TheCharcoalandSeedsfromIronAgeKommos · and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on...
Transcript of TheCharcoalandSeedsfromIronAgeKommos · and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on...
C H A P T E R 7
The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
C. Thomas Shay and Jennifer M. Shay
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Inferring Past Plant Uses
4. Results
5. Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron Age
6. Acknowledgments
Appendix 7.1. Charcoal Remains from Iron Age Deposits at Kommos
Appendix 7.2. Measurements of Olive (Olea europaea) Pits from Iron AgeDeposits at Kommos
Appendix 7.3. Uncharred Seeds from Water-Screened Samples from Iron AgeDeposits at Kommos
Appendix 7.4. Comparison of Charcoal Totals, 1992 and 1999
Appendix 7.5. Distribution of Pails by Date at Kommos
Appendix 7.6. Charcoal from Miscellaneous Contexts at Kommos
Appendix 7.7. Charred Seed Remains in Bronze Age Levels at Kommos
To thee I have come now, since I have leftThose sanctified shrines which are roofed by theNative beam that was cut with Khalbian axe,Its joints of the cypress fittedExact with the glue from a bull’s hide(From Euripides, The Cretans, cited in Willets 1977: 202)
647
648 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
1. IntroductionThis chapter reports on the charcoal and seeds from Sub-Minoan to Early Roman levels atKommos and discusses them in terms of cultural developments and landscape changes.1 FromSM through Hellenistic times (ca. 1020–30 B.C.) the Southern Area of Kommos was a religioussanctuary marked by a series of temples (J. W. Shaw, Chaps. 1 and 8). After the Minoansabandoned Kommos, Temple A, a small rectangular shrine, was built in the late eleventhcentury B.C. This was followed by larger and more elaborate structures, Temples B (800–600B.C.) and C (ca. 375–30 B.C.), with shrines, altars, and associated buildings. During the followingER period (ca. 50 B.C.–A.D. 160/170), use of the Southern Area was only sporadic. Throughoutits role as a sanctuary, Kommos appears to have had only limited habitation, in contrast withthe earlier Minoan settlement and seaport. Given the religious nature of the sanctuary, wewould expect to find that any assemblages of plant remains found in it would differ fromthose from ordinary domestic contexts. We would expect to find, for example, selected seedsand charcoal associated with the burning of sacred offerings and the preparation and consump-tion of ritual meals. This is certainly true of the faunal remains from the sanctuary (D. S.Reese, Chap. 6) and plant remains from Classical period sanctuaries on Cyprus (Buchholtz1988).
2. MethodsField
Most samples of Iron Age plant remains were collected by hand during excavations be-tween 1976 and 1983, although a few were retrieved by water-sieving through a 1.6-mm meshscreen. Ideally, information about provenance and context of each sample should be noted.The analysis is limited by the fact that all contexts on this large and complex site may notbe fully represented, and in some cases there was limited notation of the sample’s context.In the field laboratory, the collected material was examined, excess soil removed, and thefragments carefully wrapped in tissue paper for further study. A number of reference speci-mens of wood and seeds were collected from the local flora. All were air dried and taken toWinnipeg.
Laboratory
From the reference specimens, small pieces (±1 cc3) of dried branch, trunk, and root woodwere wrapped in foil, placed in porcelain crucibles, and charred in a muffle furnace at 350°Cfor approximately one hour. The pieces were subsequently broken to expose transverse, radial,and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on microscope slides.
Inferring Past Plant Uses 649
Ancient charcoal samples from the excavation were weighed to the nearest 0.001 g usinga Mettler electronic balance. Up to fifty pieces and in a few cases, several hundred pieces, ineach charcoal sample were identified. Each piece was placed on a plasticine stub and examinedunder a Wild M5 stereomicroscope at magnifications up to one hundred times with ×20 oculars.Where identification was difficult, specimens were examined in a Cambridge Stereoscan MarkII scanning electron microscope (hereafter referred to as SEM). Selected specimens of fossiland reference woods were photographed using the SEM at ×500 and ×2000 magnifications.In most cases, pieces 3–5 mm wide were large enough for identification if they had beencharred without fusing the wood elements. A piece of wood that has been gently charredand has a clean transverse face or can be broken to expose a clean face can generally be placedin one of several groups: softwoods (conifers), which have no large elements or vessels, andhardwoods, which can be further subdivided into diffuse porous, ring porous, or semi-ringporous groups based on their vessel arrangement. Many hardwood genera have distinctivecharacteristics that can be seen in a 3–5 mm piece, but others may require a larger piece. Wehave named to genus only those fragments that showed an adequate series of characteristics.Pieces resembling a known genus but differing slightly in the size and arrangement of features,such as vessels or rays, or those in which some feature was marred, were either assigned cf.(compare) or to a type, for example, Olea type.
Identifications were aided by use of our modern reference collection of more than onehundred woods and by the use of standard works such as Metcalfe and Chalk 1950, Greguss1955, Tsoumis 1968, and Jane 1970.
Seeds were identified using our reference collections and those of the seed laboratories ofAgriculture Canada and the Canadian Grain Commission, Winnipeg. Both charcoal and seedresults are expressed in terms of the number of samples containing each type (frequency) andthe number of pieces of each type in each period (abundance).2
3. Inferring Past Plant UsesIn soils subject to alternate wetting and drying, plant remains do not preserve for any lengthof time unless they have been charred. The probability that most plant foods would becomecharred, however, is small. One exception is cereal grains, which were usually parched orroasted over a fire. The shells of nuts and the seeds of fleshy fruits might possibly becomecharred if they were deposited by chance around a fire. Olive pits would be especially likely tobecome charred because they have a high oil content and were probably used for fuel, as morerecently they were often used in traditional households (Harriet Blitzer, personal communication).Naturally deposited seeds can also become incorporated into archaeological deposits and, ifcharred by accident, their presence might erroneously be attributed to human use.
The charred residue of wood fuel would undoubtedly constitute the bulk of plant remains
650 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
in archaeological deposits. Unless there was a conflagration, wood used for building andcrafts would seldom find its way into deposits. The amount of charcoal produced by variousactivities depends on such factors as the type of wood, its moisture content, and the conditionsof burning. Hot fires such as those produced in a bread oven or household hearth wouldyield much ash but only a small amount of charcoal.
The ash and charcoal produced is usually discarded away from the place of burning butcan find its way into a different context through human trampling or soil erosion. Charcoaland seeds may also be moved within the soil by the action of roots, burrowing rodents, andother soil animals (Miksicek 1987). The charcoal so transported is easily fragmented. Weakwoods such as poplar (Populus) tend to break into small pieces more readily than strongwoods such as oak (Quercus). This differential breakage may lead to the underrepresentationof weak woods (Zalucha 1982; Deck 1989). A portion of a charred branch or a large number ofpieces of charcoal found in close association are unlikely to have been moved very far bynatural processes and are thus more reliable for interpretation than scattered pieces. Thus,details about how pieces of charcoal were distributed when found are important (Boyd 1988).
4. ResultsCharcoal Distribution
In total, charcoal was found in 769 pails (provenances) amounting to over 7,900 pieces witha total weight of 2.65 kg. Of this, the IA deposits contained 3,690 pieces in 317 pails, all fromthe Southern Area of the site. The charcoal was unevenly distributed among the periods, with160 pails in the Sub-Minoan to Archaic, 17 from the Classical, 88 from the Hellenistic, and 26from the ER period; 26 pails came from mixed IA contexts (Appendix 7.1). Two contextsdating to SM times contained one piece each of evergreen oak (Quercus coccifera/ilex) andpossibly thyme (cf. Thymus).
A total of 18 taxa were recognized in the charred wood from the IA deposits (Table 7.1).Descriptions and SEM photographs of most of these are in Shay and Shay 1995. All the taxaidentified now occur in the Kommos area either as wild or cultivated forms (Table 7.1). Thecultivars include olive (Olea), fig (Ficus), and possibly almond (Prunus dulcis) and carob (Cerato-nia siliqua). Almond is represented by both charcoal and seeds, although the seed evidencediscussed later is more convincing of its presence because the charcoal could be from otherPrunus species (Table 7.1). The carob is represented by five pieces of charcoal from a contexteast of the temples dated to the Geometric (53A/11) and one piece from Burned Building B,dated to the Roman period (10A/57). Carob was also found in Bronze Age deposits at the site.Although D. Hillcoat et al. (1980) do not include Crete in the geographical range of the wildcarob, the charcoal matched our reference material and the description in Fahn et al. 1986.
Frequency and abundance were used to quantify charcoal data (Smart and Hoffmann 1988).
Results 651
Table 7.1. Percent frequency and abundance of selected charcoal taxa from Iron Age levels at Kommos;derived from Appendix 7.1.
Probable Equivalent(s) in the Modern Flora
Within 20 km% Frequency % Abundance of Kommos Within Crete
Charcoal Taxon (n = 317) (n = 3,714) (Shay and Shay 1995) (Tutin et al. 1964–1980)
Conifer trees
Cypress (Cupressus) 40.7 50.2 C. sempervirens C. sempervirens*
Pine (Pinus) 8.2 2.0 P. halepensis P. halepensis,* P. brutia,and P. pinea
Juniper (Juniperus) 3.5 0.8 J. oxycedrus J. oxycedrus* and J.phoenicia
Hardwood trees and shrubs
Maple (Acer) 1.6 0.2 A. sempervirens A. sempervirens*
Lentisc (Pistacia) 2.2 1.5 P. lentiscus P. lentiscus* and P.terebinthus*
Heather (Erica) 1.3 0.2 E. manipulifora E. manipuliflora* and E.arborea
Ononis (Ononis) 0.3 0.2 O. natrix O. natrix*
Bean trefoil (Anagyris foetida) 0.6 0.1 A. foetida A. foetida*
Oak, evergreen (Quercus) 1.9 0.7 Q. coccifera Q. coccifera* and Q.ilex*
Oak, deciduous (Quercus) 0.3 1.3 Q. pubescens Q. pubescens,* Q.ithaburensis, Q. cerris,and Q. macrolepsis
Carob (Ceratonia) 0.6 0.2 C. siliqua C. siliqua*
Fig (Ficus) 1.9 0.2 F. carica F. carica*
Olive (Olea) 44.2 25.6 O. europaea (cultivated) O. europaea* and O.and O. europaea ssp. europaea ssp. oleaster*oleaster (wild)
Plane (Platanus) 1.6 0.5 P. orientalis P. orientalis*
Buckthorn/Phillyrea 0.9 0.2 R. oleoides R. oleoides,* R. alaternus,(Rhamnus/Phillyrea) R. prunifolius, and R.
lycoides, Phillyrealatifolia, and P. media
Almond (Prunus) 0.3 <0.1 P. dulcis (cultivated) P. dulcis,* P. webbii,*and P. webbii (wild) and P. prostrata
Tamarisk (Tamarix) 2.5 0.3 T. parviflora T. parviflora* and T.smyrnensis
Monk’s pepper tree (Vitex) 0.3 0.1 V. agnus-castus V. agnus-castus*
*One or more wood reference specimens used in identification
652 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
Frequency is the number of pails in which a species is found taken as a percentage of thetotal number of pails. One hardwood, olive, and one conifer, cypress (Cupressus), were themost frequent and together occurred in 84.9% of the samples. Olive charcoal had a frequencyof 44.2% and occurred in about as many samples as cypress, with 40.7%. Pine (Pinus) had afrequency of 8.2%, juniper (Juniperus) 3.5%, tamarisk (Tamarix) 2.5%, and lentisc (Pistacia) 2.2%.Each of the remaining taxa was found in fewer than 2% of the samples. Abundance is thenumber of pieces of charcoal of a particular taxon calculated as a percentage of all the piecesof charcoal. Cypress was first with 50.2%, olive was next with 25.6%, pine was third with2.0%, lentisc was fourth with 1.5%, and deciduous oak (Quercus spp.) was fifth with 1.3%.All other taxa had less than 1% each (Table 7.1).
We also subdivided the samples according to the date of the context in which they werefound. On the basis of changes in frequency and abundance, the charcoal sequence wasdivided into two zones, the first beginning in the SM (ca. 1020 B.C.) and the second beginningin the Classical period (ca. 500 B.C.; Table 7.2).
The first zone included relatively high percentages of cypress and olive, together makingup 82.5% of all pieces. Pine and lentisc had an abundance of 2%. The second zone wascharacterized by high values of olive, which made up 37–53% of all pieces. It spanned theperiods Classical to ER. In this zone cypress ranged from 1.3 to 13.5%. Deciduous oak hadan abundance of 32.9% in the Classical period. In addition, there were small amounts (lessthan 10%) of pine, juniper, tamarisk, fig, plane (Platanus), maple (Acer), buckthorn/phillyrea(Rhamnus/Phillyrea), carob, and Monk’s pepper tree (Vitex) scattered throughout the zone.
Seeds
A total of 26 charred seeds plus fragments were found in 40 IA samples (Table 7.3) withinand around the temple complex. They included the domesticates olive, grape (Vitis), barley(Hordeum), and either wheat or barley (Triticum/Hordeum). One complete kernel from a Geo-metric context in Building Z (36B/21) resembles a dehulled barley grain. It has a prominentventral crease that is wide and V-shaped at the apical end (Pl. 7.1). The apical end is wedge-shaped with a trace of a notch at the center. Two other fragments show the wedge-shapedapex. A wide V-shaped ventral crease is typical of barley grains but not of wheat. Olive wasthe only species to occur virtually throughout the IA. The measurable olive pits (Appendix7.2) are slightly longer and wider than those discovered in the BA deposits at Kommos. Thefragments of almond (Prunus cf. dulcis) shell probably came from domesticated trees. Almondshells have been found in Neolithic and BA sites in Greece and the Near East (Zohary andHopf 1988). The trees were probably domesticated about the same time as the olive and grape,not later than the third millennium B.C. In addition, fragments of acorns (Quercus) were found.A few uncharred seeds were recovered from two water-screened samples (Appendix 7.3), butthese are considered to be modern contaminants.
Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron Age 653
Table 7.2. Percent frequency and abundance of selected charcoal taxa recoveredfrom Iron Age levels at Kommos by major period; derived from Appendix 7.1.
Sub-Minoanto Archaic Classical Hellenistic Roman
n = 160 (2,636) n = 17 (149) n = 88 (427) n = 26 (141)Charcoal Type %F (%A) %F (%A) %F (%A) %F (%A)
Olive (Olea) 44.4 (15.3) 64.7 (53.0) 40.9 (36.8) 34.6 (41.1)
Cypress (Cupressus) 50.6 (67.2) 11.8 (1.3) 26.2 (10.8) 53.8 (13.5)
Oak, evergreen (Quercus) 3.1 (0.6) — — 3.8 (6.4)
Pine (Pinus) 11.3 (2.0) — 5.7 (3.8) 7.7 (1.4)
Ononis (Ononis) 0.6 (0.2) — — —
Lentisc (Pistacia) 4.4 (2.1) — — —
Tamarisk (Tamarix) 0.6 (<0.1) 5.9 (0.7) 2.3 (0.5) 11.5 (2.8)
Oak, deciduous (Quercus) — 5.9 (32.9) — —
Juniper (Juniperus) 3.8 (0.5) 5.9 (0.7) 1.1 (1.4) 7.7 (6.4)
Fig (Ficus) 0.6 (<0.1) — 5.7 (1.6) —
Heather (Erica) 2.5 (0.3) — — —
Buckthorn/Phillyrea(Rhamnus/Phillyrea) 1.2 (0.2) — 1.1 (0.2) —
Maple (Acer) 1.2 (<0.1) — 1.1 (0.2) 3.8 (1.4)
Plane (Platanus) 1.2 (0.5) — — 11.5 (2.8)
Carob (Ceratonia) 0.6 (0.2) — 1.1 (0.2) —
Bean trefoil (Anagyris) 1.2 (0.1) — — —
Monk’s pepper tree (Vitex) — — 1.1 (0.4) —
Charcoal zone . . . Cypress- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olive . . . . . . . . . . . . .Olive . . . .
n = number of sample provenances (pails)(x) = number of pieces%F = percent frequency(%A) = percent abundance
5. Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron AgeClimate, Landforms, and Soils
The climate, landforms, and soils of the Kommos area during the IA (ca. 1000 B.C. onward)would have been rather like those of today. The inhabitants would have been obliged to copewith low and variable rainfall, summer drought, and relatively poor soils prone to erosion.
654 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
Table 7.3. Charred seed remains in Iron Age levels at Kommos.
Sub-Minoan Mixed TotalSeed Taxa to Archaic Classical Hellenistic Roman Iron Age Iron Age
Olive (Olea europaea) 12a (5 + f)b — 6 (7) 9 (4 + f) 1 (f) 28 (16 + f)
Grape (Vitis vinifera) 1 (1) — — — — 1 (1)
Barley (Hordeum) 1 (1 + f) — — 1 (1) — 2 (2 + f)
Cereal (Triticum/Hordeum) 1 (1) — — — 1 (1) 2 (2)
Almond (Prunus) 1 (f) — — 1 (1) — 2 (1 + f)
Oak (Quercus) 1 (1) — — — — 1 (1)
Unknown 3 (3) — — 1 (1) — 4 (4)
Total 20 (12�f) — 6 (7) 12 (7 � f) 2 (1 � f) 40 (27 � f)
aNumber of samplesbNumber of specimens (complete or large fragments, f = numerous small fragments)
Lack of soil moisture and low fertility would have resulted in low biological productiv-ity. The diversity of habitats, however, would have provided a range of plant resourcesand agricultural opportunities. Geological studies (Gifford 1995) show that sea levels rosethroughout the first millennium B.C. until they reached their present position. There is evi-dence of uplift of the coast by about 2 m sometime in the first century B.C. This uplift seemsto have coincided with a major episode of sand accumulation near the coast, although mostof the present sand cover seems to have been deposited after Kommos was abandoned ca.A.D. 160/170. Inland from the coast a major episode of hillslope erosion occurred in localstream valleys sometime during the Hellenistic to Roman periods. The sand accumulationand hillslope erosion would have reduced local agricultural potential. As the sand dunesspread in the coastal areas some arable land would have been lost. Continued soil erosionon slopes would also have reduced their agricultural potential.
Vegetation and Wood Resources
The charcoal remains from Kommos and our study of modern plant communities (Shay andShay 1995) suggest a mosaic of cultivated and seminatural communities, perhaps similar tothose of today. Five habitats within 20 km of the site are indicated by the eighteen tree andshrub taxa identified (Table 7.4). Over two-thirds (70%) of these could have come from within2 km of Kommos. Olive, cypress, pine, almond, fig, and carob could have grown in cultivatedorchards, tree groves, or shrub communities. Local shrub types in the charcoal include ononis,
Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron Age 655
Table 7.4. Percent frequency and abundance of charcoal taxa recovered from Kommos and the nearestoccurrence of each tree and shrub in modern habitats in the western Mesara.
Habitats and Distances from Kommos
Local, <2 km Regional, 2–20 km
Damp 5 km north 15–20 km% Frequency % Abundance Stream (Geropotamos (Northern
Charcoal Taxa (n = 317) (n = 3,714) Shrublands Margins Orchards Floodplain) Uplands)
Olive (Olea) 44.2 25.6 x — x — —
Cypress(Cupressus) 40.7 50.2 x x — — —
Oak, evergreen(Quercus) 1.9 0.7 — — — — x
Pine (Pinus) 8.2 2.0 — — — — x
Ononis (Ononis) 0.3 0.2 x — — — —
Lentisc (Pistacia) 2.2 1.5 x — — — —
Tamarisk(Tamarix) 2.5 0.3 — x — — —
Oak, deciduous(Quercus) 0.3 1.3 — — — — x
Juniper(Juniperus) 3.5 0.8 x — — — —
Fig (Ficus) 1.9 0.2 — — x — —
Bean trefoil(Anagyris foetida) 0.6 0.1 x — — — —
Buckthorn/Phillyrea(Rhamnus/Phillyrea) 0.6 0.2 x — — — —
Maple (Acer) 1.6 0.2 — — — — x
Almond (Prunus) 0.3 <0.1 x — x — —
Plane (Platanus) 1.6 0.5 — — — x —
Carob (Ceratonia) 0.6 0.2 x — x — —
Heather (Erica) 1.3 0.2 x — — — —
Monk’s peppertree (Vitex) 0.3 0.1 x — — — —
656 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
juniper, lentisc, heather (Erica), buckthorn/phillyrea, and bean trefoil (Anagyris). Evergreenoak, a type in the charcoal, could have been a component of these shrub communities. Speciesof damp stream margins are represented by tamarisk and Monk’s pepper tree.
Habitats to the north of Kommos included floodplains and the uplands below the IdeanMountains. The floodplain of the Geropotamos River in the Mesara Valley lies about 5 kmto the north, where plane trees now grow. About 10–15 km beyond, on the uplands, atelevations above 400 m, oak and maple would have been available. It is possible that thesetrees might have grown closer to Kommos during the IA. Despite the dry climate, there arescattered oak trees in the Mesara Valley, suggesting that, had it not been for extensive treecutting, the forest could have covered a larger area in the past.
Cultural Developments, Changing Land Use, and the Wood Economy
The Kommos area underwent several periods of economic expansion and decline that influ-enced the landscape. Agents of this change would have been land clearance, fire, grazing, theintroduction of crops and weeds, and the gathering of plants for food, fuel, construction, andother purposes.
After the widespread abandonment near the end of Minoan times there was some resettle-ment of the Kommos area, albeit on a much reduced level, during the Protogeometric, Geomet-ric, and Archaic periods (ca. 1000–600 B.C.). There are signs of Archaic settlement on ViglesHill, which overlooks Kommos on the south (Hope Simpson 1995: 360–63). From 1000 to 600 B.C.Kommos itself seems to have served primarily as a religious sanctuary, with the construction ofTemples A and B.
Population and settlement apparently expanded during the subsequent Classical, Hellenistic,and Roman periods, especially the latter two (ca. 500 B.C.–A.D. 160/170; Hope Simpson 1995:360–63). The large settlement of ancient Metallon, on the acropolis south of the present townof Matala, 3 km south of Kommos, was built in Hellenistic times or even as early as theClassical period. At about the same time the extent of occupation in the Matala Valley issuggested by the fact that stone terraces were built on the hillsides, apparently to provide foradditional cultivated land (Parsons and Gifford 1995: 303–5).
At Kommos, Temple B fell into disuse for several centuries except for a small altar whereritual meals were consumed and sacrifices performed. In about 375–350 B.C. a larger temple(C) was built and later enlarged together with several additional altars and buildings. Theexpansion phase of the temple complex seems to have ceased by the end of Hellenistic times,ca. 50–25 B.C., with the abandonment of the buildings and signs of burning. Sporadic use ofthe site ended about A.D. 160/170.
Population fluctuations during these periods influenced both the demand for and the supplyof wood. Relatively low population densities during the PG to Archaic period imply little
Acknowledgments 657
demand (Table 7.5). Agricultural land abandoned at the end of Minoan times would havebeen able to revert to shrubland. This might explain the higher representation in the charcoalof such local shrubs as lentisc and heather during these periods (Table 7.2). There is littleevidence for substantial occupation during Classical times, but in the succeeding Hellenisticand Roman periods (ca. 300 B.C.–A.D. 160/170) there was expanded settlement of the area,particularly in the Matala Valley. This expansion probably meant (1) additional firewoodsupplies from orchard tree prunings and (2) less firewood from shrublands (Table 7.5). Theincrease in the abundance of olive and the reduced representation of local shrub types appearto bear this out. The seed evidence of cereals, olives, vines, and perhaps almonds suggestscontinuity in agricultural crops from the preceding Minoan period.
Charcoal evidence at Kommos offers some insight into the woods used for various purposes.Although many of the woods had several uses, and some charcoal may have been derivedfrom building timber, most of the samples probably represent fuel wood. Olive and cypresswere the most frequent and abundant (Table 7.1). Over time olive charcoal increased infrequency while cypress decreased (Table 7.2). This may reflect changing land use.
The archaeological context may indicate the probable use of wood. Building material issuggested by fragments of uncharred conifer wood found adhering to several iron nails. Thenails were presumably used in the construction of one of the temples (for details, see J. W.Shaw and Harlan, Chap. 5, Section 7). As in the case of the animal bones at Kommos, andthe plant remains associated with sacred altars on Cyprus, it is possible that certain woodswere favored for temple fires. The composition of 11 samples comprising 53 pieces of charcoalfrom altars and hearths associated with Temples B and C does not, however, support thisidea. The samples are dominated by olive, cypress, and pine, the same types that dominatethe entire assemblage. The seed types also occurred in both sacred and secular contexts.
6. AcknowledgmentsWe thank Professor Joseph W. Shaw for the invitation to become associated with the Kommosproject and for his cooperation and financial support. We also thank Charlotte Wall of theSeed Laboratory, Agriculture Canada, for identifying the uncharred seeds; Louise Cook ofthe Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission, who described and photo-graphed the barley grains; and Lucia Flynn for her excellent typing skills. L. Cole Wilson andCharles Burchill aided in processing revisions to the charcoal data.
Tab
le7.
5.Su
mm
ary
ofth
ew
ood
econ
omy
atK
omm
osd
urin
gIr
onA
geti
mes
.C
ypre
ssis
not
incl
uded
inth
ista
ble,
asit
occu
rsin
both
wild
and
cult
ivat
edha
bita
ts.
Cul
tura
lD
evel
opm
ents
Woo
dU
se*
Rel
ativ
eH
ard
woo
dC
onif
erA
ppro
xim
ate
At
Kom
mos
Inth
eA
rea
Dem
and
Shru
blan
ds
Orc
hard
sFo
rest
sFo
rest
sD
ates
Peri
od(J
.W.S
haw
,Cha
p.1)
(Hop
eSi
mps
on19
95)
for
Woo
d%
%%
%L
and
scap
eC
hang
e
160/
170
Kom
mos
aban
don
ed
100
Tem
ple
Ccl
eane
dan
dre
used
A.D
.E
arly
Som
ese
ttle
men
tsM
oder
ate
9.2
41.1
10.6
1.4
Som
efi
eld
sR
oman
Occ
asio
nal
use
ofab
and
oned
tolo
wab
and
oned
Bui
ldin
gB
and
0T
empl
eC
B.C
.
100
Alt
ars
Lan
dM
and
Bui
ldin
gsB
and
Ebu
ilt
200
Hel
leni
stic
Sett
lem
ent
inar
eaH
igh
2.8
50.3
6.7
10.8
Fiel
ds
and
orch
ard
sex
pand
sex
pand
dra
mat
ical
lyIn
crea
sed
graz
ing
pres
sure
onsh
rubl
and
s
300
Anc
ient
Met
allo
nfo
und
ed
Bui
ldin
gsD
and
Wbu
iltT
empl
eC
and
Alt
arC
built
400
Cla
ssic
alSe
ttle
men
tin
area
Low
to1.
353
.032
.9—
Furt
her
land
expa
nds
mod
erat
ecl
eara
nce
for
agri
cult
ure
500
Alt
arH
and
Bui
ldin
gF
built
Hia
tus—
only
occa
sion
alus
e
600
Arc
haic
Bui
ldin
gsQ
and
VSm
all
sett
lem
ent
onL
ow3.
615
.61.
22.
1So
me
land
clea
ranc
ebu
iltne
arby
Vig
les
Hill
for
agri
cult
ure
700
Ori
enta
l-A
ltar
Ubu
iltiz
ing
800
Tem
ple
Bbe
gun
Bui
ldin
gZ
inus
e
Geo
met
ric
900
Prot
o-Sh
rubl
and
sre
clai
mge
omet
ric
agri
cult
ural
land
Tem
ple
Abe
gun
Lit
tle
habi
tati
onin
aban
don
edby
1000
Sub-
area
Min
oans
Min
oan
*Cha
rcoa
lpe
rcen
tage
sap
ply
toth
epe
riod
sSu
b-M
inoa
n–A
rcha
ic,C
lass
ical
,Hel
leni
stic
,and
Ear
lyR
oman
.
Ap
pen
dix
7.1
Cha
rcoa
lR
emai
nsfr
omIr
onA
geD
epos
its
atK
omm
osN
umbe
rof
pails
(pro
vena
nce
unit
s)an
dnu
mbe
rof
char
coal
frag
men
tsby
taxa
and
peri
od.
Sub-
Min
oan
–A
rcha
icC
lass
ical
Hel
leni
stic
Rom
anM
ixed
Tot
al
No.
ofN
o.of
No.
ofN
o.of
No.
ofN
o.of
Pails
No.
ofPa
ilsN
o.of
Pails
No.
ofPa
ilsN
o.of
Pails
No.
ofPa
ilsN
o.of
Cha
rcoa
lT
axa
(n=
160)
Piec
es(n
=17
)Pi
eces
(n=
88)
Piec
es(n
=26
)Pi
eces
(n=
26)
Piec
es(n
=31
7)Pi
eces
Con
ifer
s
Uni
den
tifi
edco
nife
r7
1—
—2
13
1—
—12
3
Cup
ress
us81
1,77
12
223
4614
199
2712
91,
865
Juni
peru
s6
131
11
62
91
211
31
Cup
ress
us/
Juni
peru
s9
11—
—1
12
21
113
15
Pin
us18
56—
—5
162
21
226
76
Har
dw
ood
s
Har
dw
ood
3365
47
1220
24
447
5514
3
Dif
fuse
poro
usha
rdw
ood
12
——
——
11
——
23
Rin
gpo
rous
hard
woo
d—
——
——
——
—1
21
2
cf.P
opul
us/
Salix
11
——
——
——
——
11
Ace
r2
2—
—1
11
21
25
7
Pis
taci
a7
55—
——
——
——
—7
55
cf.P
ista
cia
229
——
——
——
——
229
Eri
ca4
8—
——
——
——
—4
8
Faga
ceae
fam
ily1
2—
——
——
——
—1
2
Que
rcus
cocc
ifera
/ile
x5
17—
——
—1
9—
—6
26
Que
rcus
cerr
isty
pe—
—1
49—
——
——
—1
49
cf.Q
uerc
us3
51
11
1—
——
—5
7
Cas
tane
aty
pe—
——
—1
1—
——
—1
1
Leg
umin
osae
11
——
——
——
——
11
Cer
aton
ia1
5—
—1
1—
——
—2
6
cf.C
erat
onia
——
——
11
——
——
11
Ana
gyri
sfo
etid
a2
3—
——
——
——
—2
3
Ono
nis
16
——
——
——
——
16
cf.O
noni
s1
1—
——
——
——
—1
1
Ficu
s1
1—
—5
7—
——
—6
8
cf.F
icus
23
——
——
——
——
23
Ole
acea
e4
19—
——
——
——
—4
19
Ole
a71
404
1179
3615
79
5813
252
140
950
cf.O
lea
1636
23
1060
320
47
3512
6
Ros
acea
e1
1—
——
——
——
—1
1
Pru
nus
——
——
——
——
11
11
cf.P
runu
s—
——
—2
2—
——
—2
2
cf.P
yrus
/C
rata
egus
/M
alus
218
——
——
——
——
218
Pla
tanu
s2
13—
——
—3
4—
—5
17
Ap
pen
dix
7.1
(Con
tinu
ed) Su
b-M
inoa
n–
Arc
haic
Cla
ssic
alH
elle
nist
icR
oman
Mix
edT
otal
No.
ofN
o.of
No.
ofN
o.of
No.
ofN
o.of
Pails
No.
ofPa
ilsN
o.of
Pails
No.
ofPa
ilsN
o.of
Pails
No.
ofPa
ilsN
o.of
Cha
rcoa
lT
axa
(n=
160)
Piec
es(n
=17
)Pi
eces
(n=
88)
Piec
es(n
=26
)Pi
eces
(n=
26)
Piec
es(n
=31
7)Pi
eces
Har
dw
ood
s(C
ont.)
Rha
mnu
s/P
hylly
rea
26
——
11
——
——
37
Tam
arix
11
11
22
34
12
810
cf.T
amar
ix—
——
—2
47—
——
—2
47
cf.T
hym
us1
1—
——
——
——
—1
1
Thy
mus
/T
hym
elea
12
——
——
——
——
12
Vit
ex—
——
—1
2—
——
—1
2
Uni
den
tifi
ed1
2—
——
—1
——
—2
2
Unk
now
n47
754
626
5412
64
1693
157
Tot
al2,
636
149
427
141
361
3,71
4
Appendix 7.3 663
Appendix 7.2
Measurements of Olive (Olea europaea) Pitsfrom Iron Age Deposits at Kommos
Trench/ Sample Length Width Thickness Width/Date Pail Number (mm) (mm) (mm) Length Ratio
Geometric–Orientalizing 33C/74 436 9.7 5.5 5.0 0.57
Hellenistic 20A/24 209 11.6 5.0 5.2 0.43
10A/53 80 11.7 5.0 5.5 0.43
Roman 29A1/24 349 10.7 5.0 5.1 0.47
Appendix 7.3
Uncharred Seeds from Water-Screened Samplesfrom Iron Age Deposits at Kommos
Trench/Period Pail Taxon Finds
Geometric 33C/60 Euphorbia 1 seed
Archaic 50A/40 Carex 1 seed coatCrepis 1 seedcf. Lactuca 1 seedCruciferae 1 seed coat fragmentGramineae 2 caryopsis fragmentsBromus 1 caryopsis fragmentPhleum 1 caryopsisLeguminosae 1 pod fragmentTrifolium 1 seedLiliaceae 1 seed coatMalva 1 seedPotentilla 1 seedGalium 1 seedViola 1 seedUnknown 4 seeds
664 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
Appendix 7.4
Comparison of Charcoal Totals,1992 and 1999
Number Numberof Pails of Pieces
Period 1992 1999 1992 1999
Bronze Age
Dated contents* 308 308 2,821 2,821
Mixed Bronze Age 104 110 1,019 1,056
Total Bronze Age 412 418 3,840 3,877
Mixed Bronze–Iron Age 15 15 263 263
Iron Age
Sub-Minoan (1992) 2 — 2 —
Sub-Minoan–Archaic (1999) — 160 — 2,636
Protogeometric–Archaic(1992) 154 — 2,565 —
Classical (1992 and 1999) 9 17 26 149
Hellenistic (1999) — 88 — 427
Hellenistic–Roman (1992) 140 — 985 —
Roman (1999) — 26 — 141
Mixed Iron Age 11 26 112 361
Total Iron Age 316 317 3,690 3,714
Unknown 26 19 116 56
Total 769 769 7,909 7,910
Note: The totals for 1992 were published in Shay and Shay 1995.*Dates not checked
Appendix 7.5
Distribution of Pails by Date at Kommos
No. of No. of No. ofDate Pails Date Pails Date Pails
MM 8
MM–MM IIB 1
MM–LM 2
MM–LM I 10
MM–LM IA 3
MM–LM II 4
MM–LM III 5
MM–LM IIIA 2
MM–LM IIIA1 6
MM–LM IIIA2 2
MM–LM IIIB 2
MM–LM IIIC 2
MM–GEO 1
MM–ARCH 3
MM–HELLEN 2
MM–Roman 1
MM I 3
MM I–MM IB 1
MM I–MM II 3
MM I–ORIENT 1
MM IB 6
MM IB–MM II 1
MM IB–LM I 1
MM IB–LM IIIB 1
MM II 7
MM II–MM III 6
MM II–LM IA 3
MM II–LM IIIA1 1
MM IIA 13
MM IIA–MM IIB 3
MM IIB 6
MM IIB–MM III 4
MM IIB–LM I 1
MM IIB–LM IA 2
MM III 45
MM III–LM 2
MM III–LM I 9
MM III–LM IA 14
MM III–LM IB 1
MM III–LM III 6
MM III–LM IIIA 2
MM III–LM IIIA2 2
MM III–LM IIIB 1
MM III–CLASS 1
LM 1
LM–LM I 1
LM–LM III 1
LM–LM IIIB 1
LM–GEO 1
LM I 61
LM I–LM IA 2
LM I–LM IB 1
LM I–LM II 10
LM I–LM III 4
LM I–LM IIIA 1
LM I–LM IIIA1 3
LM IA 7
LM IA–LM IB 5
LM IB 1
LM II 9
LM II–LM IIIA 1
LM II–LM IIIA1 2
LM III 45
LM III–ORIENT 1
LM III–ARCH 1
LM IIIA 6
LM IIIA–LM IIIB 4
LM IIIA–HELLEN 1
LM IIIA1 8
LM IIIA1–LM IIIA2 2
LM IIIA1–ORIENT 1
LM IIIA2 10
LM IIIA2–LM IIIB 12
LM IIIB 22
LM IIIB–ARCH 1
LM IIIC 1
Mixed Bronze Age 6
SM 2
SM–ARCH 6
PG 8
PG–GEO 12
GEO 7
GEO–ORIENT 9
ORIENT 68
ORIENT–ARCH 4
ARCH 44
CLASS 17
HELLEN 88
HELLEN–Roman 6
Roman 20
Mixed Iron Age 26
Unknown 19
Total 769
ARCH MM= Archaic = Middle MinoanCLASS ORIENT= Classical = OrientalizingGEO PG= Geometric = ProtogeometricHELLEN SM= Hellenistic = Sub-MinoanLM = Late Minoan
666 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
Appendix 7.6
Charcoal from Miscellaneous Contexts at KommosNumber of pails (provenance units) and number of charcoal pieces by taxon and period. Note that notall small pieces were counted. See n. 2.
Mixed MixedBronze Age Bronze–Iron Age Unknown Total
No. of No. of No. of No. ofPails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of
Charcoal Taxa (n = 110) Pieces (n = 15) Pieces (n = 19) Pieces (n = 144) Pieces
Conifer 2 1 — — 2 1 4 2
Cupressus 18 86 2 27 3 8 23 121
Juniperus 1 3 — — — — 1 3
Cupressus/Juniperus — — — — 1 1 1 1
Pinus 12 37 — — 1 1 13 38
Hardwood 23 55 2 19 1 — 26 74
Diffuse-porous hardwood 3 12 — — 2 — 5 12
Acer 2 10 — — — — 2 10
cf. Acer 1 1 — — — — 1 1
Pistacia — — 1 2 — — 1 2
cf. Pistacia 2 2 — — — — 2 2
Erica 1 1 — — — — 1 1
Quercus 3 34 1 3 — — 4 37
Q. coccifera/ilex 36 366 3 8 2 17 41 391
Q. cf. coccifera/ilex 2 12 — — — — 2 12
Q. cerris 3 7 — — — — 3 7
cf. Quercus 6 8 — — — — 6 8
Ceratonia 1 2 — — 1 1 2 3
Ononis 2 4 3 113 — — 5 117
Ficus 2 3 1 1 — — 3 4
cf. Ficus 1 1 — — — — 1 1
Oleaceae 8 16 — — — — 8 16
Olea 51 262 5 35 3 4 59 301
cf. Olea 6 11 3 9 2 9 11 29
Prunus 1 3 — — 1 5 2 8
cf. Prunus 1 3 — — — — 1 3
cf. Pyrus/Crataegus/Malus 5 8 — — — — 5 8Platanus 2 4 — — — — 2 4
Appendix 7.7 667
Appendix 7.6 (Continued)
Mixed MixedBronze Age Bronze–Iron Age Unknown Total
No. of No. of No. of No. ofPails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of
Charcoal Taxa (n = 110) Pieces (n = 15) Pieces (n = 19) Pieces (n = 144) Pieces
Rhamnus/Phillyrea 2 2 — — — — 2 2
cf. Thymus 1 4 — — — — 1 4
Thymelaea 1 3 — — — — 1 3
Calicotome 1 1 — — — — 1 1
Unidentified — — — — 1 3 1 3
Unknown 41 94 5 46 5 6 51 146
Total 1,056 263 56 1,375
Appendix 7.7
Charred Seed Remains in Bronze Age Levels at Kommos
Middle Minoan Late MinoanMixedMiddle
and Late TotalSpecies MM I MM II MM III MM II–III LM II LM III Minoan Minoan
Olive (Oleaeuropaea) 1a(f)b 7 (3+f) 12 (31+f) 2 (f) 8 (6) 18 (12+f) 11 (8+f) 59 (61+f)
Grape (Vitisvinifera) — — — — 4 (4) 3 (12+f) 1 (1) 8 (17+f)
Cereal (Triticum/Hordeum) — — 1 (1) — — 1 (1) — 2 (2)
Almond (Prunus) — 1 (f) — — 1 (f) — 1 (f) 3 (f)
Oak (Quercus) — 1 (f) — — 1 (f) 1 (f) — 3 (f)
Bean trefoil(Anagyris foetida) — — — — — 1 (2) — 1 (2)
Legume(Leguminosae) — — — — — 1 (f) — 1 (f)
Thymelaea(Thymelaea) — — — — — 1 (357) — 1 (357+f)
Unknown — 1 (1) 1 (f) — 1 (1) — — 3 (2+f)
Total 1 (f) 10 (4�f) 14 (32�f) 2 (f) 15 (11�f) 26 (384�f) 13 (9�f) 81 (441�f)
aNumber of samplesbNumber of specimens (complete or large fragments; f = numerous small fragments)
668 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos
Notes
1. This manuscript was originally submitted 2. The charcoal identifications were enteredinto a computer file that included year excavated,in 1992, but in February 1999 we were informed
that more than 130 of the pottery dates we had trench, provenance (pail), weight, total numberof pieces, taxon, part (wood, knot, twig, bark,been given for the Iron Age charcoal and seeds
were incorrect. Thus we had to adjust the original root, or seed), status (fragments, large piece[s]plus fragments, too badly charred to be identi-numbers not only for the IA but also for totals
for the Bronze Age. For example, the date changes fied, or unidentified), confidence of identification(unknown, cf. family, cf. genus, cf. species, or noresulted in an increase in the number of mixed
BA pails from 104 to 110, and the number of cf.), date of deposit, and the general location onthe site (Hilltop, Central Hillside, or Southernpieces from 1,019 to 1,056. Hence, Appendices
7.4–7.7 were added. The remaining tables for the Area). These data were used to generate the tablesusing the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Insti-BA (Shay and Shay 1995: tables 4.9, 4.12, 4.13,
appendix 4.6) were not recalculated, as none of tute 1982).the percentages would be substantially different.