the courtyard appears to have been used for the cooking and roasting of large quantities of food. The samples are mixed in terms of their crop components and typically rich (c. 50%) in weed/wild taxa. As mentioned above (section 7.2.2.), some of these mixed samples (particularly 00/26 and 00/88) contain relatively high proportions of barley rachis (Fig. 7.3), suggesting that the cleaning of the barley grain rich samples took place in this courtyard. 106

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

B

A A B D●

A glume wheat chaff rich B barley grain rich C flax rich D mixed

X X

■

D CC D D D C ▲ C X D X

D D

D

C ▲ ▲ ▲

X

D D

X

●

D D

C

A

X

D D D

D

BB B

A

D

B

A D

D D

B

Fig. 7.5. Level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building and Level 16 Houses with archaeobotanical samples coded on their crop group. (01/347) and two mixed samples, one of which (02/3) came from a bin, while the other (02/16) was sampled from fill.

probably related to another flax rich sample (97/212) found in the annex of the NW House. Pots appear to have been used not only for the storage of crops, but also for the by-products of crop cleaning. The samples from the northern end of the courtyard seem to represent material stored in a range of conditions from more or less fully cleaned barley grain ready for human consumption, to by-products of crop cleaning, perhaps temporarily stored in vessels, and destined for use as fodder or fuel.

Level 12 (Late Uruk) Samples were taken from two large Late Uruk pits in this level; two samples, 98/59 and 98/86, were analysed from the western pit (location shown on Fig. 4.6), both of which are glume wheat by-products. Level 11 (Late Uruk)

Several groups of samples were present in and among the Level 16 Houses (Figs. 7.8 and 7.9): In the NW House the flax rich sample mentioned above; in the SW House, a room containing several large storage jars were uncovered, three of which contained clean barley grain. The remaining jar contained glume wheat grain and chaff in a ratio matching that of whole glume wheat spikelets, and potentially representing an unprocessed glume wheat crop. Mixed samples were found in the other rooms of this house. The SE House contains one barley rich sample and two mixed samples, the latter including fair proportions of barley rachis, and possibly partly reflecting the by-products of the cleaning of the barley crop. All the samples in this house are derived from hearths. The NE House contains two mixed samples from fill context, and one glume wheat chaff rich sample stored in a vessel. The central courtyard between the houses contain a glume wheat chaff rich sample associated with a pot burial

In TW level 11 (Figs. 7.10 to 7.13), four samples have been analysed from fill levels within the courtyard and the eastern room of the building occupying most of the trench. The samples are mixed or glume wheat chaff dominated and are likely to have been discarded refuse from crop cleaning. One of the samples (01/102) contains the largest proportion of lentils (50%) found in the levels. Levels 10-9 (Late Uruk) The Level 11 Building had been cut by a number of pits from where samples have been analysed (shown by sample numbers in italics on Fig. 7.10). These samples are all glume wheat chaff rich and are most probably discarded by-products from crop cleaning.

107

A Thousand Years of Farming

Glume wheat grain Hulled barley grain Lentil

Glume wheat chaff Hulled barley rachis Flax

Fig. 7.6. Level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major crops in each sample. 7.4.2. Trench TX

7.4.3. Trench UA

Trench TX (Fig. 4.1) has yielded the remains of a typical Late Uruk tripartite house, resembling the private households in TW level 16, and is situated close to the latter to the north. No illustrations are available of the building and the spatial relation of the samples from this area cannot, therefore, be reviewed. The four samples analysed from TX were sampled from midden or fill contexts and are all glume wheat chaff rich samples; three of them contain 70% or more of this crop element, whereas the last, a mixed sample, though still dominated by glume wheat, also contain a significant proportion of barley grain (34%). Based on the crop element composition of the samples, they are likely to be by-products of glume wheat cleaning, and to have been discarded on a fireplace, or in the case of the latter sample in particular, to have been intended for fodder, given the mixing of barley grains.

The samples from trench UA (Fig. 4.1) are all from a large Late Uruk pit of the same kind and date as the pits found in TW. The four samples from UA consist of two glume wheat chaff rich and two mixed samples containing smaller amounts of barley and glume wheat grain, and are all likely to have been discarded in the pit either as they were, or after having been used as fuel in a fireplace. 7.4.4. Tell 2 Off the main occupation, Tell 2 (Fig. 4.3) is one of the satellite sites that have been argued to have functioned as a specialist agricultural site. As mentioned earlier (section 4.3.4), however, the excavated parts of the site seem to have functioned as private residences and areas of ceramics production. No illustrations are available from this area; the samples are all from fill contexts apart from samples 00/214 and 00/215, which have been sampled from the same context, a container described by the excavator as a basin.

108

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Cereal grain Pulse Weed/wild taxa

Cereal chaff Flax

Fig. 7.7. Level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample. The eight samples analysed from Tell 2 are all mixed samples with glume wheat chaff and grain and barley grain as the major crop elements. The samples most probably represent post-processing mixing of crops that were intended for either fodder or fuel, and discarded in fireplaces.

7.4.6. Trench HS6 Seven samples have been analysed from this trench, which has been dated to the Early Uruk period (Colledge 2003:390). The samples from HS6 are dominated by glume wheat chaff and grain, and barley grain, with a small but persistent lentil component (ibid.:393). The weed/wild taxa consist primarily of grasses and small legumes (ibid.:400-1), and, like the HS1 samples, are likely to be mixtures of several crops that may have been intended for fodder, or refuse from crop cleaning, mixed with a crop that may have spoiled or otherwise been considered unfit for human consumption.

7.4.5. Trench HS1 From this Northern Middle Uruk period trench on the northwest slope of the tell (Fig. 4.1), 20 samples have been analysed (Colledge 2003); they are all rich in barley grain and glume wheat chaff, and though none of them can be said to be clearly dominated by either crop, eight of the samples are richer in barley grain than glume wheat chaff, and seven samples contain the opposite proportion of crop elements (ibid.:394). Lentil is present in almost every sample, though in low numbers. The weed/wild taxon component in the samples (ibid.:402-3) is dominated by grasses and small legumes and there is a fair amount of weed/wild taxa in each of the samples. The HS1 samples thus look like mixtures of different crops and crop elements and weeds, and may have been mixtures intended for fodder, possibly burned as dung fuel (ibid.:396-7).

7.4.7. Spatial comparison of the use and disposal of crops The majority of the samples found in the Late Chalcolithic trenches are dominated by glume wheat chaff, representing deposits of crop processing byproducts, pure or mixed, which were apparently for use, eg. as fodder or tempering, or for discard, e.g. on fires or in pits. Within the Northern Middle Uruk levels the following observations on crops can be made: Cleaned crops have only been found in trench TW 109

A Thousand Years of Farming

Fig. 7.8. Level 16 Houses with pie charts of the major crops in each sample. level 16, that is, in the re-use of the Level 18 Building northern courtyard and the SW Level 16 House; from similar types of context across the site, i.e. from the domestic residence area in HS1 and the tripartite house in TX, stored crops are absent.

function. Both of the lentil rich samples are from mixed crops and by-products that may have been used as fuel; the presence of the two samples in these contexts does not, therefore, provide direct evidence of the consumption/storage of lentils in public contexts, but they certainly were present on-site and within these contexts. The absence of pulses from public contexts in the third millennium BC may, therefore, have been due to changes in storage or processing practices from those used in the fourth millennium BC, at which time there does not appear to be any spatial division of crops.

The plant assemblage, of stored barley and flax, and by-products of glume wheat processing, both stored and discarded, does not seem to differ between the public function building and the associated private houses in TW. In both types of buildings barley grain and glume wheat chaff have been found in clearly defined storage contexts, and the concentration of stored flax appears to be associated with both complexes of buildings.

As mentioned above, the final crop cleaning stages seem to have been undertaken on-site, within individual households. During the level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building storage of crops took place in the courtyard, whereas in the contemporary Level 16 Houses storage took place in smaller rooms. From the level 18 use of the Level 18 Building we have seen that crop cleaning appears to have taken place in the southern half of the courtyard, which is dominated by by-product samples containing glume wheat and barley. The cleaning of the flax samples stored north of the courtyard appears to have taken place within this storage context, as some of the samples contain high levels of weed/wild taxa and other crop elements apart from the flax seeds.

In a study of the third millennium BC plant remains from Tell Brak, Charles and Bogaard (2001) note that, whereas glume wheat, free-threshing wheat and barley products/by-products were present in all sampled contexts, pulses were lacking from the “public” contexts, thus potentially indicating a difference in crop use between private and public contexts (ibid.:321). In the present study, however, of the two lentil rich samples analysed, one (01/364) was found in the courtyard of the Level 18 Building, and the other (01/102) in the courtyard of the Level 11 Building, both of which appear to have served some public

110

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Fig. 7.9. Level 16 Houses with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample. The vessels used for storing the barley crop and glume wheat chaff in the Level 18 Building and the Level 16 Houses are of a similar type, i.e. large ovoid jars; though the purpose and use of a vessel type may change according to a number of factors, it is possible that crop storage may be a primary use of this type of vessel. If this is the case it would give us direct evidence for the use of this particular pottery type. Correlation between vessel type and use may well help the identification of storage areas of agricultural produce in future excavations on the site, where high numbers of plant remains may not be present, as well as on other, contemporary sites with a similar range of pots.

Comparisons of the range of crops between Northern Middle Uruk households on the main mound and Tell 2, one of the contemporary satellite sites (Table 7.1), show that there is a wider range of crops present in TW, which – apart from the usual barley, glume wheat, flax and lentil – includes free-threshing wheat, bitter vetch and chickpea (the latter two in low levels); while this may in part reflect the much larger number of samples analysed from TW, the possibility that there were differences in the crops consumed in the two areas needs further investigation. Within the Late Uruk levels, there does not appear to be any differences in the range of crops between the two Late Uruk pits, in TW and UA, all but one of the samples in which are glume wheat chaff dominated byproduct samples. From the public Level 11 Building glume wheat chaff rich and mixed samples have been found, but stored crops are absent, contrary to the crops found in the earlier, Northern Middle Uruk public Level 18 Building.

Interestingly, these pots were clearly not only used for the storage of crop products, but seem also to have been used for the storage of by-products waiting to be either disposed of on fires or used for fodder, tempering, etc., as in the case of the pots of glume wheat chaff mentioned above. The area containing the stored flax crops also appears to have contained both pots of not fully cleaned flax, presumably for direct human use, as food, oil or for other purposes, as well as pots containing by-products of the cleaning of flax and glume wheat.

7.5. Crop use at Tell Brak through the Late Chalcolithic Table 7.1 presents the chronological patterns of the major crops in the samples analysed for the present

111

A Thousand Years of Farming

01/376 01/84

01/105

01/57 01/59

01/102

01/82 01/192 01/330

01/80

Fig. 7.10. Level 11 House with position of archaeobotanical samples from levels 11-9.

D A D A

A D

? D A A

A glume wheat chaff rich D mixed

A

Fig. 7.11. Level 11 House with archaeobotanical samples coded on crop group. study, as well as of the crops analysed in previous studies of the site. Table 7.2 presents a summary of the major crops in the Late Chalcolithic from the present and previous studies combined, that is, a summary of Table 7.1. Chronological changes within the Late Chalcolithic are discussed initially, followed by a discussion on any patterns that can be discerned in the Tell Brak charred plant assemblage from the Late Chalcolithic and later.

7.5.1. Crops and products through time There are no clear differences in the variation of crops in the different Late Chalcolithic levels; from the Northern Early Uruk to the Late Uruk period, the predominance of barley, glume wheat, lentils and flax, with lower levels of other pulses, figs and grapes, do not change; Fig. 7.14 presents a bar chart of the relative proportions of the major crops in each Late 112

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Fig. 7.12. Level 11 House with pie charts of the major crops in each sample.

Fig. 7.13. Level 11 House with pie charts of the major plant elements in each sample. Chalcolithic phase in the present study. Free-threshing wheat does appear to become a more prominent crop during the Late Chalcolithic when looking at the samples from the present study alone (Table 7.1), but results from the present and previous studies combined (Table 7.2) show similar levels throughout, indicating that the increase seen in Table 7.1 is probably due more

to a sampling bias than to an actual increase in this crop over time. The broad range of crops is also more or less constant through the Late Chalcolithic, with nine-ten crops present throughout. As was discussed in the sections above, there are several indications that while the crop types cultivated 113

A Thousand Years of Farming

remain fairly constant, there is variation in crop husbandry within the Tell Brak charred plant assemblage, which matches chronological periods. Crop growing conditions, including the level of moisture, and crop husbandry practices such as field tillage and harvesting height, all appear to undergo some level of change between the first and second halves of the Late Chalcolithic.

7.6.1. Producer-consumer areas and the role of the satellite sites Given the size of Tell Brak and the size of its population in the Late Chalcolithic, a key question regarding the economy of the settlement is where the crops were coming from, i.e. whether Tell Brak was mainly self-sufficient in the production of agricultural goods, or whether crops were imported to the city from elsewhere. As discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.2.), it has been suggested that the satellite sites surrounding Tell Brak may have functioned as agricultural producer/crop storage stations, providing the main settlement with agricultural products. Regional systems of economic interdependency between cities and their hinterlands are documented in written sources from the third millennium BC onwards (McCorriston 1995:34) and are generally thought to have existed long before this time as well (Wilkinson 1994:484).

These changes in crop husbandry - increased moisture levels, increased field tillage, lower harvesting height are all associated with an intensification of agriculture, which may be related to the growth of Tell Brak into an ever larger regional centre during the Late Chalcolithic. By intensifying agriculture a larger crop may be produced, which is likely to have been needed for the growing population at Tell Brak, as would larger quantities of straw for fodder and building purposes. Whether this intensification can also be related to the arrival of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site is discussed in section 7.6.2 below.

Given the proximity of the satellite sites to Tell Brak they clearly must have been associated with the main site - it is not unlikely that some of these particular sites could have been engaged in either the production of agricultural products and/or in the storage and distribution of products arriving at Tell Brak from the greater hinterlands. As discussed in Chapter 4, the role of Tell Brak in the Late Chalcolithic appears to have been that of a regional centre, and it is likely that agricultural produce was transported to Tell Brak for use there or for redistribution elsewhere; from the later third millennium BC there are indications that during this period agricultural produce was collected in the major regional centres in northern Mesopotamia, and transported south, to Mari, or to the cities of southern Mesopotamia via the Khabur and Euphrates Rivers (Forrest et al. 2004). There may have been a similar connection between northern and southern Mesopotamia in the Late Chalcolithic. Wilkinson (2000:240) has suggested that the northern Mesopotamian centres also supplied local communities, including mobile pastoral groups, with agricultural produce, something which may also have been the case for Tell Brak, given its position between two economic regions, those of agriculture and pastoralism, as discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.1).

Looking at Table 7.2, changes in crops between the Late Chalcolithic and the third millennium BC include slight increases in barley, glume wheat, lentil and common pea and a decrease in flax, while the remaining minor crops are unaltered in their levels. For the third and second millennia BC, the major change in crops is a decrease in glume wheat, whereas the levels of the remaining crops are more or less unaltered. The broad range of crops is also similar throughout these millennia. In her study of the Tell Brak plant remains from the Early Uruk period to the early second millennium BC, Colledge (2003:394) notes how glume wheats decrease through time, while barley increases. From two other studies of the third millennium BC plant remains on the site (Charles and Bogaard 2001, Hald 2001), barley was certainly the major crop, and looking at all the samples analysed from Tell Brak together (Table 7.2), the same pattern is apparent, most dramatically in the decrease of glume wheat. As mentioned above (section 7.3.1.), the glume wheat emmer seems to disappear from northern Mesopotamia after the Early Bronze Age (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988:311).

Where textual evidence suggests large-scale activity concerned with the storage and redistribution of agricultural produce in the third millennium BC, the archaeological evidence is, however, less conclusive: Hole (1991) argues that the storage structures found at sites such as Tell al Raqa’i, Kerma and Atij, which have been suggested by Curvers and Schwartz (1990), among others, to have functioned as collection places for agricultural products to be redistributed across the region, do not, in fact, hold a storage capacity beyond that which is needed by the number of families estimated to have been living on the sites. Hole bases his arguments on estimations of agricultural production in the region and average caloric intake translated into cubic metres of grain, and compares those results with

7.6. Crops and people The two questions considered in the sections below are whether there are changes in agricultural practice following the growth of Tell Brak from a town to a regional centre in the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic, and following the arrival of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site in the later half of the Late Chalcolithic, developments that were outlined in Chapters 3 and 4.

114

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Fig. 7.14. Bar chart of the relative proportions of major crops in the Tell Brak assemblage of the present study, divided into the chronological phases of the samples. NEU = Northern Early Uruk (5 samples), NMU = Northern Middle Uruk (61 samples), LU = Late Uruk (18 samples), post-Uruk (6 samples). the size of the excavated storage structures (Hole 1991:23-4). In his opinion, none of the excavated sites could have catered for more people than their own occupants. Clearly, something more specific than the mere distinction between “small” and “large” storage areas, and an appreciation of the average food intake of a family, is needed when investigating regional storage and distribution patterns, as Hole’s study shows.

Brak, which must have included a fair number of citizens fully employed as craftsmen/priests/ bureaucrats. The barley grain rich samples from TW are very clean, and the limited number of weeds present is insufficient to determine whether they differ in character. Variability in weed seed levels could also be due to crop processing; samples with varying levels of weeds could potentially have come from the same supply but derive from different stages of crop cleaning. Similarly, barley grain was not measured in this study as it was thought variation in grain size would not only be an indicator of different sources of the crop, but also of the way the crop had been processed, grain size being an effect of sieve size, for instance.

Several models have been developed in the attempt to separate producer and consumer sites using archaeobotanical data, mainly from the proportion of different crop elements and weeds, in particular grain rich samples (inter alia Hillman 1981, 1984, Jones 1985, van der Veen and Jones 2006). van der Veen and Jones (2006) have evaluated the various models and found that, rather than reflecting either producer or consumer sites, grain rich samples are more likely to reflect the scale of the production and consumption of crops, since charring accidents are more prone to happen on sites where large quantities of cereal crops are handled. Grain rich samples are present in several concentrations across excavation area TW, and the general richness of the archaeobotanical samples suggests that large quantities of agricultural produce were handled at Tell Brak.

The archaeobotanical assemblage include samples from both the earliest processing stage – winnowing, the byproducts of which formed the majority of the samples in a study of Late Chalcolithic plant remains by Vandorpe (1999) – and from the latest stage, the fine sieving product. By-products may have been transported to Tell Brak along greater distances since chaff and straw hold economic value as, for instance, fodder and building material (i.e. tempering in mudbricks), and it may also have been more practical to transport semi-cleaned grains to the settlement rather than doing the final cleaning in the fields.

van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1988:279ff) have suggested that variation in grain size and weed assemblage in grain rich samples may give indications as to whether the crop came from one or more fields; measuring the dimensions of barley grain from four samples taken from a storage room showed that there was significant variability in grain size between two of the samples to suggest that they came from different fields, and another sample was suggested to have come from a third supply due to its very low level of weed seeds. Different supplies of the same crop may indicate above-household economy, something which can be expected in a settlement the size and complexity of Tell

The analysis of charred plant remains from one of the satellite sites, Tell 2, has not been able to confirm the hypothesized function of these sites as agricultural producer/storage sites; at least this particular settlement appears to have been engaged in specialised industry, but in this case, pottery production rather than the management of agricultural products, and the archaeobotanical samples all reflect post-processing mixing of crops used for fodder/fuel, rather than stored crops. Since only two of the satellite sites have been excavated so far, and archaeobotanical samples 115

A Thousand Years of Farming

analysed from one of the them, evidence from Tell 2 obviously cannot be taken as evidence for the function of all these settlements, and until further research has been undertaken on more of them, the interpretation of the role of the satellite sites in general must remain inconclusive.

7.6.2. Ethnicity as a factor of crop husbandry variation As discussed in Chapter 3, the southern Mesopotamian Uruk settlers living in northern Mesopotamia can be distinguished from the local population through a range of material evidence that, taken together, is thought to imply that not just the outward symbols of this population group is of southern Mesopotamian derivation, but also that the underlying ideology and societal character is southern Mesopotamian. The material evidence includes distinct southern architectural styles, including the size and shape of mudbricks, the use of cylinder seals and bevelled rim bowls and typical southern Mesopotamian manufacturing techniques of these and other goods. Other lines of evidence that may distinguish the southern Mesopotamian settlers from their northern host communities is a spatial differentiation, i.e. a southern isolated enclave at a settlement, or, as in the study by Pearce (2000), discussed above (section 3.3.2.3), different traditions of cuisine indicating different ethnic backgrounds, as reflected in the range of cooking wares used. The study by Pearce showed that whereas local cooking and serving vessels were large, indicating the tradition of communal consumption of meals by a large group of people, the southern Uruk wares were smaller, used for individual portions, and indicating the cooking and serving of either meals for fewer people, or several different courses for one meal (ibid.:39-41). It is very likely that different traditions of cuisine would also include different types of raw materials for cooking, and that the question on ethnic differences may also be addressed using archaeobotanical evidence to look for changes in crop preferences.

From the third millennium BC there is a large variety of textual as well as more direct archaeobotanical evidence for the economic practices of the period. Useful for the present study is the fact that this evidence can be projected back into earlier periods to give more, indirect, information about the Late Chalcolithic agricultural economy, which lacks in both archaeobotanical data and detailed textual evidence. From several of the northern Mesopotamian third millennium BC sites such as Tell al-Raqa’i (van Zeist 2003b), Tell Leilan (Weiss et al. 2002) and Tell Kerma (McCorriston 1995), as well as Tell Brak itself (Hald 2001), large-scale storage structures have been uncovered, some of which contained high levels of cleaned barley, generally, however, not as clean as that found in the Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak. Textual references primarily concerning third millennium BC temple estates provide evidence for the procurement and storage of agricultural produce in these estates (Powell 1990). As mentioned in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.1), temples were considered the households of the gods and appear to have been used for the storage of agricultural goods from at least the Late Chalcolithic onwards. Agricultural produce was apparently delivered to the temple magazines by individual farmers, to be redistributed as rations among temple personnel throughout the year, and as payment to full-time crafts people for their finished products. Texts indicate that grain, in the third millennium BC particularly barley, functioned as money, that is, was used as payment for a variety of goods and services. Powell (ibid.) mentions records of single issues of large amounts of grain (5000 litres), showing that storage facilities of this capacity existed. The so-called sila bowls were used for rations in the Akkadian period (Beale 1978:295-6, Weiss et al.2002:5), as the bevelled rim bowls (discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.3.1) are thought to have been in the Late Chalcolithic.

Naomi Miller (1997a) has discussed the possibility of an ethnic factor in the choice of crops and their processing practices. One example of this is the charred plant evidence from the southern Uruk settlement of Hassek Höyük, characterised by a predominance of barley and pulses and a complete lack of wheat, but situated in an area where wheat as opposed to barley was generally predominant as a result of the comparatively wetter climatic conditions to that further south – the general picture to the south of Hassek Höyük is that of an increasing predominance of barley over wheat the further south the sites are situated (ibid.:128). Miller suggests that the preference of barley at Hassek Höyük could be connected to the influence of the southern Mesopotamian settlers having moved from drier climates further south (ibid.:131). Miller (1994) also notes how the finds of six-row barley, usually associated with the Mesopotamian lowlands due to its high water requirements (i.e. irrigation), in the southern Uruk colony of Godin Tepe on the Susiana Plain may reflect the presence of southern Mesopotamian Uruk settlers, who may have taken this particular crop type with them.

Both textual and archaeological evidence thus point to the large-scale activity concerned with the storage and redistribution of agricultural produce in the third millennium BC; given the size and complexity of a settlement such as Tell Brak in the Late Chalcolithic, and the existence of one or more classes of people exempt from direct subsistence production, it seems reasonable to presume that a similar arrangement of storage and redistribution of agricultural produce took place, possibly, however, on a smaller scale, in the fourth millennium BC as well.

The presence of charred plant remains from deposits associated with early local, and late Uruk southern

116

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Mesopotamian occupants, respectively, at Tell Brak, provides the opportunity to examine whether any differences in crop preferences or crop management can be connected to cultural/ethnic differences between the two groups. As mentioned above, the range of crops at Tell Brak does not undergo dramatic changes during the Late Chalcolithic. Six-row barley, to follow the example from Godin Tepe above, is absent from Tell Brak, and no other crops are present that could be argued to be associated exclusively with southern Mesopotamia. The Tell Brak crop range, therefore, does not show any changes reflecting the presence of southern Mesopotamian settlers.

therefore, be compared meaningfully with the Tell Brak charred plant assemblage. 7.7.1.1. Patterns of crop use Tell Brak is the only reported Late Chalcolithic site in northern Mesopotamia to have yielded high concentrations of crops, some of them in storage contexts. Barley and glume wheat have been reported from earlier studies in the region, as have unspecified levels of various pulses and grape. However, the Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak have yielded several types of plants, including bitter vetch, chickpea, fig and possibly safflower, for which no evidence had otherwise been found in Late Chalcolithic deposits in northern Mesopotamia. Bitter vetch, chickpea and fig are common crops in the third millennium BC, as shown in Table 7.3. The earliest safflower previously found was in deposits dated to the mid-late third millennium BC (McCorriston quoted in Colledge 2003:401), while at Tell Brak this taxon has been found in HS1 (ibid.) and in TW, in levels dated to the Northern Middle Uruk period. Fig is another likely crop that has been found in Late Chalcolithic levels, whereas fig cultivation in Syria has so far been known only from the third and second millennia BC (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988:275). The previous absence of any of these crops in the fourth millennium BC are most probably due to the limited number of archaeobotanical studies having been undertaken so far on archaeological sites not directly associated with the origins of agriculture. Crops such as bitter vetch and chickpea are found on some of the earliest agricultural sites in the Near East, from around 10.000 BC (Miller 1991, Zohary and Hopf 2000).

The variation in crop husbandry practices at Tell Brak, described in previous sections in this chapter, appears to be related, to a certain degree, to the chronological periods of the samples; as mentioned above, indications of agricultural intensification such as wetter field conditions, and tillage and fallowing of fields, increase through time in the Late Chalcolithic levels (section 7.5.1). These crop husbandry practices, as reflected in the crops arriving at Tell Brak, have been seen to change towards a more intensified agricultural production by the later part of the Late Chalcolithic. The growth of Tell Brak independently from before the time of the ”Uruk Expansion” would certainly have entailed agricultural intensification to provide for a growing number of citizens, and though this may also have been the result of the arrival of southern Mesopotamian settlers onto the site, it is not possible to distinguish between the results of internal growth and that of an external addition of inhabitants on the site, in terms of changes in crop management. Further archaeobotanical sampling at Tell Brak, as well as the analysis and integration of the ceramic and faunal evidence with the archaeobotanical evidence, may shed further light on this question.

Cultivated flax forms a substantial part of the assemblage of major crops at Tell Brak already in the Late Chalcolithic, and has also been reported (in unspecified levels) from Kurban Höyük (Table 7.3). van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1988:311) have suggested, from their study of third-to-second millennium BC sites in the Euphrates Valley, that there was no evidence for the cultivation of flax at this time, and the summary of the crops found at Tell Brak from the fourth to the second millennium BC (Table 7.2) also shows a decrease in flax from the third millennium BC onwards.

7.7. The Tell Brak plant remains in their wider archaeological/botanical context In the following sections the results from the study of the Tell Brak plant remains is discussed within the context of other archaeobotanical studies spanning the fifth to the second millennium BC; section 7.7.1 concentrates on studies in northern Mesopotamia, while section 7.7.2 compares these results with those from archaeobotanical studies from the rest of Mesopotamia.

From his study on the plant remains from Tell alRaqa’i (dated to the first half of the third millennium BC), van Zeist (2003b:16) notes that the site has yielded free-threshing wheat only in later levels; he suggests that the inhabitants may not have known this crop until they had established contacts with southern Mesopotamian traders. The only previous find of freethreshing wheat is from southern Uruk-occupied Hacınebi, which would have added support to this theory, though it is unknown whether this find was from local or southern Mesopotamian levels. From Tell Brak, however, free-threshing wheat has been found in

7.7.1. Comparisons with regional archaeobotanical studies Table 7.3 presents the results of archaeobotanical analyses from a range of sites in northern and southern Mesopotamia. What is immediately apparent is the general lack of plant remains from the Late Chalcolithic in both regions; from a number of sites archaeobotanical remains have only been reported in terms of their presence, and their prominence cannot,

117

118

Period (BC)

N/S Mesopotamia

Two-row hulled barley

x x x

x

4

2 2 4

5

5 5 4 5

Six-row hulled barley

3 x

1

x

Two-row/six-row barley 3

x

4

Barley, unspecified 5 1 2

3 2

x

4 4 4

4

Emmer wheat 1

5

1 x x x x

3

4 3

x 5

1 4 2

4

x

1

4

x

2

4

1

Einkorn wheat 1

Glume wheat, unspecified

1

Free-threshing wheat 2

x

x x x

4

5

2 4 2 5 1 x 4

Wheat, unspecified 4

1 2 4

Flax 1

x x

1

x

2

Millet x

1

Lentil 1

x x x x

x 3

x 5 1 1

1 3 1 5

Common pea x

1

x

1

1

3 3 1 1 1 x 1

Grass pea x x

1

1

5 2 1 5 1 x 5 1 1

Bitter vetch x x

x

x

1

1

x

Grass pea/Bitter vetch 2

Chick pea x x

1 x

x 1

1

1

x

Fava bean 2

x = recorded, not quantified; 1 = rare/present; 2 = 500

N 24-1400 N 24-1900 N 29-2600 N 3000-1500 N 3000-2500 N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. S 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N 3rd mill. N LU-E NinV S 3200 S 3200

Pulse, unspecified

Table 7.3. Crops found in fifth to third millennium BC archaeological sites in Mesopotamia.

storage context

Site Tell es-Sweyhat Selenkahiye Raqa'i Hadidi Tell Taya Tell Taya Tell Brak Hajji Ibrahim Tell Atij Tell Kerma Bderi Hassek Höyük Tell Leilan Tell Ziyadeh Ur Demircihüyük Titriş Höyük Kurban Höyük Tell Mozan Emar Tell Karrana Tell Agrab Khafajeh

Grape x x x x

1 x x

1

x 1

1

1 1

Olive x

x

1

x 1

Date 1

1

Fig x x

x

1

1

1 2

References van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988, Miller 1997b van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988 van Zeist 2003b van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988 Charles and Dobney in press Miller 1991 Charles and Bogaard 2001, Hald 2001, Colledge 2003 Miller 1997b McCorriston 1995 McCorriston 1995 van Zeist 2003a Miller 1997a, Gregor 1992 Wetterstrom 2003, Weiss et al . 2002 McCorriston and Weisberg 2002 Miller 1991, Charles and Dobney in press Miller 1991 Schlee 1995 Miller 1991 Riehl 2000 Riehl 2001 Charles and Dobney in press Charles and Dobney in press Charles and Dobney in press

A Thousand Years of Farming

119

N

S

S L Ubaid-EU

Tell Kuran

Eridu

Abu Salabikh

4th mill.

S

Jaffarabad

storage context

N

Arpachiyah

Six-row hulled barley

x

x

x

Two-row/six-row barley 2

1

x

Barley, unspecified 2

1

2

2

2

2

x

2

4

2

2

2

2

Emmer wheat x

2

1

x

x

x

3

1

2

1

1

Einkorn wheat x

1

x

x

x

1

Glume wheat, unspecified 3

5

Free-threshing wheat x

2

x

Wheat, unspecified 1

4

2

2

4

x

x

x

Flax 1

1

5

Millet 1

Lentil x

1

x

2

4

x

x

1

x

Common pea 1

x

1

Grass pea 2

x

x

Bitter vetch 1

Grass pea/Bitter vetch 1

Chick pea 1

1

2

1

Pulse, unspecified

Fava bean

Fig. 7.3, continued.

x = recorded, not quantified; 1 = rare/present; 2 = 500

5th mill.

4500

4200

S 5th-3rd mill. x

S

Farukhabad

5

x

Two-row hulled barley

Uruk

4th mill.

4th mill.

4th mill.

N

4th mill.

N

S

Sharafabad

4th mill.

4th mill.

Kashkashok II

N

Tell Brak

4th mill.

4th mill.

4th mill.

4th mill.

3500

3500

3500

35-3300

3200

3200

Period (BC)

Umm Qseir

N

Kurban Höyük

Kazane Höyük

N

N

N

Korucutepe

Hacınebi

S

N

Fatmali-Kalecik

N

Mefesh

Uruk

S

?S

Tell Chiragh

S

Kish

Jemdet Nasr

S

Site

N/S Mesopotamia

Uruk

x

Grape 1

Date 1

References

Fig Miller 1991

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

Miller 1991

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

McCorriston and Weisberg 2002

McCorriston and Weisberg 2002

McCorriston and Weisberg 2002

Miller 1991, Wright, Miller and Redding 1980

2 this study

Miller 1991

Miller 1994, Wright 2001

Wright 2001

Wright 2001

Wright 2001

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

Charles and Dobney in press

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

Olive

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

samples dated to the Northern Early Uruk period, i.e. before the arrival of southern Uruk settlers on the site (Table 7.1). Free-threshing wheat was, therefore, known in northern Mesopotamia before it appears at Tell al-Raqa’i, and certainly on a regional level was not exclusively associated with a southern Mesopotamian influence. 7.7.1.2. Changes practices

in

storage

and

in the public buildings of levels 18 and 11 suggest that this spatial differentiation in storage of crops was not in use at this time. Barley is by far the most common cereal mentioned in cuneiform sources throughout all periods in Mesopotamia, followed by emmer and free-threshing wheat (Powell 1984:49, 56); this may be connected to barley being placed in communal storage, as the archaeobotanical evidence suggests, whereas wheat and legumes, as mentioned above, may primarily have been stored at household level, and thus not have necessitated any bureaucratic activities. There are several likely reasons as to why barley may gain importance as a major crop at the expense of wheat from the fourth millennium BC onwards. The popularity of barley is probably due to its lower requirements of water and soil quality; it is more drought- and salinity-tolerant than wheat, which means high yields are possible in areas with high variability in annual rainfall. Its shorter growing season also means that less water is consumed by this crop, which makes it a more economic crop to grow than wheat (Oates and Oates 1976:119, Weiss et al. 2002). The aridification of the environment suggested to have taken place by the late fourth/early third millennium BC would have entailed a heavier reliance on drought-tolerant crops such as barley from this time onwards. Barley may also have become popular as it is a good fodder crop (Miller 1997a:128), and there are suggestions that animal husbandry of sheep/goat connected to the production of textiles may have necessitated increasing amounts of fodder crops from the fourth millennium BC onwards (Pollock 1999). Textual support for the use of barley as fodder comes from cuneiform tablets found at third millennium BC Beydar (McCorriston and Weisberg 2002:495). In northern Mesopotamia today barley is primarily grown for animal fodder (Miller 1997a:128). The finds of very large amounts of stored barley in the third millennium BC Brak “Oval” (Hald 2001, Hald and Charles 2008), however, suggest that, at least this particular find of barley was destined for human consumption, as the crop had been thoroughly cleaned before storage, something cereals destined for fodder are very unlikely to have been. The barley samples observed in the present study are also most likely to have been destined for human consumption, given their overall clean state.

distribution

McCorriston and Weisberg (2002) have analysed samples of charred plant remains from 16 archaeological sites covering the fifth to the third millennium BC across the Khabur region in order to gain a regionally-wide view of the agricultural developments in northern Mesopotamia. Their main observations are an apparent increase in the importance of barley as a crop from the fifth through to the third millennium BC, and a decline in wheat and legumes. They suggest that during this period a change takes place in the processing, discard, and storage strategies of barley; architectural remains interpreted as large storage facilities from early third millennium BC sites suggest that one of these changes is an increased use of communal storage, and that wheat and legumes may not have been stored in communal areas (ibid.:493). Similarly, Miller (1997a) has studied a number of late fourth and early second millennium BC settlements in northern Mesopotamia and suggests that wheat was not grown as a separate crop at the time, as only barley was found in storage contexts. She has also suggested that the storage structures found at a number of contemporary sites across northern Mesopotamia were intended for winter fodder rather than food, i.e. that stored barley was kept for the feeding of livestock (ibid.:128). Further evidence for the predominance of barley from the third millennium BC onwards comes from Tell al-Raqa’i (van Zeist 2003b:7), Tell Kerma (McCorriston 1995:40), Tell Bderi (van Zeist 2003a), Selenkahiye (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988), Tell Leilan (Weiss et al. 2002:2), Tell Mozan (Riehl 2000) and Emar (Riehl 2001), as well as Tell Brak (Hald 2001). Colledge (2003) has noted a similar development in the varying importance of barley and wheat in her analysis of the Tell Brak samples from Northern Early Uruk to the early third millennium BC (Colledge 2003); though the summary of the crops found at Tell Brak (Table 7.2) does not indicate major changes in the predominance of the various crops through time, barley is a prominent crop throughout, and glume wheat certainly does appear to have diminished in presence by the second millennium BC. Similarly, the absence of lentil from third millennium BC public contexts at Tell Brak, as noted by Charles and Bogaard (2001), supports the suggestion by McCorriston and Weisberg (2002) that legumes were not stored in communal areas, whereas in the Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak, analysed in the present study, the finds of lentils

As discussed in Chapter 3, the centralisation and redistribution of goods at ever growing urban settlements appear to have been a feature of the fifth and fourth millennia BC. Though apparent storage structures have been uncovered from the Ubaid period, no plant remains have been reported from them, and archaeobotanical data from this time is generally sparse (Table 7.3). From the Late Chalcolithic a similar picture is apparent, with the exception of the rich storage areas at Tell Brak, analysed for this study. Many third millennium BC Khabur sites, however, contain large storage structures (McCorriston 1995:36). Archaeological evidence for the suggestion of 120

Crop use at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak

communal storage comes from an Early Dynastic building complex at Tell Brak, where a large storage room containing cleaned barley has been uncovered (Hald 2001), as well as the third millennium BC storerooms uncovered at Tell Leilan, also containing predominantly barley (Weiss et al. 2002), and the barley rich storage room at Selenkahiye (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1988:278-9).

7.8. Concluding remarks Apart from confirming the range of crops already known from the Late Chalcolithic in northern Mesopotamia - barley, glume wheat, flax, lentil, common pea, grape and fig - the present study has also been able to expand the list of crops, or potential crops, in use during this time. Bitter vetch, chickpea and the potential crop safflower have now been recorded in the Late Chalcolithic from the finds at Tell Brak. Furthermore, free-threshing wheat, common pea, grass pea and grape, all hitherto reported from one or two sites in unspecified levels, have been confirmed as established crops in this region as this time.

The excavators of third millennium BC Tell al-Raqa’i have suggested that the site may have been part of a network of agricultural sites specialising in the production and processing of cereal grain meant to be distributed to the urban centres in the region (van Zeist 2003b:7), much as the satellite sites around Tell Brak were thought have functioned in the previous millennium. Large subterranean silos were found on the site, presumably for communal storage of grains. As mentioned in Chapter 3 (section 3.1.4.1), the excavators of Tell Leilan reckon that agricultural produce was transported to cities in southern Mesopotamia via Tell Brak (Sommerfield, Archi and Weiss 2004), a system which must have necessitated considerably high levels of organisation. The spatial differentiation in the storage of crops in the Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak certainly does suggest that some level of storage and redistribution of crops associated with certain types of buildings took place at this time. Future excavations, both on the main mound and on the satellite sites, may be able to determine whether larger-scale storage of crops, on a regional scale, also took place at Tell Brak in the Late Chalcolithic.

It is not argued here that the previously unreported crop types found at Tell Brak were absent from northern Mesopotamia until the Late Chalcolithic. Rather, the dearth of archaeobotanical material from the Late Chalcolithic in contrast to earlier periods generally, means that the richness of the charred plant assemblage at Tell Brak has provided us with a confirmation of the presence of these crops in the fourth millennium BC and has also shown how the picture of crop range and crop management of this time may well change with every new study being undertaken. Archaeobotanical research has often been primarily concerned with the origins of agriculture, resulting in a comparatively more detailed archaeobotanical picture from the early Neolithic periods than from the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age. Recent regional archaeobotanical studies, such as those undertaken by Miller (1997a), McCorriston (1995), and McCorriston and Weisberg (2002), have begun to fill in the gaps of later periods, primarily the fifth to second millennia BC, though Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak still provides the richest source of archaeobotanical material. Until more archaeobotanical analysis has been carried out on northern Mesopotamian settlements, and reported on, however, questions about regional changes in crop preferences and agricultural practices cannot be answered.

7.7.2. Comparisons with archaeobotanical data from southern Mesopotamia Table 7.3 presents archaeobotanical data from excavated sites in northern and southern Mespotamia from the fifth to the third millennium BC. Only very little archaeobotanical data is available from southern Mesopotamia, but barley and emmer appear to have been major crops, and for the former, the six-row variety has been securely identified. Six-row barley is generally associated with irrigation due to its higher water requirements compared to two-row barley (McCorriston 1992:324-25) and, as mentioned above, has been suggested as a tool in distinguishing between northern and southern Mesopotamian ethnic groups in the north. Other crops that have been reported from southern Mesopotamia are lentils and date.

Due to the lack of reported plant remains from southern Mesopotamia it is not possible to assess the development of crops and crop husbandry in the region. Future archaeobotanical sampling in the south, combined with publication and/or re-analysis of already existing archaeobotanical data, should hopefully improve the basis for analysis of the region as well as for comparisons with contemporary developments in the north.

121

Chapter 8 Conclusion Agricultural developments in northern Mesopotamia during the Late Chalcolithic have been assessed from the perspective of the ancient settlement of Tell Brak in northeast Syria, through the analysis of charred plant remains from occupation layers covering the Late Chalcolithic phases 2 to 5.

crop to a more humid environment, e.g. close to the wadis, or by artificial irrigation. No archaeological evidence has been found for the use of irrigation works around Tell Brak, however, and this pattern may probably primarily be explained by the slightly wetter climate of the fourth millennium BC. The intensity of field tillage also appears to increase in the later half of the Late Chalcolithic, as measured by the ecological characteristics of the crop weeds, and crops appear to have been harvested lower on the straw than previously, indicating an increased value of straw, possibly for fodder and building purposes. These developments in crop husbandry all imply an intensification of agriculture, which may be a response to the growth of Tell Brak into a large regional centre. It could also possibly be a response to the arrival of southern Mesopotamian settlers on the site in the later half of the Late Chalcolithic, but conclusive evidence for this agricultural intensification having a strictly “southern” basis is lacking.

Tell Brak is the only Late Chalcolithic site that has yielded large remains of stored crops. The richness of plant remains from Tell Brak means that there is now a much clearer understanding of the crops available to the inhabitants of the site, and of the ways in which they were utilised. The major crops present in Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak are glume wheat (primarily emmer), two-row hulled barley, flax and lentil. Glume wheat is present as the by-product of crop processing, while barley and flax are present as stored, cleaned crops. Lentils are a common component of the samples but have not yet been found in a stored form; rather, they occur in minor quantities along with a mix of other crops. Crops such as free-threshing wheat, common pea, grass pea and grape, which were earlier reported in unspecified levels from one or two sites in the region, have been confirmed as crops at Late Chalcolithic Tell Brak. A number of crops that were not previously reported from northern Mesopotamia from this time – bitter vetch, chickpea, fig and possibly safflower – have also been observed on the site. There are minor, insignificant, changes in crop range and preferences during the Late Chalcolithic. Crops of a southern derivation, which could have potentially indicated southern culturally derived crop preferences – and, by inference, the possibility of the presence of southern colonisers - are absent.

The analysis of the spatial differentiation in crop use and storage between individual buildings, and between different areas on and off the site, has provided the following results: For the Northern Middle Uruk (LC 3) levels, the public and private houses contain a similar range of cleaned crops and by-products. It was noted that only the level 16 re-use of the Level 18 Building and the SW Level 16 House contained stored crops. The Level 11 House, the primary use of which appears to have been as a workhop, does not, for that same reason, contain stored crops. Wheat and lentils were observed in both public and private contexts in Late Chalcolithic levels at Tell Brak, suggesting that the practice of a division of crops in communal storage - noted in the third millennium BC - did not take place in the Late Chalcolithic.

Unlike many sites in the Near East, Tell Brak has, so far, produced little plant material that appears to derive from the burning of animal dung. The samples were primarily products or by-products of crop processing and are therefore most likely to represent plants brought to the settlement for use as food, though byproducts, and some products, could certainly also have been used for animal fodder. The low levels of dung remains in the samples in general make it less likely that the samples derived from dung fuel, though some of the chaff could have been used for fuel on its own.

It was observed that the vessels used for storing crops in the Northern Middle Uruk levels were of a similar type; this correlation between vessel type and function may be helpful in future work as a means of identifying storage areas where charred plant remains are absent. The primary difference in crops between the Northern Middle Uruk levels on the main mound and on the satellite site, Tell 2, is that of a wider range of crops being present on the main mound. Though this may be partly due to a sampling bias, further excavation of the satellite sites may help to confirm this initial result. The hypothesis that the satellite sites functioned as specialised agricultural crop producer/storage areas has not been confirmed by the analysis of the charred plant remains from this particular site, and needs further investigation, including data from more satellite sites. The recent excavations of another of the satellite sites, Tell Majnuna (McMahon and Oates 2007), have uncovered a very large burial site. The sampling and

Crop husbandry practices in the Late Chalcolithic could be assessed to a certain extent. Crops appear to have been winter sown as is the practice today, and field tillage appears to have been practiced. There is some chronological correlation in the variation in crop husbandry practices; in the Late Uruk period (LC 4-5) the glume wheat crop appears to have grown in better watered fields than previously, which may be explained by either a generally wetter environment in the fourth millennium BC, by the movement of this

122

Conclusion

analysis of archaeobotanical material from this site is ongoing, but preliminary results have shown that the material resembles crop processing waste (Hald and Charles 2007).

It was suggested in the beginning of this volume that the study of Late Chalcolithic agricultural practices at Tell Brak may provide a general indication on how populations respond economically to socio-political changes. The study has shown that the inhabitants of Tell Brak responded economically to population increase - whether from settlement growth or from the inclusion of a southern Mesopotamian population - by intensifying the agricultural production. This intensification appears to have been both in terms of the crops produced for food and fodder, and in terms of the use of agricultural by-products for what may have been increased building activity. A wider economic response can, therefore, possibly be detected from the archaeobotanical evidence.

Comparison with other studies in northern and southern Mesopotamia is difficult given the lack of archaeobotanical data from other sites and therefore not very helpful in the assessment of crop husbandry practices regionally. The regional archaeobotanical studies currently being undertaken in northern Mesopotamia should fill in more gaps in the archaeobotanical record, and hopefully provide an improved basis for comparison with the data from Tell Brak.

123

A Thousand Years of Farming

Appendix I: Working data sheet of the charred plant items in the Tell Brak assemblage Sample number Volume of soil processed (litres) Density of plant items per litre of soil Total calculated plant items Cereal grain Wild einkorn Glume wheat Free-threshing wheat Wheat indet. Cultivated barley, hulled Cultivated barley, naked Barley indet. Avena sp. Cereal indet. Hordeum cf. spontaneum Hordeum sp., small Large grass/cultivated Cereal chaff Glume bases Glume wheat Cereal indet. Rachis internodes Triticum sp., free-threshing rachis Hordeum distichum Hordeum distichum/hexastichum Cereal indet. Terminal spikelets Triticum dicoccum Culm material Culm nodes Tops of culms Pulses Lens culinaris Pisum sativum Lathyrus/Vicia indet. Lathyrus sp. Cicer sp. Large legume indet. Flax Linum usitatissimum Linum sp., wild Linum stalk Potential food plants Ficus carica Vitis vinifera Convolvulus sp. Lepidium sativum, small

totals ubiquity 97/41 ----

97/46 97/200 97/212 97/232 ---13 ---27 ---355

98/5 15 30 443

28 5731 77 393 10865 61 2081 43 1751 17 198 38

16 85 16 52 88 24 85 23 78 10 42 11

0 28 0 12 322 2 167 0 30 2 0 0

0 65 0 27 177 0 52 0 49 0 0 0

0 50 0 8 370 0 86 0 18 0 0 0

0 8 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 1

0 24 0 1 18 0 5 0 12 0 0 0

0 12 0 1 47 0 2 1 2 0 3 0

42227 207

89 25

15 0

182 0

272 4

3 0

150 0

150 0

446 1918 4377 232

36 56 72 38

0 0 0 0

0 4 4 0

0 4 16 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0

1 4 5 0

589

52

0

0

12

0

5

0

604 28

59 10

0 0

0 0

6 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

1107 45 61 90 1 184

64 22 27 25 1 52

0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 2 2 0 2

1 0 4 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0

7084 93 236

54 14 34

0 0 0

24 0 0

0 0 0

1354 0 0

1 0 0

0 0 0

39 16 44 202

14 7 25 31

0 0 0 0

0 2 0 4

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0

124

Appendix I

Sample number Wild taxa (seeds unless otherwise stated) Heliotropium A Heliotropium B Gypsophila sp. Silene A Silene B Silene C Vaccaria pyramidata Caryophyllaceae C Carthamus sp. Filago pyramidata Compositae B/C Compositae F/K Compositae G Compositae indet. Cruciferae C Malcolmia sp. Cruciferae H Carex cf. otrubae Carex cf. remota Carex A Carex indet. Bolboschoenus A Cyperaceae indet. Aegilops sp., glume bases Aegilops indet. grain Alopecurus sp., small Bromus japonicus/scoparius Bromus A Bromus indet. Echinochloa colona/crus-galli Eragrostis-type Eremopyrum confusum Medium grass Lolium rigidum Lolium C Lolium sp., non-temulentum Lophochloa-type Small grass Teucrium orientale/polium Astragalus indet. Leguminosae indet. Medicago A Medicago cf. coronata Medicago sp. Melilotus/Trifolium/Medicago Prosopis sp. Trigonella astroites Trigonella indet.

totals ubiquity 97/41 103 36 40 40 42 256 235 364 20 2041 182 437 115 273 94 168 43 95 107 72 508 832 176 10278 6968 567 34 24 29 264 1658 716 1249 147 941 2213 905 6328 187 1119 71 58 148 13 860 82 159 1482

26 19 11 10 17 29 48 10 12 52 13 30 13 23 12 17 11 30 16 11 35 39 14 90 88 31 15 12 13 26 41 36 77 32 60 76 41 78 30 58 16 22 30 10 62 32 20 53

125

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

97/46 97/200 97/212 97/232 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 8 80 44 24 24 0 8 4 0 0 0 44 1 8 16

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 433 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 8 0 10 16 0 0 0 8 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 9 16 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 14 13 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 7 0 2 1 6 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 8

98/5 0 1 2 1 0 2 7 0 0 3 0 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 21 1 1 0 0 1 0 35 3 4 4 3 0 14 14 11 1 0 4 0 3 0 2 17

A Thousand Years of Farming

Sample number Bellevalia sp. Muscari sp. Bellevalia/Muscari sp. Malva aegyptia/parviflora Papaver hybridum Papaver dubium Papaver glaucum Papaver sp. Rumex conglomeratus/crispus/dentatus Adonis sp. Galium cassium Galium canum/ghilanicum/humifusum/nigricans Galium ceratopodum/tenuissimum Galium spurium Galium indet. Verbascum sp. Veronica sp., non-anagalis-aquatica/orientalis Ammi majus/visnaga Valerianella sp Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Potentially identifiable Other Sheep/goat dung, volume (ml.) Charcoal, volume (ml.)

totals ubiquity 97/41 184 43 0 138 37 0 22 12 0 487 43 0 206 15 0 72 12 0 324 19 0 430 25 0 621 41 0 34 21 0 180 37 0 203 46 0 172 46 0 16 10 0 383 54 0 303 16 0 34 5 0 151 25 0 78 13 0 13 11 0 69 13 0 137 16 0 88 0 11696 65 226

35 56

126