Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
EDITED BY
Erik Hallager and Birgitta P. Hallager
VOL. V:1
TEXT
STOCKHOLM 2016
Distributor: eddy.se ab
4
Editorial Committee:
Prof. Gunnel Ekroth, Uppsala, Chairman
Prof. Arne Jönsson, Lund, Vice-Chairman
Ms Kristina Björksten Jersenius, Stockholm, Treasurer
Dr Erika Weiberg, Uppsala, Secretary
Prof. Peter M. Fischer, Göteborg; MA Axel Frejman, Uppsala; Dr Kristian Göransson, Rome; Prof. Karin Blomqvist, Lund; Prof. Arja
Karivieri, Stockholm; Dr Emilie Karlsmo, Uppsala; Prof. Anne-Marie Leander Touati, Lund; Dr Arto Penttinen, Athens
Editor: Distributor:
Dr Jenni Hjohlman eddy.se ab
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies Box 1310
Stockholm University SE-621 24 Visby
SE-106 91 Stockholm
editor@ecsi.se For general information, see www.ecsi.se
For subscriptions, prices and delivery, see http://ecsi.bokorder.se
Secretary’s address:
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History The English text was revised by Rebecca Montague, Hindon,
Uppsala University Salisbury, UK
Box 626
SE-751 26 Uppsala
secretary@ecsi.se
Abstract
This volume is the fifth in a series of eight presenting the results of the Greek-Swedish Excavations during the
years 1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008 in the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli Khania. The excavations which are
situated close to the harbour of the modern town of Khania, western Crete were under the direction of Dr Yan-
nis Tzedakis and Professor Carl-Gustaf Styrenius.
During the years of excavation the LM II and LM IIIA:1 period was always considered a unit, called “Level
5”. The following detailed studies of stratigraphy and pottery, however, made it clear that the two chronological
phases at the GSE also represented two different stratigraphic units. After the LM IB destruction at the site a
few rooms of the destroyed houses were cleaned of the destruction debris and repaired to offer very modest
living conditions. While the part of the settlement excavated by the GSE can only be described as a squat-
ter habitation during LM II and LM IIIA:1 there can be little doubt that an important part of the settlement
existed nearby. This can be deduced from two observations at the GSE. One observation is the fact that the old
streets were cleaned of destruction debris and maintained throughout the period showing that communication
within the town was still needed. The second observation is the finds from the many pits of the periods. The lo-
cally produced pottery is of a very high quality especially in LM IIIA:1, and imports from Knossos, Palaikastro,
Kythera, the mainland and the Levant also bear witness to the importance of the site. While rooms with floor
deposits are virtually non-existent, pits and dumps dominated the material from the two periods. In the LM
IIIA:1 period as much as 86% of the pottery came from such deposits. The detailed study of the pottery supple-
mented by minor observations concerning building technique showed that the LM II period to a large extent
was a continuation of the LM I period, while LM IIIA:1 became much more innovative.
The volume includes seven analytical chapters where groups of material is presented diachronically
throughout the entire excavation. This has been possible since the basic stratigraphical analyses for the forth-
coming vols. VI and VII have been completed. The material thus analysed are the pithoi, the seal devices, the
sealings and sealed documents, the invertebrates, the wild cattle, the archaeobotanical remains and the micro-
fauna.
ISSN 0586-0539
ISBN 978-91-7916-064-7
© Svenska Institutet i Athen and authors
Printed in Denmark 2016
by Narayana Press, Odder
5
contents
Preface ………………………………………………………………….………………………………… 9
List of illustrations ………………………………………………………………….…………………… 11
Introduction by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager ……………………………………………… 16
Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………….…………………… 20
Bibliography ………….……………………………………………………………..…………………… 22
Introduction to the LM IIIA:1 and LM II settlements by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager … 30
The LM IIIA:1 and LM II settlements
Stratigraphy and catalogues by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager with contributions by
Ann-Louise Schallin, Marie-Louise Winbladh, Maria Bruun-Lundgren (†), Doniert Evely, Efi
Karantzali, Evy and Ove Persson, Pernille Bangsgaard Jensen, David Reese, Helle Vandkilde,
Maria Andreadaki-Vlasaki, Anaya Sarpaki, Katerina Papayiannis and Ingo Pini
Late Minoan IIIA:1 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 34
LM IIIA:1, House I
Room A ......…........................………………………………………………….……………………… 34
Accumulated, p. 34; Floor deposit, p. 37
Room G………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Accumulated, p. 38; Floor deposit, p. 39
Room I ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
LM IIIA:1, Southwestern Area …………………………………………………….…………………… 40
3/14, Pit C.……………………………………………………………………….……………………… 40
Δ7-Pit B ……………………………………………………………………….………………………. 41
Deposit ………………………………………………………………….……………………………… 41
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area North………………………………………………….……………………… 44
Dump……………………………………………………………..………………..…………………… 44
4-Pit A ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………. 46
Upper layer, p. 46; Middle layer, p. 54; Well, p. 55
LM IIIA:1, North Street ………………………………………………………………………………… 58
1st layer………………………………………………………………………...………………………… 58
22-Pit F, p. 58; 19-Dump AE, p 58; Deposits, p. 59
2nd layer ………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 60
3rd layer ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
In the street layer, p. 60; 19-Pit AI, p. 61
LM IIIA:1, House III ……………………………………………………………..……………………… 62
Phase 2 ……………………………………………………………..………..................……………… 62
Phase 1 ……………………………………………………………..…………....................…………… 63
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area South ………………………………………………….....…………………… 67
12-Pit I……………………………………………………………..………….....................…………… 67
7/8-Pit A ……………………………………………………………..…………....................………… 69
6-Pit B …………………………………………………………....................…..……………………… 72
Upper layer, p. 72; Lower layer, p. 74
15-Pit E/M and 15-Pit L/N……………………………………………………..……………………… 77
15-Pit E/M, p. 77; 15-Pit L/N, p. 77
Deposits .……………………………………………………………………….……………………… 79
LM IIIA:1, Courtyard ………………………………...……………………….…………………… 80
Younger deposits ………………………………...............……………………….…………………… 80
6 Contents
Upper layer, p. 80; In/below floor, p. 82; Middle layer, p. 83; Lower layer, p. 84:
Constructions ……………………………………………………......................….…………………… 85
19-Wall 14, p. 85; 19-Wall 20, p. 85
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area East …………………………………………………………………………… 86
Western deposit ……………………………………………………………...................……………… 86
Eastern deposit ………………………………………………………………..……….……………… 88
Above retaining wall, p. 88: Pits dug into dump, p.88; Dump, p. 90
LM IIIA:1, South Street …………………………………………………..……………………………… 93
Younger pits ……………………………………………………………….........……………………… 93
13-Pit S, p. 93; 13-Pit P, p. 97; 18-Pit M, p. 97
Above street deposits ………………………………………………….........….……………………… 97
1st layer, p. 97; 2nd layer, p. 99; 3rd layer, p. 101; 20-Pit AB, p. 103; 4th layer
= street deposits, p. 103
Street layers ……………………………………………………………..........……………………… 104
Upper layer, p. 104; Middle layer, p. 104; Below middle layer, p. 105; Lower layer, p. 105
LM IIIA:1, House II ……………………………………………………………………………………… 109
Pits…………………………………………………………………………….........................………… 109
18-Pit O, p. 109; 18-Pit H, p. 109
Deposits ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 110
Room A ………………………………………………………………….………………….………… 111
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area Southeast …………………………………………………………………… 112
Uppper layer, ………………………………………………….......…………………………………… 112
Middle layer, …………………………………………………........…………………………………… 114
Lower layer……………………………………………………...........………………………………… 119
13-Pit L ………………………………………………………….....................…………………………… 120
Below 13-Pit L……………………………………………………………......………………………… 139
East of 20-Wall 6 .……………………………………………………………………………………… 140
Deposits, p. 140
The Late Minoan II period .……………………………………………………………………………… 142
LM II, House I ..........……………………………………………………………………………………… 142
Room A ................……………………………………………………………………………………… 142
Constructions, p. 142
Room G ................……………………………………………………………………………………… 143
LM II, Southwestern Area ……………………………………………………………………………… 144
Deposit 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 144
Deposit 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 144
23-Pit K/L ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 154
Deposits below 23-Pit K/L …………………………………………………………………………… 156
14-Pit K………………………………………………………………………………………………… 161
Deposit ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 162
LM II, North Street………………..……………………………………………………………………… 164
Above Street layer …………………………………………………………………………………… 164
Street layer …………………………………………………………………………………………… 166
LM II, House III ……………………………………………………………………..…………………… 167
Room A1 and Room A2 ………………………………………………………..…………………… 167
35-Wall 8 …………………………………………………………………………..…………………… 168
LM II, Dump Area ……………………………………………………………….……………………… 170
19-Wall 13………………………………………………………………………….…………………… 170
Dump …………………………………………………………………………….…………………… 170
Pit and deposit below dump …………………………………………………….…………………… 176
LM II, Rubbish Area East ………………………………………………………...…………………… 179
Deposit 1…………………………………………………………………………...…………………… 179
Deposit 2…………………………………………………………………………...…………………… 179
35-Wall 11 ………………………………………………………………………...…………………… 181
LM II, South Street ……………………………………………………………………………………… 183
Deposits ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 183
Street layers …………………………………………………………………………………………… 183
Constructions ………………………………………………………………………………………… 187
12/13-Pit P……………………………………………………………………………………………… 190
Contents 7
Appendix
Pottery statistics by Erik Hallager …………………………………………..……………………… 324
Analytical chapters on the entire GSE material
Pithoi from the Bronze Age Settlement at Kastelli Khania by Helle Vandkilde …….…….............. 341
Seals and sealings: a general discussion of the finds by Ingo Pini…………………………………… 374
The sealed documents and sealings from the Greek-Swedish Excavations by Erik Hallager …… 383
Wild cattle at Khania by David S. Reese ……………………………………………………………… 393
The invertebrates by David S. Reese …………………………………………………………………… 396
The archaeobotanical remains from EM to LM IIIC at the Greek-Swedish Excavations
by Anaya Sarpaki …………………………………………………………………………………… 418
The microfauna from the Greek-Swedish Excavatioons by Katerina Papayiannis ………………… 447
by
Anaya Sarpaki
Kydonia (GSE Kastelli site)?3 provides a very detailed view and is suitable for very small amounts of soil.
5 French 1971.
• Is there any indication that the human-plant relationship
6 de Moulins 1996.
changed through time from the EM to the LM IIIC? Any 7 Some categories of material such as mites, insects and phytoliths, among
difference of use of crops, and agricultural and storage prac- others, need special recovery methods, which were not applied here. Some
tices? insects though were found and will be studied by Dr Eva Panagiotakopulu.
The archaeobotanical remains 419
tuses. Therefore, during excavation, this makes the recogni- culinaris) and other legumes but barley (Hordeum sp.) was
tion of contexts and chronologies quite intricate and difficult unexpectedly absent, whereas wheat had a slight presence in
to interpret. It is sometimes difficult to say, for example,, its by-product form (Triticum glume base).15 More samples
whether one is within a building, a sheltered area or in the are needed in order to arrive at more conclusive and sound
open-air.8 observations on agricultural and dietary practices, as this pic-
In the early years of the excavations, a main research con- ture is the result of poor data, in that each soil sample is only
cern was to sample the soil within pottery vessels, in order to 10 litres or much less. Therefore the results are indicative of
understand their function. Other contexts were not excluded what was collected and when more soil is processed the more
in the early years; however, in later years, sampling was diver- the chances of preservation increase.16
sified to include a range of sources. They could be, broadly,
grouped into the following contexts:9
MM IB-MM II
Pottery/other artefact10 = 52
Pits= 12 The Middle Minoan is represented by 20 samples but only
Floors (when burning visible)= 33 11 samples (43.70 litres) contained seeds. (Tables 2, 3). As
Drains= 13 before, the olive, the grape, the fig, the almond and lentil
Hearths/ovens= 10 are present. Change is reflected in that barley (Hordeum sp.
Dump = 1 hulled) is present in fair numbers whereas wheat (Triticum
sp.) is elusive, except for its by-product. This seems to con-
Another major concern is the unequal data in both number tinue the trend visible in the previous period, an issue which
of samples and volume of processed soil between periods. needs further clarification, as it might not be only due to ac-
This makes comparison between periods more difficult to cidental preservation. It is also the first slight appearance of
interpret. The following list shows the periods present, the pea (Pisum sp.) and horsebean (Vicia faba), cultivars which
number of samples and their volume:11 need water.17 It could be indicative of a greater emphasis on
the cultivation of pulses, and in this particular case a pulse
EM-MM IA (Prepalatial) = 11 samples (5 had seeds) = 25.35 litres which needs special tending and irrigation? The clarification
MM IB-MM II (Protopalatial) = 20 samples (11 had seeds) = 43.70 litres of whether there was a greater or lesser amount of pulse cul-
MM III-LM IB (Neopalatial) = 91 samples (56 had seeds) = 44.695 litres tivation is an issue which might be answered when more sam-
LM II (Monopalatial) = 13 samples (7 had seeds) = 51.1 litres ples are collected. An increase in pulse cultivation, especially
LM IIIA:1 (Monopalatial) = 9 samples (7 had seeds) = 62.7 litres the low-labour pulses, and the species cultivated in dry ag-
LM IIIA:2 (Final palatial) = 3 samples (2 had seeds) = 14.2 litres ricultural regimes might indicate agricultural intensification,
LM IIIB:1 (Final palatial) = 20 samples (17 had seeds) = 164.7 litres
LM IIIB:2 (Postpalatial) = 18 samples (16 had seeds) = 73.0 litres
LM IIIC (Postpalatial) 12 samples (7 had seeds) = 26.9 litres 8 In cases of doubt whether an inside room or an open area, the phrase
TOTAL = 507.345 litres “space” has been used through the publications.
9
In addition to the contexts mentioned three samples were hand-collected
and four had contexts other than the ones mentioned.
10
For example a grindstone, a lamp and a clay plate.
EM-MM IA 11 Archaeobotanists conventionally measure soil samples and seed finds
least a preliminary understanding of the use of plants and Sternes, Akrotiri, Khania).
14 It has, also, been found from Early Neolithic levels at Knossos (Sarpaki
agricultural pursuits, and in due course to refine any inter-
2013) but as they are all fragmented, and it is impossible at this stage to
pretations. say whether they belong to the domesticated almond and/or to the wild
Out of the 11 samples from this period, unfortunately, only and spontaneous Amygdalus webbii Spach. The samples from Khania, most
four had archaeobotanical remains, and a fifth belonging, probably, come from the domesticated species, Amygdalus communis L.
probably, to the transitional period (EM/MM IA) (Table 1). It does comprise Prunus amygdalis Batsch and/or Prunus dulcis (Miller)
D.A.Webb (Zohary et al. 2012).
These came from only 23.35 litres of soil. Sample 11 in Table 15
Samples are rather few but could it be some indication of a wetter cli-
1 (transitional EM-MM IA) was the most interesting, due to mate (EM II) (Moody 2014, 27). Barley needs less water for its growth than
the wider range of plants it contained, and yet it was derived wheat, therefore, an early emphasis on wheat agriculture might possibly be
indicative of a more precipitative climate(?).
from only two litres of soil.12 16 As these levels are under study at present, it is impossible, as yet, to dis-
There seems to have been a balance between olive (Olea cuss contexts to any satisfactory degree.
sp.) and grape (Vitis vinifera L.). The ubiquity of figs (Ficus 17 Impressions of fava were also found in a mud-brick dated LM III (80-AR
012, GSE III, 286) so its infrequency might be apparent rather than true. At
carica), which will be visible in later periods, is already evi-
the Manousogianaki plot at Kastelli Khania – in the same town – five seeds
dent in this early period.13 Almond (Prunus communis L.),14 of Vicia faba (Follieri 1982, 138 and fig. 2) were found dated to LM IIIB(?).
as expected, was well established, as well as lentils (Lens I have not seen them.
420 Anaya Sarpaki
mallow (Malva sylvestris), and myrtle (Myrtus sp.). The first tinely done for some produce in order to preserve the contents from spoil-
ing, i.e. reducing the oxygen which spoils organic remains as it allows bac-
appearance is made of wheat/emmer grains (Triticum sp. cf. teria and other organisms to multiply. It is true that other materials could
dicoccum),20 weeds (Sherardia arvensis, Gramineae), and have been used for the same purposes such as dough and/or wax.
The archaeobotanical remains 421
from the LM II levels but only in seven were seeds present ter, – indicated by the presence of a weed, common mallow,
(Table 16). Although their number is small, the quantity of (Malva sp.) together with fragmented pulses and cereals –
water-floated soil is 51.1 litres. whereas ‘trampled on’/damaged seeds are more numerous in
phase II. Taken together with other archaeological material,
it could contribute some information on the taphonomy of
House III and South Street the level, i.e. more exposure to elements and or trampling
and other factors that affect the preservation on the site..
Three samples which represent 46 litres of soil were water
floated27 and although the density of seeds is not high, at least
it provides a good insight into which plants were utilized. Ar- The rubbish areas (Table 18)
boriculture is represented by the presence of Vitis vinifera
(vine), Olea europaea (olive) and Ficus carica (fig). Their rel- Archaeobotanical material was found in the rubbish areas
ative importance is impossible to estimate, at this stage, due south, southeast and east. Generally speaking dumps provide
to the rather small number of samples, and it has been seen evidence of missing puzzles, in that they contain discarded
from this and other periods as well that samples from within material which can provide evidence of absence, so to speak.
conical cups do not, usually, contain seeds.28 Arboriculture is the same in the rubbish areas, i.e. grape, figs
The presence of agricultural products such as barley for and almonds are presen, but there is an unexpected absence
cereals and pulses such as Lens esculenta (lentils), Lathyrus of the olive. In the case that olives were used as fuel, it would
cicera/sativus (dwarf chickling), and Vicia faba (horsebeans) have been dumped only when burnt to ash perhaps and, con-
provides an insight into consumption habits. The absence of sequently, left no macrofossil plant remains, except for phy-
wheat and weeds of cultivation is rather strange in that wheat toliths which have not been sampled for.
was considered a ‘status’ cereal in an urban well-to-do settle- However, for a dump, we have a wealth of information on
ment. The reason may perhaps be explained by the fact that other crops which were also cultivated such as emmer wheat,
the LM II and LM IIIA:1 settlements in the Agia Aikaterini whole grains of barley, and broomcorn millet (Panicum mil-
Square were squatter habitations. iaceum)31 which is extremely rare on southern Greek sites,32
and even evidence of cereal weeds, Lolium sp. (ryegrass). At
this stage, as millet has only been found in minute quanti-
LM IIIA:1 (Tables 17–18) ties, it is impossible to say whether it was cultivated or was
present as a weed. Contaminants (weeds) though are, how-
There are nine samples which represent this level, two of ever, evidence of previous or nearby cultivation.
which did not contain seeds or were kept for chemical anal-
ysis, due to their texture, colour or both. The following soil
samples are those that had been analysed (Tables 17–18) and
their total quantity is 62.7 litres.
House III (Table 17) 27 Samples outside House III only represent another 5.1 litres of soil.
28 Generally speaking open vessels could trap soil from all around the area,
Phase 1 and phase II of the house have not produced different unless incrustations are visible.
29 When olive stones are systematically fragmented into small fragments, it
crops but the finds rather indicate an agricultural continuum. could not just be due to trampling and normal breakage. Normal trampling
Olive is present only in fragmented form so we can surmise would be indicated by breakage along the sutures, or, at most, in quarters.
that it could be the remnants of olive oil extraction and proba- As the stone is rather hard, other types of fragmentation needs to be
attributed to deliberate crushing as in oil extraction. In some contexts, the
bly fuel.29 Grape is hardly present (1 small fragment) but both
only archaeobotanical material found were fragments of olive stones. Their
almond and figs were consumed. The fact that mineralized figs preservation could only be due to their being charred in a prior stage to
are the most numerous, might perhaps indicate that they were burial – if the context had been exposed to fire – other archaeobotanical re-
remnants of dried figs.30 This possibility needs further research. mains would have been found in the same sample (Braadbaart et al. forth.).
30
My personal hypothesis is based on the fact that dried figs have concen-
As we would expect from a house context, there is a trated sugars to a level that preserves the seeds from bacterial attack. This
balance between pulses and cereals used in the household. issue though needs further research and clarification but it is an issue which
Legumes are represented by lentils, dwarf chicklings and crops up frequently. This is perhaps the reason that we often, at least in
Greece, find mineralized fig seeds together with charred fig seeds and they,
fragmented legumes, probably processed into split legumes
probably, belong to the same context horizon, and might not be intrusions
in order to eliminate their testa which hold most of the tox- from different contexts. Another mineralization process would be burial in
ins that produce lathyrism. Moreover, the fragmented leg- standing water or cess pits but in this case all seeds and finds would have
umes, commonly called ‘fava’ in Greece, in addition to mak- been mineralized, which is not the case for this particular sample.
31 In ancient Greek it was mentioned as ‘κέγχρος’.
ing them toxin free, have also the benefit of cooking faster 32
The early finds of broomcorn millet all come from northern Greece (Val-
and, therefore, needing less fuel for their preparation, which amoti 2009; 2013) but seems to move south in the Bronze Age. It is impos-
would have been an important factor to consider for prehis- sible at this stage to say whether it did come to Crete from the north or
the west, such as from Italy. See a discussion of millet finds in Livarda &
toric societies in particular, and indeed, for any society.
Kotzamani 2014, 11, where the possible earliest find so far, seems to be from
Regarding cereals, the emphasis, in both phases, is on Zominthos (Neopalatial) (pending C14 dating) whereas a Postpalatial find
hulled barley but in phase I as preservation seems to be bet- was identified at Quartier Nu, Malia (Sarpaki 2007).
422 Anaya Sarpaki
from the two ovens (Building 1, Courtyard F and Building found stored in their spikelets in Crete and in the south of Greece. In the
2, Room A) (Tables 23–24) whereby most of the archaeobo- North of Greece, this was found at Assiros Toumba in the Bronze Age
(Jones 1981 & 1987). It is interesting to see though that at sites such as
tanical remains are cereals, namely barley (Hordeum vulgare Kastanas and Mandalo (Bronze Age) (wetter areas) glume wheat finds ac-
–hulled) and wheat. The wheat is of two species of glume companied large numbers of spikelet forks (Valamoti 2009, 200) and thus
wheats, einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer (Triti- too would have probably been stored as spikelets.
36 Nesbitt & Samuel 1996; Hald & Charles 2008; Graham & Smith 2013;
cum dicoccum), as well as free-threshing wheat (Triticum cf.
Halstead 2014.
aestivum grain) which has, only been identified once.34 Their 37 Assiros Toumba (Jones 1981 & 1987) is not a dry area site as suggested
from Crete and southern Greece.38 However, this cannot be been dried in the oven before dehusking, not to facilitate it
accepted as evidence of the absence of the procedure else- as mentioned above, but to, probably, harden the grain and
where as, it is known that preservation of archaeobotanical make milling easier. This could have taken place just before
remains on the island has not been satisfactory.39 Informa- short-term storage and/or before immediate consumption
tion on the variability of storage behaviour still awaits study (extracting glume bases, spikelet forks, barley rachis, awns)
of more data throughout Crete and elsewhere in southern and transforming the crop to groats and/or flour.
Greece. It has been shown that had shallow mortars been used for
dehusking, such as are found in Egypt,48 spikelets needed
dampening before pounding, as it has two benefits. Firstly,
Crop processing spikelets stick together and thus rub against each other al-
lowing the freeing of the grain which mostly remains intact,
Information provided from the oven in Courtyard F also pro- and secondly, water softens the chaff and renders it pliable,
vides the signature of a crop-processing stage. Before reach- allowing the whole grain to pop out ‘of the unshattered spike-
ing the oven, plant material travelled. After harvest, thresh- let’. However, experimentally dehusking spikelets in tall, nar-
ing40 would break the ears of the glume wheats as well as row wooden mortars did not require any moistening;49 on the
barley into individual spikelets, each containing grains still contrary, a maximum rate of dehusking was reached after
enveloped in their husks. Most of the rachis and spikelet pre-heating to 150–200° C.50 In the experiments two mortar
forks, awns, as well as culms would have been extracted near types were used, a tub-mortar and a solid narrow tree-trunk
the threshing area. The plant finds of some by-products of mortar.51 It was concluded that the narrow tree-trunk mortar
glume wheats and hulled barley41 in the oven, can be inter- was ‘clearly much more effective than the improvised tub-
preted in various ways. A no-longer applicable assumption mortar’.
is that these crops were parched in the oven as spikelets be- When the efficiency of the saddle-quern and the wooden
fore being dehusked on a saddle-quern. It was previously mortar is compared for dehusking, it has been concluded ex-
believed that parching rendered the chaff/husks brittle and perimentally that the wooden mortar is superior as it produc-
made processing (dehusking), such as releasing the grains es dehusked grain in less time52 and the yield of grain is 53%
from their glumes, easier and faster.42 Ethnographic work, with the saddle-quern versus 94% with the wooden mortar.
though, provides alternative explanations which need to be The saddle-quern produces, as well, a high amount of cracked
considered and excluded, where necessary, in order to inves- grain as opposed to a low amount in the wooden mortar, thus
tigate and enrich the detailed spectrum of crop processing in increasing the loss of grain with the admixture of husks, espe-
archaeology. When dehusking by saddle-quern, ethnographic cially when it comes to sieving the crop from the by-product.
work43 has shown that, in both dry and damp areas, parch-
ing does not necessarily facilitate the removal of husks. Meu-
rers-Balke and Lüning from their work on the agriculture of 38 Another barley sample, which will be published in GSE VI forth. and
the Linear Bandkeramik, as well as from their experimen- dated to the Neopalatial period, was hand-collected during excavation and
tal work concerning the processing of glume wheats, came classified as charcoal (05-MISC 055) but it also contained barley chaff frag-
to the conclusion that a drying process immediately before ments. This strengthens the view of their storage in spikelets.
39
Livarda & Kotzamani 2014.
dehusking was ‘superfluous’ and therefore not necessary.44 40 Threshing would have been, most probably, done outdoor on a large scale
They saw dehusking not as a seasonal task but they believe as no straw, and few culm bases and nodes have been found in the oven
it was part of ‘daily chores connected with preparing meals’. or in any other sample, so far. Threshing floors seem to have made their
appearance in the MBA (Kardulias & Yerkes 1996) in Mesopotamia (Old
Others too45 believe that dehusking was probably done, in a Babylon text) dated to c. 2000 BC and LBA from Akrotiri, Thera as it is
piecemeal fashion, throughout the year, as need arose. Dry- believed to have been depicted on the miniature fresco of the West House
ing is believed to have been conducted before storage and (Sarpaki 2000).
41 These are barley rachis, wheat spikelet forks, glumes, culms, and a high
not before dehusking and served only to preserve the grain
percentage of awns.
from trapped humidity and should have been applied on a 42
Fenton (1978, 37) though for the Orkneys and Shetland provides other
large scale immediately after threshing.46 This, in the Medi- explanations for parching which are worth considering, such as drying a
terranean – due to the weather – would have been the norm, crop which was harvested slightly unripe. Another reason was to make malt
for brewing and a third was to harden grain for milling. The first two rea-
and done on a large scale. So far, no structure – oven – of sons could not apply to our samples as none of the grain seemed unripe, nor
that scale, which could have held large quantities of crop, has were signs of germination present on the grain/embryos. The third reason
been identified at the GSE. It is therefore logical to assume might have applied.
43 Nesbitt et al. 1996, 237.
that sun-drying was practised. The roofs of houses47 might 44 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 357.
have been a safe area to spread the crops after threshing, as 45 Hillman 1981 (a & b); 1984; Jones 1987; Sigaut 2003.
they would have been clean and protected from vermin (e.g. 46 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992.
47 At Khania all houses seem to have had flat roofs.
rodents). 48 Shown in Nesbitt & Samuel 1996, 52 and fig 5, 53.
As an added precaution, glume wheats and hulled barley 49 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 352.
seem to have been stored in their spikelets, as this would have 50 Although einkorn was seen to be dehusked more easily than emmer and
protected them from mould stimulated by humidity and/or spelt (Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 352), the conclusion was empirical
but was not annotated in detail during the experiments.
insect attack, and thus provided longer viability. Therefore, 51 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 352, fig. 9.
according to the latest experiments why were ovens found 52 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 356. It can dehusk 1 kg in 40 minutes
with by-products of dehusking? The spikelets might have versus 50 minutes with the saddle-quern.
424 Anaya Sarpaki
Due to this factor, it was calculated that 26% is effectively and then placing them in the oven.56 This process evapo-
lost on saddle-querns, whereas there was no loss in the wood- rates all the moisture in the fruit, leaving behind only the
en mortar.53 In the archaeobotanical material one would ex- sugars which act as a preservative to the fruit and do not
pect to find a high ratio of intact rachis segments and spikelet allow bacteria to break it down. The heating would also kill
forks as well as whole grains. Unfortunately, our samples are any insects which might have survived within the fig fruit. If
not large and numerous enough to allow us such an accurate the ‘kouskouras environment’ is alkaline,57 the chances of
observation. finding charred remains of plants are minimal, if not non-
Regarding the time needed for a family of five persons existent, and certainly all charred fig remains would have
with a daily need of five kg of cereal, if they processed with been reduced to extreme fragmentation and, thus, would
the more suitable wooden mortar, some 1.5 kg could be de- have escaped identification.
husked within an hour. It meant that over three hours would Unfortunately, few remains of storage were uncovered
be needed, not including the cleaning (sieving) process after- from this period, although houses were spacious and one
wards and the parching as a possible prior treatment. would have expected far more space devoted to storage. This,
Therefore, it is not yet conclusive, but we could suggest in itself, has important implications for the organization of
that dehusking was, probably, conducted with a wooden mor- the economic structure of the wealthy sector of the society
tar and might have been pre-heated to c. 200° C. Unfortu- and its connection to the agricultural base and/or to its in-
nately, these artefacts would rarely be ‘visible’ in archaeo- volvement in agricultural pursuits.
logical sites in Greece, due to the climatic conditions which
generally preclude their preservation, but their existence is
indirectly indicated. LM IIIC (Table 25–26)
The presence of a free-threshing wheat grain (Triticum cf.
aestivum) indirectly informs us of the use of this cereal too. Twelve samples can be dated to these levels. Building 1 has
Its chance of survival in the archaeobotanical record is very six samples of which only two had seeds and Building 2, has
low, as this wheat does not need the use of fire for its crop three samples of which two had archaeobotanical (seed)
processing, and, therefore, its chances of being incorporated material. Only 26.9 litres of soil were either water-floated or
in a fire are even more reduced. Therefore, its low-level pres- water-sieved.
ence does not necessarily provide an accurate indicator of its The Courtyard outside Building 1 and 2 (Table 26) pro-
rarity. In other words, it might have been much more com- duced another three samples with archaeobotanical material.
monly cultivated and consumed than the archaeobotanical Unfortunately though, although six hearths and one oven are
data prescribe. shown to be represented in this period (GSE II, 130, fig. 29,
We should always keep in mind the conditions and the shows eight hearths, however the two in Parodos Kanevaro
chances of preservation of archaeobotanical remains, when are not included in the present GSE publication) no samples
interpretation is involved and, in this case, the chance of had been collected from these contexts.58 The existing mate-
finding free-threshing cereals is far less than glume cereals. rial is small in quantity, and it does not indicate any changes.
Plants which need the use of fire for their processing have a An observation made (GSE II, 128) is that, with the ex-
far greater chance of survival. ception of Room O in Building 1, in all rooms where most
The low-level presence of olive (Olea sp.) is rather unex- of the floor was preserved, there was evidence of fire instal-
pected, as in other instances it has been seen to be used as lations. A second observation is that these were generally
fuel.54 Therefore, we can either assume that in this particular situated at the centre of the rooms.59 This observation alone
case, the fuel had been burnt to ash and, therefore, has been could imply a gradual cooling of the weather in the later peri-
lost, or else wood instead had been used as fuel (Table 23, ods compared to the Prepalatial and palatial periods. Moody
Samples 3–7).55 mentions that c. 1200 BC would have seen cold and dry con-
Legumes are chance finds as these would not need to be ditions in the Aegean and claims that the period c. 1350–900
processed in an oven. Lathyrus cicera/sativus, and other le-
gumes whose features have not been preserved together with
Vicia faba, horsebean, which is a water-loving and a garden 53
Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 357.
crop are found together which would indicate mixed crops/ 54 Braadbaart et al. forth.
contexts. Flax (Linum sp.) could also be planted in dry-farm- 55 It would be interesting to compare notes with the anthracologist at some
ing but also in irrigated fields. Schoenus nigricans (black bog- point to see what kind of wood has been identified so as to have a more
in-depth understanding of fuel curation. This would clarify, indirectly, the
rush) which is a wild plant, would become established only in
availability of vegetation around the Khania site.
wet areas/wetlands and would, therefore, indirectly, indicate 56 Figs would need to be sun-dried first and then dried in an oven at a low
the existence of such areas in the wider Khania area. and even temperature at c. 60° C. This would kill all insects and larvae.
57 Although alkalinity was measureable, at the time of excavation, it was
In Building 2, Room A, another oven described as a
not then known that its presence could affect the archaeobotanical remains.
‘kouskouras structure’ was excavated where amongst few Publications of these studies are quite recent (Braadbaart et al. 2009).
archaeobotanical remains (Table 24) some mineralized 58 In further research, if we find charcoal samples mixed with seeds, then
seeds of fig (Ficus carica) were identified. They were not it might be possible to research more into the function of these ovens. For
a thorough discussion on hearths and ovens at Khania and elsewhere in
charred so, perhaps, it alludes to the habit of drying figs in
Crete, see GSE II, 128-129.
the ovens, something similar to the ethnographically-ob- 59 GSE II, 128, n. 7 it is asserted that this is also the case for all rooms exca-
served method of preparing figs, by drying them in the sun vated in Building 2.
The archaeobotanical remains 425
‘petimezi’, as this pottery shape encourages liquid evapora- mouthed) and could well have functioned for the preparation of sauces/
tion, which is what exactly needs to take place when prepar- liquids which needed rapid evaporation of their water content in order to
turn them into thick sauces/mollasses(?).
ing molasses. 64
This is suggested with great reservation.
The co-existence of grape and fig in pithos 2 (80-P 1636) 65 See Vandkilde, Fig. 31, this volume.
(Table 25, Sample 3),65 if they represent a palimpsest, could 66 Fig (Ficus carica) contains cadalene (1,6-dimenthyl-4-isopropyl-naph-
imply wine, perhaps ‘sweetened’ with fig.66 The mineralized thalene) an aromatic compound (Beck et al. 2008, 19). It might be worth,
perhaps, analysing a sherd from the pithos in order to examine any organic
preservation of the fig seed indicates its deposition in a wet material which might have remained within the pores of the pottery and
environment for enough time to have turned this organic test this possibility, i.e. the mixing of grape wine with figs. However, ancient
substance into inorganic material. Egyptians made fig wine (Darby et al. 1977, 615-666). Remarks published
by Hallager (2002, 67) in conjunction with the archaeobotany are very in-
teresting, whereby the lid of the pithos has been identified and it had an
imprint of a vine leaf, perhaps indicating the content of the pithos itself.
67 It is impossible at this stage to differentiate the two on morphological
EPILOGUE grounds but it is rather a decision based on their size. These pulses at GSE
were not numerous enough to make a statistical estimation.
Due to the small volume of the samples, it is pointless to un- 68 We are not sure whether Hordeum distichum (2-row barley) was present,
dertake statistical analysis to attempt to understand trends as not many rachis that could be positively identified were located.
426 Anaya Sarpaki
ture without needing to keep fields fallow.69 The rotation of practised at Khania. The dehusking of the wheat and
crops with pulses, instead of leaving fields fallow, would have barley in order to transform them into an edible prod-
allowed the fertilization of their fields by planting legumes uct seems to have been done in a piecemeal fashion in
which would have provided nitrogen and the green parts the ‘urban’ buildings and would have used a fair amount
(leaves, roots etc.) could have been ploughed in, to provide of human power and time out of the daily chores. Ex-
more nutrients to the soil. This strategy would have been ex- periments show that wooden utensils perhaps fashioned
pected when there was a shortage of fields, a growing popula- from dug-out tree trunks would have been used for this
tion and, in general, a need for increasing productivity in a stage of processing but, due to preservation in Crete, no
given area. such utensil has been preserved.
The by-products though of cereal processing found in the 5. The crops must have been threshed and perhaps stored at
oven structures in Postpalatial contexts seem to have been first elsewhere as the volume of storage is not enough
of a totally different nature and further convey information to provide enough storage capacity for households for
on crop processing, which is not only indicative of a stage two years.73 Therefore, only medium-term and shor-term
of processing but also of a technology of processing. Crops storage seems to have been catered for. Obviously, farm-
did not come totally cleaned from the fields, but rather the ers must not have been distant but the produce brought
threshed cereals were brought to be stored in their spikelets. to the town had been not only threshed but also coarse-
This, in itself, probably indicates a change of climate in Crete ly sieved as none of the by-products of the crops were
and/or increased humidity. Moody argued for the possible found such as culm bases, pods of legumes or large weed
existence of a ‘Minoan little-Ice Age’ which might be visible seeds. In LM IIIB:2 (Table 23) water-loving plants were
‘near the end of the Late Bronze Age’.70 More samples need brought back such as a type of sedge, commonly known
to be studied with adequate data which would allow us to as black bog-rush (Schoenus nigricans)74 which is an in-
test whether the reason of this change in storage habit was dicator of marshy land. This, in other geographical loca-
due to climatic reasons rather than cultural or other, so far, tions, could have indicated wetter conditions but for the
undetectable reasons. This crop processing method should be Khania area, there are indications of marshy land cre-
studied against the climatic information which we have for ated by occasional flooding of watercourses (perennial
this period. rivers). These were dried up by planting eucalyptus trees
According to Moody c. 1800–1650 BC winters would have in areas of high water table in the late 19th century and
been perhaps warmer than at present71 but cooling, and rela- therefore, the area has a totally different character from
tively wet,72 whereas summers were cooler but warming. what it might have been in earlier times (see travellers).
In the years 1650–1400/1300 BC especially cool winters 6. There seems to have been a certain continuum regarding
and increased moisture followed the Theran eruption. From the human-plant relationship, although the volume and
c. 1300-1200 BC both hot and dry summer and winter tem- the number of samples does not allow an elaboration
peratures would have exceeded those of the present. From c. on this impression. In the LM IIIA:1 levels, broomcorn
1200 BC cold and dry conditions would have prevailed again millet appears, indicating some form of external contact.
in the Aegean. In order to evaluate archaeobotanical mate- The question remains if this crops represents a diversifi-
rial in this light, more and larger samples are needed. cation of their diet or an immigrant population75 which
introduced new dietary habits.
Our research questions were not fully answered due to a lack
of some data; however, some questions have been partly an-
swered:
1. We have presented a range of crops which were cultivated
and consumed as food but at this stage it was impossible
to provide any information on fodder plants.
2. Due to both taphonomy and sampling, preservation of
plant remains in the buildings was rather poor, so the
archaeobotany found in the rooms needs to be exam-
ined in context with other archaeological finds in order
to decipher their use.
3. Mineralized plant remains may provide possible explana-
tions of their taphonomical environment, such as figs, Vi-
cia faba, Lathyrus cicera, and Lens in the drain of House 69 Sarpaki 1992.
I (Tables 14–15). The fact that many plant remains are 70 Moody 2000, 57.
71 Moody 2005.
mineralized reinforces the interpretation that this was a 72 Moody 2014, 6.
drain, as the waterlogging of such remains replaces the 73 Generally farmers would store for two and sometimes three years in or-
Table 1. Prepalatial: EM soil samples with archaeobotanical remains and EM-MM IA transitional sample (WF 05-15)
Seed remains A8-9, Spaces Space X, Γ Upper layer Room G, trial Hole Γ7-pits and
A-C, Space A, 5-Floors 19- with B6- trench, inside deposit correspond-
within kouskou- 20, inside jar Floor 2 from stemmed bowl, ing to Γ8-Floor 7 (5th
ras structure 05-P 1250 above hearth 84-P 3224 floor), Pit D
Sample no. 2 = WF 05-55 6 =WF 05-27 7 =WF 05-05 9 11 = WF 05-15
Seed remains MM Phase MM Phase MM, Phase 3, Space A, floor MM, Phase 3a, Space A, de-
3/3a Room B, 3/3a?, Space C, deposit. 3: inside semiglobular cup posits above lower “floor”.
floor deposit, accumulated, 01-P 0755; 5: semiglobular cup 01-P 9: inside semiglobular cup
80-MISC 005 inside cup 80-P 0757; 6: conical cup 01-P 0765 01-P 0760; 10: semiglobular
0615 cup 01-P 0761
Sample no. 1 = AS* 11 2 3 5 6 9 10
Quantity of soil – WF Hand-collected 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt.
Quantity of sorted C & F = 100% C & F = 100% C&F C&F C&F= C & F = 100%
soil = 100% = 100% 100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 1
Legumes
Vicia faba (cotyl.) 1
Lens sp. 1
cf. Lens sp. (min.) 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. 2
damaged)
Ignota
Ignota (identifiable) 1
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 1
Ignota (v. damaged) 1
min.
* The very first batch of 51 GSE soil samples which were analysed were numbered AS no. 1, 2, 3, etc. Continous water flotation
numbers were introduced in 2005.
428 Anaya Sarpaki
Seed remains MM Phase 2, Room Hole, Γ7- Hole Γ7-Floor Hole Γ8-Floor
E, floor and levelling Floor 4 + Γ8- 4 + Γ8-Floor 5 7 (5th floor), soil
deposit, inside cup Floor 5 (3rd (4th floor), soil from cleaning
01-P 0872 floor), soil floor
Sample no. 12 16 = WF 17 = WF 05-07 18 = WF 05-60
05-09
Quantity of soil-WF 0.100 lt. 20 lt. 20 lt. 3 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C & F = 100% C&F= C & F = 100% C & F = 100%
100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1 2
Ficus carica (min.) 49 1 3
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1
Cereals
Hordeum hulled – grain 2 1 1
Hordeum frgs. 5 3 5
Triticum spikelet fork – cf. 1
T. monococcum
Legumes
cf. Pisum 1
Legume frg. 21 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 2
Ignota (identifiable) 1
1 One is infested.
The archaeobotanical remains 429
Key: * = 1 – 10 items
** = 10 – 50 items
*** = 51 – ∞
The archaeobotanical remains 431
Ignota (identifiable) 1
Seed remains House IV, House IV, Room C, floor, 29 = semiglobular cup 80-P 1385; 32 = inside jar
Room A, fallen, 80-P 1196; 35 = pithos 84-P 2976a; 36 = inside barrel-shaped jar 84-P 3114;
inside pithos 38 = tripod storage jar 84-P 3125
78-P 0359
29 = AS 7 38 = AS 29
Sample no. 28 = AS 17 32 = AS 9 35 = 36
& 36 & 35
AS 19 & 33
Quantity of soil – WF #WF 160 g 0.200 lt. # WF (in 0.800 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt.
charcoal)
Quantity of sorted soil C & F = 50% C&F= C = 100% & F 100% 100%
100% = 25%
Fruits
Vitis sp.(pip) (min.) 3
Seed remains House IV, Room E, floor, House IV, Room H, fallen House IV, Room H, floor
inside conical cup 80-P debris, inside semiglobular deposit, inside semiglobu-
1384 cup 01-P 0767 lar cup 01-P 0764
Sample no. 46 = AS 8 49 51
Quantity of soil – WF Not WF 0.250 lt. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Ficus carica (min.) 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. damaged) 1
Economic plants 1
Linum usitatissimum
cf. Linum sp. frg. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 1
Misc.
Mouse dung 1
434 Anaya Sarpaki
Seed remains House IV, Room H, 33-Pit H (a MM III pit) Square small
52 = cup 01-P 1027; 53 = conical cup 01-P 1028; 55 = storage fallen, inside coni-
vessel 01-P 0994 cal cup 84-P 2055
Sample no. 52 53 55 56 = AS 2
Quantity of soil – WF 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.100 lt. 130 gr.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Ficus carica (min.) 1 1
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Cereals
Hordeum hulled – grain 1 10
Misc.
Frass 1
Seed remains Square fallen north, Square, construc- Street between Street between Houses I/
57 = conical cup 84-P tions (LM IB level- Houses I and III, IV and II, constructions, 65
2059; 58 = conical cup ling), inside conical inside conical cup = soil sample floor 17; 66 =
84-P 2053 cup 08-P 0258 05-P 2406 soil sample from ba.4
Sample no. 57 = AS 3 58 = 61 = WF 10-13 64 = WF 05-95 65 66
AS 5
Quantity of soil – WF 85 g 85 g 0.250 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.300 lt. 0.500 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% C = 100%; F = 100% C = 100%; F =
50% 25%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 3
cf. Ficus carica frgs. 3
Legumes
Lathyrus cicera/sati- 1
vus s.l.
Legume (large) 1
Legume (small) min. 1
Cereals
Triticum/Hordeum 6
-cereal frg.
Cerealia sp. 3
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. 6
damaged)
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 1 2
The archaeobotanical remains 435
Seed remains House I, drain con- House I, Room Street, drainage system, main drain, Street drainage
nected to Room B, Q, constructions lower layer, both soil samples system, side
drain 2, soil sample – drain, inside drain 2, inside
conical cup 01-P conical cup 01-P
0817 1084
Sample no. 80 81 = WF 05-77 88 = WF 05-17 89 = WF 05-19 91
Quantity of soil – WF 0.250 lt. 0.300 lt. 14 lt. 13 lt. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C = 100% F = 25% C & F = 100% C & F = 100% C & F = 100% 100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1
Olea sp. frgs. 2
Ficus carica (min.) 1 2
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1 1
Myrtus sp. 1
Weeds
Gramineae (v. small) 1
436 Anaya Sarpaki
Seed remains Rubbish Area Rubbish Area, Southeast, 13-Pit L, 6 Rubbish Area East,
south, 6-Pit B, = inside goblet 82-P 1542 (see p. 125); eastern deposit,
lower layer, soil 7 = inside yellow sandstone 84-S 029 dump, soil sample
sample (see p. 76) (see p. 139) (see p. 92)
Sample no. 8 = WF 05-48 6 = WS 7 = WS (AS 6) 9 = WF 05-18
(AS 51)
Quantity of soil – WF 3 lt. 0.200 lt. 1.500 lt. 16 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% C = 100%; F = 1/8 100%
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pips 1 1
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 5 6
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 3
Legumes
cf. Lens sp. 2
Cereals
Triticum cf. dicoccum 1
(grain)
Hordeum hulled – grain 13
Hordeum sp. rachis 1
Panicum miliaceum 1
Weeds
Lolium temulentum 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 2 2 3
Ignota (identifiable) 2
Misc.
basket (?) frg. 1
Seed remains Building 1, Room B, all from Δ9, lower pit (GSE Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 4 = WF 05-28 5 = WF 05-30 6 = WF 05-35 8 = WF 05-040 9 = WF 05-56
Quantity of soil – WF 16 lt. 6 lt. 2 lt. 10 lt. 7 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. (pip) min. **
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1
Ficus carica (min.) 9 6 4 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1
Legumes
Legume frg. 1 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. damaged) 1
Triticum/Hordeum cereal frg. 1
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1
cf. Hordeum sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 2 1
Ignota (featureless) 1
subfossil 1
Key: **: many pips were on the way to becoming mineralized or they could be subfossil.
440 Anaya Sarpaki
Seed remains Building 2, Room A, 11 = Building 2, Room B, 14 = removal of Floor 37; Courtyard, 19 =
removal of Floor 42; 12 = 15 = inside stirrup jar 05-P 1848; 16 = removal of removal of Floor
removal of Floor 43; 13 = Floor 36; 17 = removal of Floor 43; 18 = removal 15; 20 = removal of
cleaning of Floor 43 (all of Floor 38 (all GSE Suppl. forth.) Floor 16 (both GSE
GSE Suppl. forth.) Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 11 = 12 = 13 = 14 = WF 15 = WF 16 = 17 = 18 = 19 = 20 = WF
WF WF WF 05-29 05-31 WF WF WF WF 05-16
05-44 05-52 05-64 05-34 05-41 05-43 05-10
Quantity of soil 17 lt. 12 lt. 18 lt. 6 lt. 5 lt. 3.5 lt. 17 lt. 12 lt. 15 lt. 18 lt.
– WF
Quantity of sorted 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
soil
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pips 1
Vitis sp. frgs. 14 2 1 1
Olea sp. frgs. 2 5 3 1 4 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 54 59 4 8 3.5 1
F. carica (charred) 2.5 9 5.5 7 1 3 3.5 1
cf. Ficus fruit frg. 5 1 2
(charred)
Prunus amygdalus 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 4
frgs.
cf. Rubus sp. 1
Legumes
Lathyrus cicera/ 1
sativus s.l.
Lens sp. 1
cf. Lens sp. 1.5
Lens sp./Vicia sp. 1
Legume frg. 4 2 3 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. 2 1
damaged)
Cerealia sp. 1
Cerealia (culms 3
et al.)
Hordeum sp. rachis 1
cf. Hordeum sp. 2 4 1
Economic Plants
Celtis australis
1
Weeds
Bugglosoides 7
arvensis (min.)
Malva sylvestris 6
Ignota
food (?) 2
Ignota (v. 5 10 4 12 3 6 7 4 2 4
damaged)
Ignota 2.5
(identifiable)
Ignota 1 2
(featureless)
Misc.
basket (?) frg. 1 1 1
The archaeobotanical remains 441
Seed remains Building 1, Courtyard F, the oven, 3 = 1st ash layer; 4 = below 1st Courtyard Rubbish Area
ash layer; 5 = 2nd ash layer; 6 = below 2nd ash layer; 7 = ash from F, levelling, North, 9 = 80-MISC
below clay lining (GSE III, 81-83) above Floor 008 (GSE III, 144);
2, 80-MISC 10 = inside plain la-
004 (GSE dle 01-P 0307 (GSE
III, 84) III, 151)
Sample no. 3 = AS 27 4 = AS 26 5 = AS 30 6 = AS 50 7 = AS 49 8 = AS 10 9 = AS 10
& 48 12
Quantity of soil – WF # WS 0.500 lt. 0.500 lt. 0.500 lt. 0.200 lt. #WS # WS 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C=100%; C=100%; C=100%; 100% 100%
F=50% F=50% F=50%
Fruits
cf. Vitis frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 3
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 2 1
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Cereals
Cerealia sp. 11 2 54
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. dam- 5
aged)
Cerealia embryo 1
Triticum spikelet fork – 1 14
cf. T. monococcum
Triticum spikelet fork – 1
T. dicoccum
Triticum sp. 2
Triticum grain – cf. 1
aestivum
H. vulgare – symmetric 1 1
Hordeum hulled – 2
grain
cf. Hordeum sp. 1
Triticum glume base 3 88
Triticum glume base cf. 1
end of ear
Triticum awn frgs. 1
Triticum/Hordeum/ *** ***
ignota awn frgs.
Cerealia (culms et al.) 3 4
Hordeum sp. rachis 6
Legumes 2
Vicia faba (cotyl.)
cf. Lathyrus cicera 2
Legume frg. 4
Legume (v. small) 1
Economic plants
cf. Linum sp. frg. 1
Labiatae 1
Schoenus nigricans – 1 1
min. & charred
Weeds
Bugglosoides arvensis 1
(min.)
Phalaris sp. 5
cf. Euphorbia sp. 1
Malva sylvestris 1
Ignota 7 12 3
Ignota (v. damaged)
442 Anaya Sarpaki
Seed remains Building 2, Room A, 11, 12, 15 = inside oven/kouskou- Courtyard, 17 = re- Building 2,
ras structure 13, 14 = cleaning Floor 27 (all GSE Suppl. moval of Floor 9; 18 = Room B, in-
forth.) inside cup 05-P 1067 side kylix 05-P
(both GSE Suppl. 1690 (GSE
forth.) Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 11 = WF 12 = WF 15 = WF 13 = WF 14 = WF 17 = WF 18 = WF 16 = WF 05-83
05-23 05-24 05-67 05-25 05-26 05-08 05-85
Quantity of soil – WF 18 lt 15 lt 6 lt 2 lt 13 lt 17 lt * 0.100 lt
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
cf. Vitis frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1 1 1 4
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 2 1 5 3
Ficus carica (min.) 10 1 2 3 1 3
Ficus carica (charred) 8 3
Ficus carica – fruit frgs. 1
cf. Pyrus sp. 1
Cereals
Triticum sp. (cf. mono- 1
coccum) gl. base
Hordeum sp. frgs. 1 1 1
Cerealia – damaged 1
Legumes 1
Lathyrus cicera/sativus
cf. Lathyrus cicera/sativus 1
Legume frgs. 1 1 2
Weeds
Lolium sp. 1
Ignota 13 11
Ignota (damaged) 4 4 2
Ignota – subfossil 8
Ignota – identifiable 1 4 +fr.
Misc.
Dung (mouse) 3
Seed remains Courtyard, floors, 10 = Floor 6; 11= Floor 8; 12 = inside tripod cooking pot
05-P 1115 (all GSE Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 10 = WF 05-12 11 = WF 05-13 12 = WF 05-96
Quantity of soil –WF 3 lt. 12 lt. c. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Olea europaea – frgs. 1
Vitis vinifera frgs. 2
Cereals
Cerealia sp. (damaged) 1
Triticum sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (identifiable?) 1
444 Anaya Sarpaki
Bibliography
Beck, C.W., E. Stout, K.C. Lee, A.A. Chase & N. DeRosa, 1984 ‘Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in
2008 ‘Analysis of organic remains in the fabric of Minoan and Myc- modern times: Part 1, the glume wheats’, Bulletin on Sumerian
enaean pottery sherds by gas chromatography-mas spectrome- Agriculture 1 (1984), 114–152.
try’, in Archaeology Meets Science: Biomolecular Investigations Jones, G.,
in Bronze Age Greece, Y. Tzedakis & H. Martlew (eds), Oxbow 1981 ‘Crop processing at Assiros Toumba – a taphonomic study’
2008, 12–47. ZfA, 15, 105–111.
Braadbaart, F., E. Marinova & A. Sarpaki, 1987 ‘Agricultural practice in Greek Prehistory’, BSA 82 (1987).
forth. Experimental charring of modern olive stones and olive 115–123.
processing residues: implementing the results to assess the use Kardulias, P.N. & R. Yerkes,
of residues from the Bronze Age sites of Akrotiri (Greece) and 1996 ‘Microwear and metric analysis of threshing sledge flints from
Tell Tweini (Syria), and the historical site of Kalaureia on Po- Greece and Cyprus’, Journal of Archaeological Science 23
ros Island (Greece). (1996), 657–666.
Braadbaart, F., I. Poole. & A. Van Brussel, Levinson, H. & A. Levinson,
2009 ‘Preservation potential of charcoal in alkaline environments: 2009 ‘Control of stored food pests in the ancient Orient and Classi-
an experimental approach and implications for the archaeo- cal antiquity’, J. of Applied Entomology 122 (2009), 137–144.
logical record’, Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009), Livarda, A. & G. Kotzamani,
1672–1679. 2014 ‘The archaeobotany of Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete: syn-
Christakis, K.S. , thesis and prospects’, BSA 108 (2014), 1–29.
2011 ‘Pithoi and economy in LM IB state societies,’ in LM IB Pot- Meurers-Balke, J. & J. Lüning,
tery: Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. Acts of a 1992 ‘Some aspects and experiments concerning the processing of
Workshop held at the Danish Institute at Athens in collabora- glume wheats’, in Préhistoire de l’Agriculture: Nouvelles Ap-
tion with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27–29 June proches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques (Monographie du
2007, (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Vol. 11, CRA, no.6. CNRS), P. Anderson (ed), Paris 1992, 341–362.
1–2), T.M. Brogan & E. Hallager (eds.), Athens 2011, 241–253. Moody, J.,
Darby, W.J., P. Ghalioungui & L. Grivetti, 2000 ‘Holocene climate change in Crete: an archaeologist’s view’,
1977 Food: The Gift of Osiris. Vol. 2, London 1977. in Landscape and land use in postglacial Greece, P. Halstead &
de Moulins, D., Ch. Frederick (eds.), Sheffield (2000), 52–61.
1996 ‘Sieving experiment: the controlled recovery of charred re- 2005 ‘Unravelling the threads: climate changes in the Late Bronze
mains from modern and archaeological samples,’ in Early III Aegean’, Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete
Farming in the Old World. A special volume of Vegetation His- and the Greek mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM
tory and Archaeobotany, K-E. Behre & K. Oeggl (eds), Heidel- IIIC), Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Ath-
berg 1996, 153–156. ens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana, 5–6 April 2003 (Tripodes 3),
Fenton, A., A.L. D’Agata & J. Moody (eds.), Athens 2005, 443–470.
1978 The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh 1978. 2014 ‘Prehistoric and historic climate and weather in (East) Crete’,
Follieri, M., in A Cretan landscape through time: Priniatikos Pyrgos and en-
1982 ‘Cibi carbonizzati in livelli tardo Minoici a Canea (Creta oc- virons (BAR, International Series 2634), B.P.C. Molloy & Ch.
cidentale)’, SMEA 80 (1982), 137-139. N. Duckworth (eds), Oxford 2014, 23–30.
French, D.H., Nesbitt, M., G. Hillman, L. Peña-Chocarro, D. Samuel & A.T. Szabó,
1971 ‘An experiment in water sieving’, Anatolian Studies 21 (1971), 1996 ‘Checklist for recording the cultivation and uses of hulled
59–64. wheats’, in Hulled wheats. Promoting the conservation and use
Graham, P.J. & A. Smith, of underutilized and neglected crops. 4. Proceedings of the First
2013 ‘A day in the life of an Ubaid household: archaeobotanical in- International Workshop on Hulled Wheats, 21–22 July 1995,
vestigations at Kenan Tepe, south-eastern Turkey’, Antiquity Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy (International Plant Ge-
87 (2013), 405–41. netic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy), S. Padulosi, K. Ham-
Hald, M.M. & M. Charles, mer & J. Heller (eds.), Rome 1996, 234–245.
2008 ‘Storage of crops during the fourth and third millennia BC at Nesbitt, M. & D. Samuel,
the settlement mound of Tell Brak, northeast Syria’, Veget.Hist. 1996 ‘From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and history
Archaeobot. 17 (2008) (suppl.1), S35–S41. of hulled wheats’, in Hulled Wheats. Promoting the conservation
Hallager, E., and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 4. Proceedings of
2001 ‘Sealing without seals’ (Arbejdspapirer, Center for kultur- the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats, 21–22 July
forskning, Aarhus Universitet 99), Aarhus 2001, 1–16. 1995, Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy (International Plant
2002 ’Wine and pithoi: written and archaeological evidence’, in Οί- Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy), S. Padulosi, K. Ham-
νος Παλαιός Ηδύποτος: το κρητικό κρασί από τα προϊστορικά ως mer & J. Heller (eds.), Rome 1996, 41–100.
τα νεώτερα χρόνια. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Επιστημονικού Συμπο- Panagiotakopulu, E, P. Buckland, P. Day, P. A. Sarpaki & C. Doumas,
σίου, Κουνάβοι, Δήμος <Ν,Καζαντζάκης>, 24–26 Απριλίου 1998. 1995 ‘Natural insecticides and incest repellents in antiquity: a review
Heraklion 2002, 61–67. of the evidence’, Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (1995),
Halstead, P., 705–710.
2014 Two-Oxen ahead: Pre-mechanized farming in the Mediterra- Sarpaki, A.,
nean. Blackwell 2014. 1992 ‘A palaeoethnobotanical approach. The Mediterranean triad
Hillman, G., or is it a quartet?’, in Agriculture in ancient Greece (ActaAth-
1981a ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred re- 4º, 42), B. Wells (ed.), Stockholm 1992, 61–76.
mains of crops’, in Farming practice in British Prehistory, R. 1999 ‘The archaeobotanical study of Tzambakas house, Rethymnon,
Mercer (ed.) Edinburgh 1981, 123–162. Crete’, in Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their Time, Y.
1981b ‘Crop procesing at Assiros Toumba: a taphonomic study’, Tzedakis & H. Martlew (eds.), Athens 1999, 40–41; 101; 102.
Zeitschrift für Archäologie 15 (1981), 105–112.
The archaeobotanical remains 445
N 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 THE GREEK-SWEDISH EXCAVATIONS
724 724
Kastelli, Khania 1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008
723 723
719 719
718 718
717 14 717
716 D 716
G 5
House III
715 715
4
508 509
714 2 E 8 6 714
12 9
1
10 11 15
A 713
713 3
A
712 22 12 712
27 20 21 17
711 H 19 M
16 711
710 48 52 710
49 55
709
51 53 C 64
709
708 708
N Q
707
B H 707
G O 57
706 D House I 8281 58
706
75 91 56
705
House IV 24
83
61
90 705
704 F K 704
36 B
23
I
703 80 703
74-79 89
28
702 C 29 A 67
68
88
702
39 45 32 69 70-71
701
33 41
35 43 38 A 701
40 65 86
44
700 46 E 66 B House II
700
699 26 C 699
509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535
Fig. 4. Distribution map of samples with archaeobotanical and microfauna remains from the Neopalatial settlement. The numbers are
the ones found in Tables 4-15 (archaeobotanical) and Tables 13-17 (microfauna).