The texts of the various popers in this yolume were set individuallyby tlpists under the supervision of each of the authors concerned.

ISBN 90 6r9r 528 7O 1984 A.A.Balkema, P.O Box 1675, 3000 Bl{ I{otterdanr, NetherlandsDistributed in USA & Canada by: A.A Balkema l'ublishers, P O.Box 230, Accord, MA 02018

Printed in the Netherlands

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH SYMPOSIUM OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUPFOR PALAEOETHNOBOTANY / GRONINGEN / 30 MAY-3 JUNE 1983

Plants andAncient ManS tudie s in palae o ethnobo tanyEdited byW.VAN ZEIST & V(A.CASPARIEBi o log isch-Archaeologisch Instituut, St ate Universit y, Groningen

A.A.BALKEMA/ROTTERDAM/ BOSTON/ 1984

Interpretation of archaeological plant remains :The application of ethnographic models from Turkey

CORDON HILLMANL'tritersitl, of London, UK

ABSTRACT: Each step of crop husbandry and grain processing has a measurableeffect on the composition of crop products and by-products. These effects havebeen studied in archaic agrarian systems stil-l surviving in Turkey and are summa-rised in the form of 'cause-and-effect' models. Patterns of variation in thecomposition of remains of si.mil-ar crops recovered from archaelogical sites arefound to closely resembfe those presented in the models. The use of these modelsto interpret the composj.tion of individual samples of remains of crops in termsof ancient agrarian practice is straightforward. However, when large numbers ofsamples are involved, a series of analytical steps is necessary. Each of thesesteps is expJ.ained in turn using examples frorn a large assernblage of crop remainsfrom an excavation in North Wales.

Rational-e

About thirty distinct operations areinvo1ved in growing a crop and convert-ing it to food for buman consumption.Recent ethnographic studies of archaicagrarian systems surviving in thepresent-day indicate that each ofthese operations has a measurabl-eeffect on the composition of each ofthe major crop products and by-products.Tbe composition of these crop productsthus embodies information on the waythe crop was managed in the field andprocessed back in the settlement.

Sampl-es of charred remains of cropsfrom archaeological sites commonly ex-hibit a composition closely similar tothat observed in one or other ofthese present-day crop products. Byreference to modern equivalents, there-fore, archaeoJ-ogical samples can pro-vide valuable clues to the husbandrypractices of prehistory (Dennell 1974;Hilfman, 1973, 19Bl; Jones l9B1). Andif archaelogical samples of this sorthave been taken from each habitationfeature, it is possible to study thehorizontal distribution of the variouscrop processing activities representedby the different sampl-es and, in somecases, to identify the past function ofthe excavated structures.

6th Symposium Palaeoethnobotanv / Groningen / 1 983 1

mhi -

.++6mh|c f i rcf 'l r, +^lrrln PoIJgr qLLErlrPur !ll-Lrjsumrnarise some ethnographic models ofarchaic agrarian practice in present-day Turkey. It secondly outlines theanalytical steps by which the majorclasses of crop product (as identifiedfrom the ethnographic models) can berecognized in complex qssemblages ofcharred rernains from archaeologicalsites. The paper thus explores one ofthe methods by which the modern modelcan be used to identify evidence ofspecific agrarian practices in archaeo-logical remains.

Alternative (non-ethnographic) methodsof interpretation

It must briefly be ltressed tfrat, inworking from explicitly defined ethno-graphic models, tbe interpretive methodoutl-ined bere and in the parallel paperby Glynis Jones is fundamentally dif-ferent from thab explored by RobinDennel-l- (1972, 1974, 1976). InDennell's approach, variations in thecomposition

-

of plant remains wereinterpreted principally by reference toassurned pddt functions of the sitecontexts with wbich the remains wereassociated, and, in certain cases, bycomparison with grain size distribu-

Zwo of theaP6taLedspikeleEs

ls seg6ent!ach

,'(44' (i)../),,,",^"v 'z " V/ b/ "spiterer \M

-

f.,

.:," --:Ez-"'- V {z sr*. a^,".

part of ear showlng

FruE-THRESIIING llHilT e.q. aREAD WHEATwhen Ehreshcd ille ear imediately breaks up 6-ROWED, HUf,IED ilRlEY

lnto: -

l| lroo one

/ rachls node

rachls segs.

tions generated in laboratory sievingexperiments. Thus, in working directlyfrom the ancient remains themselves,Dennell approached interpretation fromprecisely the opposite direction to theethnographic approach outfined belowand in the following paper by clynisJones. It should similarly be stressed,therefore, that his subsequent recon-structions of archaic Arain-processingsequences (eg. in Dennell- I976) owedmuch to speculation (as he himself hascl-r6cc6/l\ :nA ralr|-irralrr 'lilFl6 F^e thnograph ic observation.

1 ETHNOGRAPHIC MODELS FROM TURKEYOnIy a brief outline of the availablemodefs from Turkey will be offeredhere, as they have already been pub-Iished eJsewhere (in HilIman, 1981 andforthcoming a. )

I.1 Field nethodsThe first step in assembling the ethno-graphic models was to focate villagesin remote, generally mountainous areasof Turkey where archaic forms of indi-genous crops were still grohrn bypeopLes whose agrarian technology owednothing to the 2oth century andappeared, indeed, to have remainedunchanged from technologies availablei.n the same areas three or morethousand years ago. My studies ofarchaic agriculture began, in fact, inthe village of Agvan in EasternAnatol-ia in 1969 as part of the rAFvanPr:oject' of the British Institute- ofArchaeol-ogy at Ankara (see French etal-. , 1973) .

Having established contact with thealways very hospitable villages, thefirst step was to list the crops grownand to collect infornation on the fullrange of systens of crop managementapplied in the area. For each of thecrops under cultivation the procedurewas then as follows:

a) Detailed records were made of thefull sequence of husbandry andprocessing methods applied to each ofthe crops gro$rn. Details of the looltypes used were also recorded. .r': ':b) SampLes of ca. 2 kg. were takenfrom every crop product and by-productj.n every processing sequence - fromthreshing onwards. Ho$rever, sampl-ingwas never straightforward: samples had

to be collected as and when the rele-vant operations were being undertakenin the various households of the vil-lage or on tbe various threshing yardsaround the village. In villages whereonly brief visits were possible, san-pling was inevitably very 'piecemeal',c) Together with each sample, it was

necessary to record details of (i) howthat particular crop had been manageoin the field (e9. frequency of irriga-tion, whether weeded, cutting height,etc.), (ii) what processes it had beenthrough prior to the point at which thesample was collected, (iii) the classesof village context in which eachprocessing stage occurred and in whichthe crop product (or by-product) wasstored, fed to animafs, burned, ortossed straight onto a midden.

d) The samples were next sorted andthe components identified. Tbisallowed the composition of each productto then be classified (i) in terms ofthe relative abundance of each speciesof weed seed and class of chaff/strawresidue, (ii) in terms of any majordifferences in the frequency distribu-tions of grain and weed seed sizes.

e) Data from samples representing theequivalent products of the same cropwere then compared, as hrere data fromsamples representing different stagesof processing and different systems ofhusbandry in the field. In this way itlras possible to identify t+re nostobvious of the effects of each of thedifferent operations (or systems offield management) on the composition ofthe major crop products and by-products.

I.2 The resultsIn the course of this work, it quicklybecame clear that the major operationshad clearly discernible and consistenteffects on the composition of cropproducts. These effects are summarised- albeit only in qualitative terms - infigs. 2 &4 (free-threshing cereals)and 3 & 4 (91ume wheats). (FiS. 4outlines the later stages of grainprocessing which are the same for bothglume wbeats and free-threshing cereals.Fig. 4 therefore represents the conti-nuation of both figs. 2 and 3). Inthese flow diagrams, the numbered stepsin the left-hand column represent theprincipal stages of crop processing.Entries in the right-hand column listthe principal components of the major

'.'

.F 6fk^ r4f4-41 at *ihdat)aff froE lachis of ear)

-

buii oi hdanaaed stEaw;-;,;-.;;;;;;-; -----+i srF.N slpRE | ;;;il;;":i::+ @arsF reeds

.- cdrser stEae rraos-_

_f;;cs-!;;i:-iffiF-l ioE fuer, iodde!+ sone racEses and arrs L--_- v_ r'Jrv'* Ied coalse te@pe!+ coarse veeds

'p'rnur."."" Ehose points ar vhrchr. nARvEsrINGr a, t . ; .- ,' I n-a** *3 **'.9 ro fale sd

! . . , I Ehence ro Ehe possiblliry oftv rapw bv @@Linci I e'eservatron by charringlleals+sarae+reeds edrs+strae+culrEses+reeds I El = rebiredinsieve

.---2. DRYING - rn Ehe fieLd, tn bdne o! ,!aEeI7)rn ovens/kirns (F)

'..,r' ,.ri o,.r"

heads and seeds -/

',. t'^'. -o.s-ej) 5. I{TNNOWTNGS. (x2 _ x4) )/a5. WINNOWfNGS (x2 - x4) ,/'Y sv er ftikke -

--f------ tiehc ctutr + Etu tonser /{chaEr) F

", :::il,',:;3 :";:,""::::.:::--* '"::1"::ZZ';": reh.s!+lEaF-d*F'"o-ffl iii i!ii:.'"...'

tu|k-Eipa sratn '. I * mre .acEses'+ noscttBlf rcascedt \, I avn fraqs.|rukrsh 'frlrg'i, -6. tst SteVItlC - wich nediu-coarse rj.ddle

+ F- (ro leEove conldnanls coarser Ehan 9ra1n){rmediare I

-

consuption) gratn r occastona), racbs tragsJ R-sc EeDininq sLraw nodesinc r|jn trass:,' yeed seeds |sl .,_,,:11-y.1:_l\:?..::.!::r6n'cs-sroRE il :::"::.t -" FI rt -fragrents(Eng.tcavings')l'it

?. 2no srEvrNG -

wlth ,wheat sleve,

I sy er ftikk. light cbtf + ttu longer'.

grara r EaW sE aH nodes + sona

f- ,.. r"r.". ".ntulnanrs rrner rhan plrne glain)I ----

ptire grain + reed seeds of "u* --.+

tell gftin + rcst veeat ror di@Ist as $!re gtain + Eate tacds I rseeds snalter thn plioe-lrc,EAN!'lcsr SE II | (esp6c. fowlst,ttawnts' LZl li grain + rcfr . snatl atso fdine f@d

| .achis segnents s aun frags. for h@s, FI or burned I

8. KILN-DRyING - in ueE areae - to avoid

"p"irae. (p)(soEeiEles applied earlier in sequence, qg, p!io! rohwelrng of balleyt)

(STEP 9 ON$IARDS -

pr.para!1on of graln ploducls for food: exacEly as pe! sEeps Il - 26

l'To rblt se cooplexrEy or lhe d!49!dr sepalale haryesting of ears and sEra{ and rts effecEs on cooposrtron have not beentnco4oraled, though rhey are dtscussed h the texE. 2. The heaw, basatr rachis se@ents qre disproportronaccry Herr lepresenredrn lhe P.ioary Ploducts (relarrve to de rlghrer.upp.r -*p.^rs). 3. hny of rhe rrghEer, upp....9.n., o! broken lachisesale urnnoved our Hilh rhe frne cnaff. 4. These Evo sels of creil1nga are ofren eargeated (see EexEr.a Fenton 1978; Granc r96L

. 5' rf Plhe ploducls are slored in pics, chen amual clearslnq of chese prcs by !!rin' Hiu charcny grain adeling Eo che srdes (see aeynolds in lhllvolwe). 7..The sequence fo! balley (and oaEsl drlfers sllghtty _ in thenulled loms - in thaE an erLla s

rone plror Eo siep 5. rcep (HUffiLTNG) rs(aPPried to remve the reaainhg, basal palt of lheir awns. This rs gener.lry

Fiq. 2 .ir'e sequeEc. c: c!s.rrrons apprrd Eo pulsc clops

- e.9. horse-beans, fietd-peas or veEcns - rs rdenricar tn

-J5: lesPccts' crc-l:i Lhe srve Eesh srzes a! differen! and lhe reninology ro..nirr rrrclrons rs nor sElrc.lycomgarabre)

.

(reproducd frm RiIIM LgBl)

I. HARVESTINGItv lephq bv @@!ing

tlears + strp + Heeds ears + straH + culh Eses r ,eeds

--:y----'2. !3ll!l tr" the field, in barns or -rarety- rn ovens/ktlns)

'l(-,t^

"/6u .@ts , @tr + dta-be aR .lR" rolbfca

ILl. 41" SIEVTNG - wi6 ft trar s-eve s scep 12

Prlne graln + qe& seedsot sae 0 as prine qraln

II

I14. HAND SORTINGsane at leEthlng heavg chatt fra9s. e.g.f!lther olwe bses lall Dassed .hraLoh s)pwp)qtwe Eses (a11 passed chtauqh s)eve)t-

Lrr* "^t^

eeeds or s&e I as prtne qra'n + Fanq of che

4 coarse ltbuqh l)qhE) concenants b.oash. IEo surtae bs aqiaacron (E^s.:'984t ) iSheEl3ni: 'fdd' o! 'aloss'r )

scooFd olt surl.cet- tn vlnnortng Esret. (lipped over edge. F

b. trrthe. sadfl ueed seeds, .- -

t,atn .

leEtn\Dg lraqs. ot tuavg chati le.s. splkelec j

I Ll.4\rNs JrvE l!9s2 l

cJeil ptine qEain

I

16. WINNOHINC oT 17. OUNXINGI

(htMeled q'a)n ||ith f.eshlg dorstened husls/I5. DE- ING OF BU NS (i e. hulLed foFs of baltey sd oats o'ly)

- rrEh loosely-ser lolary querns, saddle & .rough qlelns,rheel 'sclaper-quelns' (Nlkrsh 'seten')' at by poundlnq rn large w@den(e-q. Ehe SheEland'knockrng scone ; Ttrrkish'dtrek';

cernan '41ac*s.anpf' , eEc- )

-

ROAST

F -

u* *'* ,-* (see rles,z s 3 )(b sepa!.te the freed huEks by Hind or floatatlon lespecuvely) ,f FN @,ff Srctr{- ,/-,---lubbd ttillied) qralh

-

h,'*' (ktua-s + paJ-ea')///- , _ - i!"_a5r_ _a_qr_;

!ubbd ltil!ied) qra!hI p!a.J' brleq, etc., sone am ftaqentsP!a.J Drle9, etc.)tXnockic' 6n L )

! f ddfI

_ cROATS PMPASTION

frB. curu norl:nc+

19. GUIN DRYINCt

20. BN relOVI - sen. stth'scrlpe!-querns'I t"r soDetihes by Fundins)I - see srep. 15.Y

?errca!ps 21. wINNOWING- (:o separaEe DlanJ| --'\

pee rco qralh -t\ r,.t --

6-=;:flI

23 . GRIN CUCKING

N & TOASTED GROATS ProPAMTION

24. GMIN RoASTING (on hot stone or @eEar - ilP,f+-6;)I -'\\ trtadsLed gratns --- r*brrneo grarns

\ tscots 'ornrsEels' r) -,o) or""", plcked ou! and discalded

(e.g. as Ehe Tulkrsh 'lavu.nag'or che A!$rc

'9a!i9e' )

'by ioose que!nrr,g or Dy poJndrnq -qcn. vith

-....1.''.'.-......r.^.lnlt

21. SIFTING - e!!h 'gloars sieve+ --\

rracxed griln \crusaea grain, ,

ttto!.-t,ee)A (ttouEevt =

'9agla'soup(r ;*1 llur.) or drled (as !.ud balls for saklnq

-

7 ALOUR-MIILING SUQUENcE (j SIFTING) - see Fencon I9?B; Horllz 1957.-

(*- r-.* ia !i+ .) ,/ \lffil r:o"r (+ bEil)-

-

-

-lmmrul

-

28. WTING SEQUENCE - fo! soBe of rhe tladitronal segurces, see Fenlon 19r8; salzoan 1921.

r

PINAL 5TA

jiEe_li4ql__aijlglae_9ssen!1allv the same for both qlme whears 3nd free-thresh,ri9 cereais,irouoh thev C[ifer ln hulled oralqE ][Lu]l.pd lerleE alE qjtt-q)E lns ?heact

rve ani Lhe .qaked

Fig.4.

lrro HillIH l98l)

by-products. The entries inserted bet-ween the numbered processing stages(left hand column) l-ist the principalcomponents of the prime products.l"lost of these prine products are tran-sitory: they are quickly fed into thenext stage of processing. As a result,the majority of them are unlikely to bepreserved on archaeo]ogical sites andare of only limited archaelogical rele-vance. Items in boxes are storage pro-ducts.

It should perhaps be added that thesemodels - one for glume wheats (figs.3 a4); one for free-threshing cereals andpulses (figs. 2 & 4) - i^,ere distitledfrom a coflection of different flowdiagrams, each of which summarisedseparately the pattern of changes inproduct conposition which occurred

-

a) in different geographic areas(principally 2 types: vret- and dry-sunmer areas);

b) with different methods ofharvesting

- uprooting

- reaping ears onl-y

- reaping ears and strawtogether - etc.,(each of these harvesting nethods canresult in certain extra components suchas culm bases being present or absentin certain products);

c) when sheaf burning hras used toeliminate al1 the early processing

rigures 2, 3 and 4 therefore repre-sent an attenpt to summarise all thesedifferent sequences in just 2 flowdiagrams. It is for this reason thatthey appear somewhat cluttered. (Theoriginals from whicb they were sumna-rised are inevitably less complex).

1.3 RepeatabilityFor any one crop and any one processingsequence type, there vJas remarkableconsistency in the composition of theproducts and by-products produced atany one stage of processing. This wastrue not only when conparing productsfrom different households in the sameviIlage, but also when comparing pro-ducts from different villages. Thisapparent consistency is now made evenmore convincing tbrough Glynis Joneslethnographic studies in the Aegean(cl-ynis Jones, 1981 and this vo1.): herresul-ts reveal closely sinilar patternsof variation in product composition andindicate just the same patterns of

cause and effect. It must neverthelessbe stressed tbat there is some flexibi-lity in the points in the processingsequence at which certain operations(e.9. extra rounds of sieving) arecarried out. These differences seem tobe related principally to the stage atwhich the grain or spikelets are putinto bulk storage (see below).

I.4 LIMITS OF GEOGRAPHICAI RELEVANCE OFMODELS

There are, alas, no ethnographic stu-dies of primitive agriculture in N or WEurope which have analysed the relation-ship between observed agrarian activi-ties on the one hand and composition ofproducts on the other. Is it feasible,therefore, to use these ethnographicmodel-s from Turkey and Greece to inter-pret crop remains from central or nor-thern European sites in terms of pastagrarian practice?

a) Crop-type differences between mod-ern Turkey and ancient Europe?Al-most all- the najor cereals and pulsecrops grown in Europe in the recent ordistant past are still to be foundunder cultivation in the Near East,especially in eastern Turkey. For thepurpose of the ethnograpbic studiesoutlined here, particular attention wasgiven to the cultivation and processingof Emmer (T.dicoccum) because it wasthe glume wheat that dominated mucb ofEurope and S.W. Asia for several mille-nnia. However, free-threshing cerealsand pulses were more widely cultivatedthan Eruner; there was, for exanple, noEmmer in the Agvan area. The resultsfor free-threshing crops are consequen-tly more complete than they are forErnmer for which the results must stillbe regarded as somewhat provisional,despite the passage of l0 years sincetheir collection. (Further vrork onTurkish Emmer cuftivators is now inhand).

b) Weed flora differences betweenTurkey and Europe?A more obvious objection is that theweed floras of Turkey are differentfrom (and certainly richer in speciesthan) those of northern Europe. In themodels outfined here and by GlynisJones (this voI. ) , this problem hasbeen pre-empted: as indicated in Hillrnan(198I

- figs. 5, 6 & 7) the different

crop products and by-products are not

distinguished on the basis of particu-1ar weed species being present or ab-sent, but purely on the sizes anddensities of the weed seeds present andthe height of the weeds when growing inthe fiel-d. The actual species repre-sented in each size or height class islargely irrelevant, therefore.

c) Differences in agrarian technologyDespite their never having recordedthe composition of crop products, ethno-agricultural studies in Europe do offera wealth of information on traditionalagrarian practices and tool assemblagesin recent tines. (Exanples includeIvlaurizio (L9271 , Leser (1931), and aweal-th of articles in journals such asTools and Tillage, Agartorteneti Szemle(Hungary) , and Beal-oideas: Journal ofFolklore of Ireland Society). Fromthese and other accounts, it is clearthat the techniques applied in recenttimes in central and northern Europe tothe cultivation and processing of anyone crop species differed remarkably1ittle in principle from the techniquesused today in parts of Turkey. Thereason for this uniformity is simpleenough: in the absence of modern tech-nology there are very few ways of doingany one of the jobs involved in growingand processing any particular crop.For example, to de-husk grains of hul--Ied barley, most of the recorded groupsfrom the ShetLands to the Khyber Passseem to use some form of pestif andmortar. (For the Shetlands exarnple,see Fenton, 1978). Adnittedly, occa-sional Anatolian households use eithera widely-set rotary quern or even aheavy 'seten' for the same job, butthis practi-ce seems unconmon. Effect-ive alternatives are clearly rare.Striking differences do, neverthelessexist in threshing methods, in theimplements used for winnowing, and inthe size and shape of pestils and mor-tars used for dehusking grain or break-ing-up spikelets. (Details are givenin Hillman, forthcoming a ). Thresh-ing, for exanple, is effected by usinganything from small beaters and flailsto threshing sledges and trampling ofhooves. These differences appear to bebroadly correlated with the wetness ofsummer: in dry areas, all- the dustyjobs such as threshing, wi-nnowing andpounding can be done on a large scal-e(often communally) out-of-doors; in awet area they cannot, though cul-tural

intrusion can clearly create anomol-ieshere. For tbe purpose of gatheringinformation for these models, a conspi-cuous advantage of working in Turkeywas that one of its major areas ofEmmer cultivation in which agrariantechnology retains its archaic form alsohas hret surilners. This area enbracesthe eastern end of the Pontus Mountainsoverlooking the Black Sea where annualrainfall exceeds 75Omm. Within Turkey,therefore, it was possble to study bothwet- and dry-summer adaptations of tra-ditional- crop busbandry.

Hor.vever, the dif f erent processingmethods of wet and dry areas have onlyminimal effects on the composition ofnrndrrcfs- This IaSt faCt is bOth anadvantage and disadvantage: it allowsthe one model- to be used in both wetand dry areas, but it generally prec-ludes the possibility of differences incomposition being used to identifywhether it was the dry-type or the wet-type system that was used.

The one major difference in proces-sing sequences that seems to distin-guish areas v{ith wet and dry summers(within Turkey, at l-east) is the pointin the sequence at which the grain ofglume wheats is put into bulk storage:in dry areas, the Emmer is threshed,winnowed, pounded (i.e. dehusked), re-winnowedf and the freed grain partiallycleaned - all in bu1k, out-of-doorsduring the summer. It is therefore thepartially cleaned grain vlhich is putinto bulk storage. In areas with wetsummers, however, tbe crop is processedin bulk only up to the stage of spike-let cleaning, and it is the spikeletswhich are put into storage (see fig.3).Indeed, in some households most of thecrop is bulk-stored as sheaves as, forexample, in parts of Scandinavia. A11the remaining steps of processing arethen completed on a smal-l scale, day-by-day, as and when grain is needed toprepare food for immediate consumption.

Despite these differences, the over-all sequences of operations applied inboth wet and dry areas is basically thesame, and the compositon of the cropproducts in either area also appear tobe no different. The principal con-trast between grain processing in wetand dry areas is therefore to be foundin the contents of grain stores and inthe tools, which are sornetines of quitediffprent fvnc (:s i.n the case of thre-shing equipnent) or much smafl-er insize (as in the case of the pestils and

mortars used for pounding and dehusk-ing).

Thus, v/henever charred remains ofgrain stores are recovered, it is imme-diately possible to identify which ofthe grain storage patterns was in use,and this, in turn could perhaps suggestwhich of, sdyr the threshing tool- trad-itions might have been represented.Far from limiting the application ofthe mode1, therefore, these differencesin storage practice inprove its resolu-tion. (Archaeological examples aboundFnr hrrlk qf^ra^6 nF hnl-h nr:in :ndspikelets and will not be listed here).

However, it must be stressed that thepattern of storage practices of vret-and dry-summer areas is distorted by atleast two factors:(i) the first factor is cultural intru-sion. It seems probable that at leastsone farmers migrating fron wet areasinto dry areas temporariJ-y retainedtheir former, indoor-adapted processingnr^.Fi^ac

^h^ra^l-6r'i ca/l hrr fh6 hrr'l lz-storage of spikelets. Examination ofthe grain stores of sites representingsoutherly penetrations of, sdy, earlyIndo-Europeans into the Mediterraneanzone night therefore al-fo\d a crudemeasure of either conservatism or flex-ibility in prebistoric agrarian techno-rogy.(ii) There is a second factor. Thedevelopment of large farm buildingssuch as barns would have alfowed bul-k-processing of crops to be undertakenindoors. In even the wettest areas ofoceanic Europe, therefore, the rise ofmanorial- farming under Roman rule pres-umably allowed glurne wheats from themanorial lands to be bulk-processed'indnarq rich|- rrn f^ l.ho cfada aF! uqYvgrain-dehusking and cleaning, ready forbulk storage and trade.

Nevertheless, it seems unlikely thatthis novel system of bulk-processingwould have been easily imposed on nativefarmers lacking large buildings. Theagrarian technology of native farm-steads and Roman manors may, therefore,have differed dranatically, especiallyin the processing of glume wheats.This hypothesis tvi1l, however, remainuntestabl-e until excavators start sho\,r-ing more interest in recovering cropremains from native farmsteads of theRoman period. Hitherto, most have pre-ferred to unearth yet more garrisonsand manors and let the life style ofthe population's najority remain amatter for conjecture.

1.5 LIMITS OF TEMPORAL RELEVANCE OFMODELS

Ethnographic evidence presented in thisvolume by David Harris suggests thatseveral of the operations involved inharvesting and processing grain cropsare not unique to agrarian societies:they were (and in some cases, stillare) an integral part of the technologyof non-agrarian societies in areaswhere borrowings from intrusive agrari-an groups appear improbable. It there-fore seems reasonabLe to suppose thatsuch techniques were incorporated intoagrarian practice fron its inception.

In principle, tberefore, it seemsthat certain components of our modelscan contribute to the interpretation ofplant remains from even the earliestagrarian sites. Whether the same couldbe claimed for the conpfete crop proce-ssing sequences is open to question: soFer T hFiro norqnnallrz fall_ ralrr.fanf!g! tto advocate the use of our models onsites earlier than the Iate ceramicNeolithic. Such reservations may be un-founded: not only are there few effic-ient v,ays of effecting any one stage ofprocessng, but there are few possibili-ties of altering the sequence of theseoperations: for example, you cannotsieve before you winnow, because thelight chaff and straw woul-d immediatelyclog the sieves.

Arguments for continuity of agrariantechnology during the past few millen-nia are further supported by tbe everincreasing number of samples of plantremains whose composition has proved tobe rernarkably similar to that ofpresent-day products of the sane crops.A recent example comes from 3rd centuryAD Wilderspoof in England (Hillman, inpress). Here, a huge cache of charredchaff of glume wheats (mainly spelt)exhibited ratios between the majorcomponents which were precisely thesame as those found today in the rvrastefraction from the fine-sieving of de-husked grain of glume wheats indicatedin stage 12 of the flow diagram

- fig.3. (The major components includedspikelet forks and glume bases, rachisinternodes, tail grains, prime grain,smal-l weed seeds, and awn fragments).Composition of this type is entirelydifferent from that of any other cropproduct or by-product found in thepresent-day, and the implication mustbe that the spelt crop at Wilderspoolwas harvested and processed by methodsclosely similar to those outlined in

characteristic cotrlPonents

TABB f. COMPOSITION OF THOSE CROP PIIODTJCI'S I'IKELY TO

SURVIVg IN CHARRED RDMAINS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL S]TES_ GLUM WHEA'],S oNl,Y

o

q

-F

P{+i-E-!63 i-!q oboH

fr!:Xa D

oq qi g8i q.c

t

7o

E-t

;nb

d

- = very lare

)O( = s(re)m( = lotsItN in brackets 'l l' = Present onlY

if croP was lEruested bY uPr@ti'ng'smll scircled crosses '@) ' = its

-

released only as a result of fragrenbtion of otler itre (such as uholespikelets) n!!gl the latter fEve beencharred '

the slrnbot r=' = 'tie eguivalst (of )"I = 'srmof ..''

(t ?,i\':

2

8.9a

!Io

;p

6opFo

:lBg.e

q!

ER

Tb

I2q

a

o

E

\

the glume wheat model in fig.3.Remains of agrarian tools from sites

such as Neolithic Egolzwil in Switzer-land tell a similar story (see Wyss,1969, I97I). Here the beautifully pre-served array of implements include mostof those needed to effect the majorsteps of processing as practised todayand outlind in figs-3 and 4. Even agrain sieve appears to be represented(see photograph of item

- catalogue

No.44416 -

described as a 'Tasche' inWyss 197I). The one tool which seemsto be nissing is a winnowing fork orshovel: perhaps they used baskets orfans instead, though it should be not-ed that sieves, too, can serve as tbas-ketsr for small scale winnowing (Hi11-man, fortbcoming a). Such a suite ofperfectly preserved processing toolsare, of course, unique in the EuropeanNeofithic. However, their rarity inremains recovered fron Neolithic wet-land sites where wood can theoreticallybe preserved by waterlogging is clearlynot evidence that sucb tools were rare-1y used at that time- After all, woodentilling implements are equalfy rare,and yet they, too, must have been ingeneral use.

An interesting exception to temporalcontinuity in grain storage systems isprovided by the charred grain fromAssiros Toumba and Iofkos reported byGlynis Jones (198I, 1982 and forth-coming). Her work reveaLs that theglume wheats at these two Greek sites(where the summers were presumably dry)were bulk-stored as spikelets. Thisis the pattern that today is more typi-cal of areas with wet sununers. Atthese sites, therefore, we must con-clude either (i) that storage practiceswere of a tradition intrusive fromareas with wetter summers, or (ii) thatthis particular feature of crop proces-sing practice has changed during thepast few miflennia. Neither possibili-ty would be suprising.

2. REDUCING THE COMPLEXITY OF THEMODELS

2.1 Deletion of superfluous variablesSuperficially, the models summarised infigs. 2, 3 and 4 may seen somewhat com-plex. However, on most of those arch-aeological sites where plant materialis preserved merely as a result ofhaving been charred, only a very few ofthe crop products and by-products are

represented. For the purpose of inter-preting tbe plant remains from theaverage site, therefore, much of thedetail can be eliminated. This simpli-fication involves two steps:

a) Remove aII of those products thatare unlikely ever to be exposed to fireand thereby preserved by charring. Infigures 2, 3 and 4, the points in theprocessing sequences at v,rhich the pro-ducts are exposed to fire are indicatedby 'F'. We can therefore eliminate aIIproducts not marked with an rFr, inc-luding all the transitory prime pro-ducts which exist for only a shortperiod before being fed into the nextprocessj.ng stage.

b) Within the products that remain,we need consider only those ccrnponentswhich, when exposed to fire, are small-enough and dense enough to drop intothe ashes and be charred rather thanbeing burned to ash themselves. Onthis basis, hre can eliminate alf strawinternodes, most of the lighter strawnodes, Ieaf fragments, all- the lightchaff (i.e lemmas, pafeas, glume tops,the lighter rachis segment.s and most ofthe awns) together with most of theIighter weed seeds. The sort of $reedseeds eliminated in the course of burn-ing are those from genera such as FiIa-9a, Sa1ix, Calamagrostis and Imperatawhich, because of their attachment to afeathery pappus (Filago) or to floretswith rachil-la hairs (Imperata) , areunlikely to be able to drop into theashes but instead renain high in thefire and get burnt away. However suchseeds rarely get onto a fire anyhow.(Note: Among the chaff fractions whichcorunonly survive [generally as compo-nents of coarse or fine cleanings] aredense segments of oat ar^rn and the densebasal parts of the rachises of barleyand naked wheats).

The two sets of eliminations (a and babove) now leave us with a maxinun ofeight products which we are likely toencounter on archaeological sites. TheeJ-ininations have also greatly reducedthe range of components in each pro-duct. This reduced range of productsand their characteristic components aretabulated in table l. Of the eightproducts listed, the first two (sheavesand straw waste respectively) are rare-ly represented on the average site.The same is true of rcleanings fromhand-sortingr (the 6th product listedin table I), The range of charredproducts like1y to be encountered onmost sites is therefore verv restricted.

11

2.2 Problem ofcharred rernains

fragmentation of

Tab1e I is complicated by the fact thatcertain items such as charred spikeletsand weed-heads break into fragments,and in doing so they generate new com-ponents. Spikelets, for example, canbreak up to give six different cl-assesof component. (In table I these 'secon-dary components' are represented bysmaller crosses

-

txxxr ) . But even inmixed samples, recognition of these'secondary components' is generally noproblem: firstly, barring the effectsof differential preservation, ratiosbetween the numbers of each of the moredurable classes of component producedby the fragmentation of spikelets arecl-oseIy similar to the equivalent ratiosin intact spikelets and readily recog-nised as such. Secondly, seeds andother components fiberated by the frag-mentation of weed heads (capitulae ofDipsacaceae and Conpositae, capsules ofPapaveraceae, Caryophyllaceae and Prim-ulaceae, etc.) are often recognizablefrom their state of immaturity (seefootnote 4 of table l).

Barring these minor complications, itis hopefully clear from table 1 thata) there are relatively few crop pro-ducts that are likely to be found onarcheological- sites in charred form,b) the principal components of eachproduct are sufficiently different(both in type and in their relativeabundance) for charred renains of thedifferent products to be readily distin-guished.

3. THE PRODUCTS OF TABLE 1 MOSTCOMMONLY ENCOUNTERED ON ARCHAEOLOGICALSITES

On most of the small 'primary-producer'(e.9. farmstead) sites in Britain thathave been examined so far, the productsmost commonly preserved by charring arethe 'fine sievings' from stages 12 and13. These may or may not incfude aminor admixture of some coarse sievingsfrom stage Il. As indicated in fig. 3,these two by-products are today quiteoften amalgamated in a common 'clean-ings' store, though the decision toamalgamate depends on the eventual usesanticipated for eitber by-product; e.g.

if the 'fine cleaningsr with their tailgrains and weed seeds are likely to beneeded as famine food, then coarser'cleanings' would not be added, If, onthe other hand, the cleanings are forfeeding fowl or for burning, the twoby-products will often be analgamated.In addition to these cleanings, recentexcavations at small primary-producersites have afso produced occasionalcaches of prime grain.

However, it is on larger siteswhether 'manorial-' farming sites or'consumer' sites - that it is moreconunon to find charred remains of primeproducts in quantity, whether in theform of grain or spikelets. In manycases, entire grain or spikelet storeshave been charred in the course ofwholesale destruction of the entiresite. Examples are too numerous to

In other cases, cbarring of primeproducts (grain or spikelets) seems tohave occurred as a resul-t of accidentsduring large-scale parching of spike-Iets prior to pounding or drying ofmalt (gerninated grain or spikelets)intended for alcoholic fermentation. Arecent example of malted products camefrom the Roman manorial- site of Cats-gore in Somerset (England). Here 4 outof 5 large 'drying kilns' producedrenains of spelt which appeared torepresent deLiberately sprouted (i"e.mal-ted) spikelets that had been accidenta-Ily overheated in the course of drying(Hiflman, L9B2a). Samples of charredrenains that may again represent maltedproducts have also been reported fromthe post-Roman site of Poundbury inEngland by Monk (f983). Agaj.n, itseems to be the larger sites with non-domestic modes of production where suchaccidents occurred most often. Samplessinilar to those from Catsgore andPoundbury have doubtless been pubLishedfrom a number of sites in continentalEurope of which I am at present ignor-:ni. .Fhi c nrnar d^6c n^+ n] :cc i Frr

^rvrqJJ r !fdiscuss nalted products separately frombufk-stored spikelets and grain, asthe difference lies merely in thegrains being deliberatefy (and thereforerelatively evenly and extensively) ger-minated. In any case, criteria fordistinguishing between malt and othergrain products are discussed in somedetail elsewhere (in Hillman, 19B2 a).

12

3.1 Waterlogged sitesIn stark contrast to everything so farsuggested in this section, there is oneclass of site on which models forinferpreting plant remains in terms ofagrarian practice cannot be simplifiedas described under 2.f above. Theseare habitation sites such as FeddersenWierde where plant remains are preser-ved in bulk as a result of large-scalewaterlogging of habitation deposits.The daunting task that the analysis ofsuch assemblages represents is bestappreciated from reading the remarkableaccount of the plant remains from Fed-dersen Wierde presented by Prof.K6rber-Grohne (1967). On such sites, any andevery one of the products and by-pro-ducts listed in figs. 2, 3 and 4 cantheoretically be preserved in quantityby waterlogging. On sites of thistype, therefore, the narrow range ofproducts summarised in table I isentirely inadequate, and the modelssummarised in figs. 2, 3 and 4 mustrpgrettably be used as they stand.

Waterlogged people

The gut contents of Toflund man andGrauballe man studied by HeJ-baek (1950'1951, 1958) are a class of non-charredplant remains worthy of a supplementarynote of their own.

The use of 'fine cleanings' as faminefood was mentioned above (in sect.3 ).(The 'fine cleaningsr referred to hereare those from stages l-2 and 13 offigs. 3 and 4). In the author's view,the compositon of the contents of bothsets of guts (Tollund & Grauballe)accord closely with the composition of'fine cleanings' enriched with a Iittleextra prime grain. As a typical formulafor famine food, such fare would,perhaps, not have been deemed inapprop-riate for condemrred prisoners

- if that

is what the two men were. Argumentsfor this interpretation are offered inHiIlman 1981, 156-8.

4. PROBLEMS OF ON-SITE MIXING OF CROPPRODUCTS

The limitations that on-site mixing ofcrop products could impose on the inter-pretation of plant remains vras firstdiscussed in detail- by Richard Hubbard(L976a, 1976b). Certainly, mixing ofcrop remains can be expected to have

occurred when, for example, the charredresidues from various minor accidentsduring spikelet-parching or grain-roast-ing were dumped on the same midden asthe ashes from the burned fuel ofhearths and ovens. It could be argued,therefore, that the onJ-y unmixed samp-les wil-f come from those 'primary'contexts where the products were init-ially charred. If this is true, then,all that can be retrieved is informa-tion on the last event in each contextprior to its final abandonment.

rn practice, however, it seems thatmixing of products from different oper-ations was not always so widespread.Indeed, it is feasible to use samplesrecovered from even tsecondary' con-texts such as middens so long as thecomposition of the remains suggestsderivation from a single class of oper-ation. At third-century AD Wilders-pool, for example, the composition ofcharred spelt remains from a very largemidden deposit matched precisely thecomposition characteristic of the hrastefraction from step 12 of the processingof present-day glume-wheats (see figure3) together with a few straw nodesrepresenting, perhaps, the waste fromstep l-I. Furthermore, the cornpositionwas precisely the same in alf samplestaken from different parts of theextensive deposits concerned (Hillman,1983 b).

Purity and uniformity of this sortwould not, perhaps, have surprised usas it did if we had considered exactlywhich crop products were likely to havebeen regularly exposed to fire in theday-to-day life of a Romano-Britishfarmstead in a r^ret climate. Indeedinspection of the ethnographic modelssummarised in figs. 2, 3 and 4 and thecharred products classification in tab-le I suggests that the only productswhich, on any one day, are 1ikely toleave charred remains in habitationdeposits are precisely these sanecleanings from stage 12 (+ 13) and, inmuch smaller quantities, the cleaningsfrom stage 11.

In wet clirnates, the dehusking (bypounding) of stored spikelets of glumewheats and the cleaning of the grain(by smafl-scale winnowing and sieving)occurs on a day-to-day basis. In suchclimates, this work is generally doneindoors, and, indoors, the most obviousplace to sweep the winnowings and dumpthe cleanings is into the fire burningin the hearth. Here, any light chaffis burned away; but surviving in the

IJ

ashes are two classes of charredremains: firstly, wood charcoal (ifwood was used as fuel) ; secondly aIIthe denser components of the cleanings- as summarised in table f (see productno.5).

In stark contrast, accidents duringparching or roasting are bound to havebeen rare relative to this daily accum-ulation of hearth ashes laced with thecharred remains of cereal cleaningsfrom steps II, 12 and 13: primary pro-ducts could scarcely have been des-troyed through carelessness very often.The risk of different crop productsbeing mixed in the same midden is fur-tber reduced in cases where the middencontents were regularly cleared out foruse as manure. In such cases the accum-ufation of charred remains is derivedfrom a reduced number of events (i.e.from a shorter period of hearth use),and the chances of their including anadmixture of the charred products of arelatively unusual accident during,say, grain roasting, are corresponding-Iy reduced. This situation seems toapply to the middens-cum-compost-heapsat the Romano-British site of CefnGraeanog II (see R,B. White et dl.,forthcoming). It is perhaps no accid-^-t Lh^-^F^-^ !L-t ; L i ^ ^--^l ^- ^CgrrLt LllCfCLUIet LIIOL !L r- SOILLPIg> ULrelatively unmixed crop remains ofprecisely the same composition as pres-ent-day 'cleanings' which are beingrecovered with such consistency fromsmalf ruraf sites such as Wilderspooland Cefn Graeanog.

On the other hand, we must expect analtogether different range of charredproducts on larger, more conplex sites,especially those with rich destructionleve1s in which aff crop products pre-sent in the settlement at the time ofdestruction could have been exposed tothe sort of smoul-dering fires typicalof collapsing burnt buildings. Byexcluding most of the oxygen, suchfires often allow even light chaff tobe preserved by charring.

In destruction sites such as these,some mixing is inevitable. Despitethis, where mixing occurs, it is gener-ally restricted to equivalent productsfrom different crops, e.9. it is notunusual to find a mixture of barleygrain and Eruner grain

- both fron bulk

srora9e.In summary, then, a) mixing of equi-

valent products from different cropsis not unusual; b) mixtures of en-tirely different classes of crop product

seems to be relatively rare, except inthe cases of deliberate amalgamationindicated in figs. 2, 3 and 4.

c) with non-segetalspecies (classes A2 - A6 below), mixingis quite usual-. Thus mixtures of hazelsbell-s (a food by-product) with remainsof, sdy, a bedding/thatching speciessucb as heather have occurred at anurnber of sites.

5. THE SORT OF QUESTIONS ANSWERABLE BYUSE OF PLANT REMAINS INTERPRETED VIAETHNOGRAPHIC I'IODELS

Before consider ing how a large andcomplex body of data from an assemblageof nl Anf rema i ns 66n be related toethnographic models, it is appropriate+^ hrioFlrr nnnciiar l-ho cnri nF drr6c-tions which can be answered. However,they have been discussed in detailelsewhere, and littfe more than a bib-J-iography of examples is offered here.

5.I Was the site a 'primary producer'(i.e. farming) settlement or strictly atconsumer' settlement?Features of composition which can beused to distinguish between remainsfrom 'primary producers' and, sd!r apastoralist'grain-consumer' are discu-ccad in Hi'l'lm:n 1lQQI :nd l-n: Ia

numerous. They include the follwing:lluurman (L979') , Colledge (forthcorning) ,I)enne11, (1972, )-974, I97'l , 1978);Hillman (1972, 1973, I9B1 pp.I27 & 143-4); Hubbard (1975, I916a, I976b, 1980);Knbrzer (L981); G. Jones (1981, 1982,forthcoming); G. Jones and Rowley-Conhry(in press). The mechanics of this formof analysis are also discussed below.

5.3 Did they till their land with ardsor with moufdboard-ploughs?Discussed in Hillrnan 1981 (145-6) ,1982. Cfearfy, this question is rele-vant only to sites post-dating thedevelopment of the moufdboard plough.

5.4 Did they sow their crops in autumnor spring?Discussed by M. Jones (1981) and ingreater detail in M. Jones (in prepara-tion) ; also Reynolds (1981 a & b \ i and,HiIIman (1981) .

5.5 Did they irrigate any of theircrops?- Crop types as(1969, t_972r' . indicators: Helbaek- Weed floras as indicators: Charles,(forthcoming); HilIman and CoIledge (inprep). + Several studies of presentdayphytoecology.

Note: These last three questions (5.3,5.4 and 5.5) are addressed archaeo-botanlcally not by reference to ethno-graphic models but rather by referenceto modefs for the ecological behaviourof key weed species (or species assem-blages). They are given mention inthis discussion of ethnographic modelsonly because anal-yses which aim toidentify specific aroups of weeds canbe built into the sort of analyticalsequences outined below, if only as anextension of the 'D' classificationsystem. Glynis Jones is aLso in theprocess of devising novel analyticalsystems specifically for extractingfrom weed remains information on pastedaphic environments (G. Jones, thisvol. ) .

5.6 Did they rogue (hreed) their crops?See Reynolds 1981, 1982; Hillman 1981.

5.7 Harvesting methods?Discussed in van Zeist and Bottema(1971 pp. 537-538); Reynolds (1981,I9B2); Kndrzer (1967) and Hillman (1981pp.148-153)

5.8 Crop processing: threshing, winno-wing, parchingl dehusking, sieving andhand-cleaning.The effects of each of these operationson the composition of crop productswere discused by Hillman (198I) and arediscussed in quantitatively definedterms by Glynis Jones in this volume.Results of laboratory experiments withsieving hrere presented by Robin Dennell(I972). Effects of coarse sievingdetected in charred plant renains fromTeIl Medhur are discussed by RichardHubbard (forthcoming). A number ofthese operations and their productshave also been classified in accessible.tabular form by Kndrzer (1981).

6 APPLYING THE MODELS TO ARCHAEOLO-GICAL REMAINS

we have our site; werve recovered adozen (perhaps hundreds) of sampLes ofplant remains; sample by sample wervesorted them and identified them to a'point of diminishing returns' fixed,inturn, by reference to questions posed,perhaps, at the outset of excavation.How, now, do we relate the (often)thousands of identifications and scoresto the models outlined above?

With smal1 assemblages of up to, say,ten samples, any simifarities in compo-sition between each of the samples anda particular modern crop product willoften be obvious from simple inspec-tion. However, in assemblages invol-ving large numbers of rich samples ofdiverse composition, siniLarities withmodern crop products are not alwaysobvious from inspection alone, and itis generally impossible to recognize'by eye' any significant patterns ofcorrelation between horizontal varia-tion in sample composition and thevarious site context types. Some defin-able and repeatable system is clearlyneeded toa) reduce the numbers of variableswithout losing what could prove to bevital information,b) extract information on husbandry and

15

ItitiM di@ccw/ T- Nno@ctu!. ti@cN ftenl.) o. I. Nho@ctu

t,ilecM oE !- sefta

I.sFlrE or T.aestivennPaclw - - -

rritiM -

lndet-flee-tueEHng spp.rducd - qsela] bder.

9!abs6

gI. /I@a f.ags

a = hulled / " /xeL.rd ss-basdl ot !e1.1- ctdenEe DoD-basa!.l

" /2 .d/ (bdicate'a + h' wI$ Ecolc" /2 ot s loBl deDBe ealed. /' " /raeued" / " " Aasalo!re" ,/ hdet. iragsgr&E

- a66Fek1cr

- 6Pet!1c

" - ureier&Ie.n f.aFents

_

Ep. (9!a55 spp. ) gtai.s

(hon-tv1sted, lower

avena fatua- - - - - -lvaa stetjljs (lnc.)- -

C*aoviciaalcf.Avetutatoa/AsterilislyenasF-1ndet.----

? Aveha sp-

(:IMS IMET- orah (@uted as no.ol dryos)(no att@pt ude hele b couE tall qra

Cereal6 / o$e! 1ar9e qlasses - cub bses

Egre of cetumty of rdentifictaon is indld by psrtron of each score wi$in its veftrcl 61tm: sores on left =etuin identifr-tlons; smres on rrght = d$rous rdstlfrctlons; rnteffirate psrtions = orresgillnqly urefrdiate

hci .lm aos. are rmbores G.lrl]rw 1976; revlsd 1919

Ficfure 5. EiAlipLF oF oNE sEtil oF pnrljARy scolE TAB;ig usED foR clRxAr tlflltNs i,r,1rr slTE ofCEFN GRAEANOC

16

processing methods, andc) test the significance of any appa-rent relationships bethreen the horizon-tal distribution of site contexts andthe various components of variation insample composition,

As our example, we will use the re-sults f-rom a site in North Wales (Bri-tain). This site is Cefn Graeanog' anative British farmstead of the LateIron Age and Roman Periodf Located onan exposed ridge of the Lleyn Peninsulain Gwynedd (NW wales). It provides auseful exarnple becausea) excavation revealed a wide range ofclearly defined structural contexts,(see n. White, forthcorning);b) the excavator, Richard White, reco-vered cbarred remains of plants fronalrnost every one of these contexts (280samples from 44 contexts);c) the remains hrere quite rich: theyincluded over 250 taxa and chaff/grai.nclasses;d) the site is of a type common inparts of Britain and perhaps Europe aswell.

Fig. 5 is a copy gf one of the cereal-score sheets, and Fig. 6 is a coPY of asmall section of a score sbeet for thel-84 non-cereal spp. identified from thesite. Each vertical column representsone sample. Scores on the far left ofany one column represent the nunber ofitems of certain identity, while scoreson the far right represent numbers ofdubious identity. Intermediate posi-tions represent intermediate levels ofcertainty or uncertainty of identifica-tion. This device obviates the use of'cf.s' and other formulae for indica-ting various degrees of confidence inidentifications. (Expl-anation of otherfeatures of the scoring system willappear in Hil-lman, forthcorning b).

In analysing the data from the CefnGraeanog plant remains, two strategieswere open to us:a) The first strategy would have beensimply to feed into principal componentsanalysis (P.C.A.) the separate scoresof every taxon from each sample, seehow the samples get grouped, and then- firstly compare the composition ofsamples in each of these computer-produced groups with the generalisedcomposition of crop products in ourmodern models to see if the groups makeany sense in agrarran terms,

- second-

Iy, test the distribution of suchgroups for any significant correlation

with the distribution ofstructures.

excavated

we abandoned this strategy for thefollowing reasons: (i) we had too manyvariables for the matrix size of anyP.C.A. progralnme availabfe to us at therima /ii\ l mrinril-rr nf l-ho l.ava a^r\rrl .r rrreJv!4LJ v! s'r!chaff components) were present in onlya few of our samples and' treated asseparate variables, would nornally beunusable. OnIy by amalgamating scoresas explained below could we avoid thisIoss of potentialy valuable information.(iii) P.C.A. systems tend automatical-ly to be biased by (i.e. over-weightthe significance of) isolated rarities.For example, we found that in the cour-se of a small-scale 'trial- run' thecomputer had separated certain samplesinto separate categories of their ownsimply because they had two seeds ofNardus stricta which was a species notpresent in other samples. This prob-Iem, too, could be circumvented only bythe sorts of amalgamations used in thealternative strategy.b) Our alternative strategy (and the

one finally adopted) was to-

classify each taxon and each classof chaff and grain by direct referenceto the ethnographic models;- within each sample' amalgamate the

scores of all items of like class fromany one sample;-

eliminate all classes whichr despitethe amalgamations, are still represen-ted in very few samples;-

convert class fequencies to thoseratios which, fron the ethnographicmodels, could be expected to provideanswers to questions relating to husba-ndry and processing methods. (Theseratios are thus used to characterisethe key features of sarnpl-e conposi-tion) .-

using P.C.A.,(i) test for simil-arities in composi-tion between samples from any onephase and between samples fron anyone class of context (within phase)e.g. hut floors, hearths, middens;(ii) group all refated samples on thisbasis;(iii) test for systematic correlationbetween distribution of sample groupsand distribution of excavated featuresin any one phase of the site.(iv) Having thus accounted for (i.e.eliminated) the major components oflateral (horizontal) variation withineach phase, test for any systematicchange through time (i.e. variationbetween phases).

1a

To

g

s solted bv (1nitl

145 |nbel.146 Euplo14b Polt)q,

148 P. ld149 P. hst50 P. hu151 P- d152 p. hr153 p. nierc

15-S E!4eI1l-1 8i__99

159 Stell1r,0 urrlcn,r E;TTi

1.

.1-l!_t2_lll_JJ!

Fio 6, EXAMPTn oF oNE SHEET oF PRTMAR? scoFE TABLES usED FoR NoN CEREAL REMATNS A1 l'HE srrtr ofill N ul'q AN, i

Scores = nrrD.:rs ot rtens rdc.Lrtred sLoros on IeIL of c!l"rrs coiLdlr) identjficdLtorr5; those on llghL = dublous ldentlflcattons.(AlI foocnoLes aFPea. on separace sheeEj -

1B

Each of these analytical steps wiII nowbe discussed in more detail-

6.I CLASSIFICATION OF REMAINS (AT CEFNGRAEANOG)

STEP l: CLASSIFICATION OF EACH SPECIESBY THE PROBABLE MODE OF ARRIVAL OF ITSSEEDS ON THE SITE

This classification does not drawdirectly on the ethnograhic modelsoutlined above and is necessarify high-ly subjective. However, it is anunavoidable first step.

(seetable2-below)Different sites wifl clearly requiredifferent systems of classification,

depending on which species are represe-nted in the remains. At Cefn Graeanog,for e*ample, a diverse range of modesof arrival (i.e. types of usage) had tobe grouped under the single class (A2)simply because large numbers of Calluna

(heather) seeds, capsules and flowerslvere recovered from the site, and theycoufd have come from plants which hadbeen used either as bedding (for humansor animals) and/or as fodder and/or asfuel and/or as thatcbing. As many aspossibJ-e of these different productstherefore had to be incl-uded in the oneclass (A2) . Simil-ar constraints forcedus to amalgamate four disparate producttypes within another of the classes(A3), and this class consequentlyincorporates as diverse a mixture asclass A2.

Assj.gning any one species to a singleclass was problematic, even when theclasses are as broad as some in thisclassification which was developed forCefn Graeanog. Most difficult of aI1hras deciding which of the 184 specieswere likely to have been segetals (i.e.weeds of crops). The nature of ourdilemma is perhaps apparent from table3 on the next page.

(see table 3 - next page)Tabl-e 3 represents a smafl segnent of

the fu1l cfassification of all 184

OF ARRIVAL OF SEEDS ONTO SITE

s determined by which species were recov-fn Graeanog). Other sites wilf require

ng as components of crop products, i.e.ves, separately harvested ears or strahr.thered as fodder (inc. hay) , bedding anded only by wood charcoal-s).condiments, medicines or dyes.

ishings' such as rush-matting or reed-

urned as fuel, Such seeds are probably

systematicaly) by other means; e.g. seedse rv,rel-1y-boot ef fect') , dead ruderals cutas decoration, etc. (Al-though many spp.pecific categories \rere sought wheneverbability that any given seed had arrived

l9

Table 3. SITTALL SECTION OF ONE OF THE GENERAL CLASSIFICATION TABLES OFSPECIES IDENTIFIED IN CHARRED REMAINS FROM THE SITE OF CEFN GRAEANOGNote: The only species which were used in subsequent analyses were those for whichonly one of the alternative classifications (within any one of t}te systdns A,B,C orwere probable. (The less probable alternatives are given in brackets). on thisbasis, therefore, both Hlzpericun and Lychnis were furnediately deleted frcrn furtheranalysis.!{here no urrlcracketed B or C classl' is offered, the plant was probably not a segetal.Where no unloracketed D classification is offered, the plant was quite possibly asegretal, so a firm'D'classification would be nisleading-

D)

computercode for

1*-",

r11rL21I3114

IlsII6r17rr8

LirLO Z

ir6 4-6

r o / -o

qmniaq iAan+ifialin rernains

Hypericr.nn sp. or spp.Lychnis flos-cuculiStellaria nediaSpergula arvensisIrbntia fontanaScleranthus perennisCheno@irm albrmC. murale

Salix albaQ:l i v n:nrar

CaIIuna vulgaris/ ^^^l^ 1,. r^ \\ wc@, IVJ./ !D./

Erica tetralix

classif ication systemsR/-

A2 A6AI A2 (A5 A6 )Al (A6 )AIA1 A5 A6A1

A1(A3 46)Al(A3 A6)

(A5 )(As )

(A5 )

(As )

(A5 )

r,DJ DI l/p? )

D)B3rR? l

EJ

bJ

bJ

(c3 )(c3 )

c3 (c4 )(c4 )

c3c3 (c2)

(Dr )(D2 D4)

D4 DID4 DI

AO

AO

N.

(Dr )D4

(DI )(Dr )(Dl )

D2 D3

D2 D3

D2 D3

(1r,c., fls.)169-jI Erica cinerea(seeds, 1vs., fls.)

(The full table of classifi-cations offnrfhcminc hl

all species identified at Cefn Graeanog will___l

non-cereal spp. at Cefn Graeanog usingall four (A to D) of the classificationsystems discussed in this Paper.

In table 3 it may seem strange thatplants of marsh or damp meadow such asLychnis flos-cuculi and Rorippa islan-dica, should be assigned a segetalclassification. This reflects the factthat, in this system' all species iden-tified in the site remains are classi-fied according to the way their seedsprobably got onto the site, and not

according to local habitat's in whichthey nay have been most prolific. Anexample is needed here. At Cefn Graea-Do9, the land most 1ikely to have beencultivated ran dorlrn into a mire. As aresult, the lower ends of the fieldswere probably narshy (as they are to-day) and heavily invaded by a wetlandlveed flora including plants such as R.islandica and L. flos-cuculi. Eventhough such plants would inevitablyhave been more abundant in the adjacentmire (they still thrive there today)

'

20

their charred seeds recovered from thesite were consistently mixed with cropcleanings and are likely to have ar-rived as crop contaminants. ft is forthis reason that wetl-and plants of thistype were classified firstly under AI(and only secondarily under A2, A5 andA6, see table 3). On the other hand,plants such as Caltha palustris andCarex pauciflora which are typical ofeven wetter habitats seem less Iikelyto have survived as weeds of wet arabl-e1

-hi u^r.'^' '^r ; F":ci ^n

hrz r^ro1- l:nrj qnnIqllg. , lrlvsJlvrr u) vrsu, u"u -Yy.has been observed even in ar:-d areas. Forr---al a

--^i^ /T^ri ^ernc ) nF Al i cm: l:nca-gAarLUlcr JcsuJ \llgr luaLyJolata were identified in 'fine sievings'frorn the processrng of crop products frcman- rmirriqated wheat field at Aqvan (1.T\rrkey). This occurrence sesns explicalrleonl:; on the basis. of occasional plants rrav-inE invaded wet patches in the field adja-cent to water -channels. But while manyperer,nials can, indeed, survive cultivati-

1^^^ -^ |L^ I--r I^ ^^r,, Ii^L+1.,ult JU f ut Lv d5 Lllc ldllq f5 uttrw r r qrlL r)

tilled with an ard (see Hillnran 1981, 145- 6), the presenCe of Alisma in thesc-ar6n nrrvir rc1-q mrrcl crrral rr r6nroq6n+ anan extrerne case, ald Alisma would nevernormally be classed as a segetal.

Distinguishing between segetals andruderals may appear to be even moreproblematic. However, precisely thesame principal applies here as it doesfor the wetland species discussed above.Once again, charred seeds of typicallyruderal species found consistently inassociation with crop 'cleanings' arelikely to have arrived on the site (andgot into fires) primarily as contami-nants of crop products; they are farless likely to have arrived via one ofthe rcasual' routes grouped under classA6 (see table 3). In most cases, there-fore, typically ruderal species areassigned to class A1 as the mode ofarrival offering the most plausibleexplanation for their seeds gettingonto the site and into fires. (Oneexception here is Urtica dioica which Ihave never observed as a segetal, evenunder the lightest ard cultivation).

A1I probable segetals (i.e. all spe-cies with a relatively unequivocal Al-classification) can no$, be furtherclassified under the 'B' system. Ofthe examples given in table 3, there-fore, the species that could be carriedforward into the 'Br classificationwere - Stell-aria media, Spergula arven-sis, Scleranthus perennis, Chenopodiunalbum and C.mura1e.

STEP 2:SYSTEM B: SUB-CLASSIFICATION OF CROPSAND SEGETAL WEEDS (FROM CLASS IA.IIABOVE) BY THE TYPE OF CROP PRODUCT ORBY-PRODUCT IN WHICH EACH ITEM IS NORMAL-LY FOI,JND.

This step effects a sub-division ofthose species which were classifiedunder class AI in the preceding step.Here, then, each segetal weed seed andeach cereal component identified in tbesite remains is now assigned to a par-ticular crop product. These assign-ments are made strictly by reference tothe ethnographic models summarisedabove, and the overall objective is todiscover which processing stages arerepresented on the site. Of the weedspecies, the only ones used are thosewith a relatively unequivocal Al clas-sification in the preceding step (step1). And of the crop products, onlythose listed in tabl-e I are consideredhere. This'B system' classification issurunarised in tabl-e 4.

(See table 4 -

next page)a) classification of crop renains underthe B system:The major components characterisingeach of the crop products likely to bepreserved in charred forrn on arcbaelog-ical sites were outlined in table 1.The basis for assigning any one cereal-component such as glume bases to aparticular product was the relativeabundance of this component in theseven different products sumrnarized inthis sane table I. On this basis,however, the only conponents whichcould be assigned a fairly unequivocal'Br classification (and therefore beused in subsequent analyses) were thosewhich were conspicuously abundant inonly one class and rel-atively rare inall others. Any component that wasfairly common in two or more differentproducts therefore had to be deleted,As an example of the mechanics of thissystem, tabfe 5 shohrs the 'Br classes(i.e. crop product classes) to whichjust 15 of the cereal components wereassigned. (The full range of 78 typesof cereal component found at CefnGeaeanog are listed in the pr imaryscore sheet reproduced as fig.5, above)

21

(See table 5 - next page)

i -oT--eFo-FlI rrroNAL Iri

lllote: For the purpose of this tab1e, only glume-wheat products are considered andlof these, only those that are like1y survive in archaeological sites (as listedlin table 1) .t81: winnowingiB2z 'cavings'iwithout'chob'

waste (products of steps 4, 5, & 10 in fig,3).waste from coarse sieving from steps 6a and lI in fig.3 (with orfrom step 13a in fig.4).

83: cleanings from fine sieving (from step 12 in fig.3, and step I3b in fig.4).84: semi-clean prime grain etc. (from accidentatly burned grain stores in dryareas).85: cleanings from hand-sorting (from step 14 in fig.4).86: pure prime grain (probably mainly from step 24 in f.rg.4).Two additional products occur in charred form on archaeological sites,products I and 3 in table I. However, they are omitted here as theiris effectively a combination of t$ro or rnore of the products listed.(In the text, the first of these is coded as BI).

5. EXAI4PLE OF MECHANICS OFPART OF A TABLE OF CERNAL REMAINS

OF CROP PRODUCT WITH WHICH IS USUALLY ASSOC]IA'I'EIJ IN PRES!;N'1'-DAY i

STEP 2 OFFROM CEFNEACH ITEM

PRODUCTS

't'= tail grains. rp' - prime grains. These r^rere scored separately (see fig.5,above) as were the 'unreferable' grains of intermediate size which cannot bessigned to specific crop products and which do not appear here.

class of productscomputer with which norm-

code -ally associated

rcoccum or T. spe rachis fragments

-PEr Ld.

.spelta or aestivo-compactum

. aestivo-compactum.

riticum sp, (indet.naked sp.)

spikelet forksglume basesgrainsrrah i c fr:nmanfcspikelet forksglume basesglume f rags. (non-basal)9ralnsrachis nodes,/forksgra lnsrachis nodes9ra rnsrachis nodesgrains

83 (B5) iB1 (83)p:85; t:83(85) i83 (85) ip:85; t:83 (85) i

B9

1011T21314l5l6I71819202I

83 (Bs)83 (85 )83 (85 )p:85; t:B.3 (B5)83 (B5)

83 (85)I

82 (Br.83)p:85; t:83 (85)82 (B1.83)p:85; t:B3 (B5)

22

lail grain vs. prirne grain::::ring two products (nos.f and 3 in::rle I) which are rarely found in:.:rred form at primary producer sites,::nains of grains are characteristic of:;c products: firstly, cleanings from--:re-sieving (product 83) whicb contain::i1 grain; secondly, product 85 which::nsists of semi-cl-ean prine grain with= minority component of tail grain.- cr'i nn,r'i chi na Iri l nr=i n f rnm nrimogqrr lrsrrr !!vrr'::ain can therefore contribute to the-:entification of product type. How-:'.'er, distinguishing tail and prime;:ain requires knowledge of mesh sizes-i the fine sieves used, because it is::ring'fine-sieving (stages l-2 and l3)--:atmuch of the tail grain is unavoidab--, eliminated from the prine grain along;-th small lreed seeds and glume-bases.

Clues to the nesh diameters of the::eves used can, in fact, be extracted::orn measurements of the maximum diame--5rc /hr6AdFhc\ n fha ar:inc nr6e6hi-

-n uncontaminated samples of 'fine:-eanings'. The grain in fine clean-'-.c i c ownl rrci rrol.' ts-i I ^--i h ^f-.,JJ L^eruJrvrr), Lqtf Yrqfrrt

-^ !L^,^ i^ ^^,,-., LL^r l-v^^-JU!5Ct d5 LllElg I5 rrU Wdy LridL ro!YYt::ime grains could have passed through--re fine sieve. If, therefore, the::i.ginal frequency distribution of max--i.un grain diameters $ras orinally oflaussian form, then thorough sievingi;ith meshes designed to allow the elim-:nation of most of the smaller weed:eeds should theoretically result in--re loss of rnost of the tail grain as;;e11. The theoretical effect on a:ingle batch of grain from bulk storage;ould then be as follows:

bil grain

a single batch of grain is thereforefollows:Bt

nunbersof

qraus

I-t

rn examinins .;J;."' l'Jurn",however, it is usual to measure egualnumbers of grains from each of thedifferent samples, regardless of whet-her they were recovered from niddens orgranaries. Thus, vrhen equal numbers ofgrarns are measured from sanples ofcleanings on the one hand and samplesof prime grain on the other, then thefrequency distributions inevitably ap-pear to exhibit a rather differentrelationship to each other than thatillustrated above:

tn

gar'i tro s4le l:LrLl gfhrD fofrrngFlt of !trne cleaflrysc

t

"",*."" "*.*., "*,J nwqs drmters of qrarnsA,f

I

'::"i-..-.1

twilm direbs of graiN

However, sieving is rarely that thor-rugh, and not afl- those items which:ouId theoretical-Iy pass through thesieve are, in practice, eliminated, Incther words a variable proportion of:he tail grains remain with the prime;rain. Armore realistic representationof the effects of sieving on the:requency-distributions of grain sizes

The approxirnate diameter of the sievemesh used can then be esti.mated asindicated. (ClearIy, sieve mesh sizescannot be deduced from any part of theprime grain curve) .

At Cefn Graeanog, it proved possibleto estimate nesh diameter as indicatedabove fron one + pure sample of charredremains of 'fine sievings'. This esti-mate was then used as the basis foridentifying alf other grain (from thesame phase of occupation) as either'taif' or 'prime'. Only those grainswell above or below the estimated meshdiameters were, in fact, referred toeither class; the rest were left as'unreferable' (see example of scoresheet, fig.5) . It must be stressed,however, that on many sites, slightcontanination of rcleanings' is not un-comnon: there are sometimes small ad-

passed tJEough sreve.c

'E* ^F rfino

prre graf'rehined1n steve

cl(aings'

.*"a *"n -*: f

23

mixtures from other products, and theseadmixtures commonly include a littleprime grain. These prime grains inevi-f :hl v nrndrrna arran orcAf cr orrcrl anbetween the two frequency distributionsin diagram 'C' above.

(b) .B. SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION OF WEEDSEED REI{AINS:Fron our studies of present-day cropproducts, it was clear that the princi-pal factors determining what seeds werepresent in any one crop product were(i) the ratio of their surface area toweight (i.e.their winnowability), (ii)seed size (i.e.sievability), (iii) seed'headedness'. Each of these categoriesand their use in charred remains willnow be considered in turn:(i) WinnowabifityFor any given hrind strength, theprobability that a seed can be winnowedout of the prime products seems todepend primarily on the ratio-of itssurface area to its weight (run2.g-I ).Tbis ratio tends to increase with dec-reasing size with the resul-t that win-nowing tends to eliminate very snallseeds such as those fron Campanulaspecies. The presence of h'ings on theseeds afso increases surface area, ofcoursei winnowing consequently elimin-ates the winged seeds of pJ-ants such asLinaria vulgaris and Rhinanthus seroti-nus as well- as the winged fruits ofArtedia squamata, Aellenia autraniand several species of Scabiosa. AtCefn Graeanog, therefore, any cbarredremains of winged or very snall seedsand fruits of segetal species brerecfassified as winnowing waste. (Suchseeds were, in fact, very rare)./ii\ ciorrrl^rilifrrSeed size is important in that it det-ermines not only 'winnowability' atthe bottorn of the size range, but al-solciorrrhilifrrl in l-hr

-,. -..e upper srze ran9es.This effect is reflected in the clear-cut correlation between tire major pro-ducts and the sizes of tbe seeds con-tained in them, as indicated in tablel. On the basis of this correlation,seeds and fruits can be grouped i.ntofour sievability/winnowability classes,each of which is characteristic of asingle class of crop product. (These 4classes are outl-ined in table 6).Clearly, therefore, the identificationof charred remains of these particufar

products is very straightforward soIong as they are not mixed: it is mere-Iy a matter of observing the size ofthe seeds and noting whether or notthey show any signs of having once hadwings. (Charred wings commonly breakoff). (See table 6)(iii) rHeadedness'.Many of our most common weeds producetheir seeds in capsules or capitulae(heads) r .9. Papaver spp., Gypsophilapilosa, Vaccaria pyrarnidata, Cephalariaspp., Circiun spp., Anthemis spp., etc.Many of the seeds in these capsu]es orcapitulae are refeased only in thecourse of processing. this is particu-'l:r'l rr f ha c:co i F l- ho arncrr'l ocimmature at the time of harvesting, andin such cases the refeased seeds oftenshow clear signs of immaturity, evenwhen they are charred. Indeed , Lf,after winnowing, the threshed spikeletsare cleaned thoroughly with a medium-coarse sieve (stage 6b in fig.3), thenalmost all the free seeds found inensuing crop products and by-productsnecessarily derive from capitulae orcapsules of about the same size asspikelets. A large proportion of themalso show signs of immaturity. Thepoint at which these seeds are liber-ated from immature capsules is stage 9(fig.3) when the parched spikelets arepounded in order to release the grains.The effect of this liberation of seedson the composition of ensuing productsis indicated diagrammatically in tableI (see small crosses in the last fourcolumns). Most of the liberated seedsare eventually separated from the primegrain in stages 12 and 13 as usual.Light fragments of capsule wall are

el-iminated by the second winnowingstage 10

An equivalent refease can occur withseeds in the 'winnowable' category incases where they have been retained inimmature heads or capsules (e.9. inimmature Scabiosa heads or Campanulacapsules) . These seeds will again bereleased in stage 9 (poundj-ng of spike-lets). But in this case, they areseparated from the grain along with the'light chaff' during the 2nd winnowing(stage l0)- as indicated in fig.3. (Seeal-so footnote 3 of this same figure).Theoretically, the retention of winnow-able seeds in heads suggests (as ex-plained by Glynis Jones in this volume)that the two parameters

-

rr,rinnowabif i-ty' and 'headedness' should not be used

)A

-ME'D-SEEDS :::ASSIFIED BY B CLASSES AND THE TYPES OF CROP PRODUCT TN WHICH THEY ARE NORMALLr3UND

c)

Unwinged seeds/fruits whose narrowest Qs aresignificantLy >Q ot largest prime grain (butnot much ) spikelet width).x e.9. Tordylium,Aristolochia, Gundel-ia.Unwinged seeds/fruits whose max. ls are withinrange as widths of prime grain. eg. Agrostemma,Cephalaria syriaca, infected grains of Loliumtemulentum.

Unwinged seeds/fruits whose max.ps are signif-icantly 0.5 mm.e.g. Vaccaria pyramidata, Sinapis arvensis,Gypsophila pilosa, Polygonum aviculare.

i). Winged seeds (a11 sizes) e all seeds

independently. Inpractice, however.winnowing waste is very rare in sitedcnosi fs (hence i ts exclusion fromtable I). Even if light chaff rich intwinnowabler irunature seeds were recov-ered, there would be no problem indistinguishing it either from the coar-se winnowing hraste of the first winnow-ing (stage 5) or from any other cropproduct.

As for the pattern of occurrence ofthe intact 'weed heads' themselves inthe major crop products, our studies ofpresent-day products suggests that thisis a function of sieve mesh-diameters.As mesh-diameters, in turn, are careful-ly fixed by the sieve makers to matchgrain and spikelet widths, it is reason-able to take a rshort cutr and classifythe weed heads by their size relativeto the breadths of spikelets and grainspresent in contemporaneous deposits.In this way, the heads are thus automa-tically classified according to thecrop products in which they are likelyto be found following sieving. Thisclassification is outlined in table 7.

(See table 7 - previous page)It should be noted that the classifi-

cation of weed heads in table 7 doesnot make use of their absolute size.Instead, it merely uses their sizerelative to the width of prime spike-lets. Such a classification is there-fore easily applied to weed heads incharred remains: it merely requires thewidth of the weed heads to be comparedwith the width of any spikelets (orwell-preserved spikeletforks) recov-ered from contemporaneous deposits. (Amore exact approach to quantificationof 'headedness' is presented by cfynisJones in the following paper).

At the site of Cefn Graeanog, thisrBr classification system was appliedto every cereal fragment, segetal rreedseed and segetal weed head from everysample of charred remains recoveredfrom the site. Anal-ysis of cl-ass to-tals (as outfined below) reveal-ed manyof the samples to be dominated by re-mains of specific crop products oftypes still to be found in the presentday. The sort of notation used in therB' classifications which were appliedto these remains was illustrated intable 3, above.

STEP 3.

SYSTEM C: FURTHER CLASSIFICATION OFSEGETAL WEEDS (FROM CLASS A1, ABOVE) BYTHEIR GROWTH HABIT AND HEIGHT WHENGROWING IN CROP STANDSThis step represents a further sub-classification of the segetal weedsalready assigned to class AI. Ourobjective, here, is to extract informa-tion on the harvesting methods appJ-iedto tbe crops represented in fhe charredremains fron the site.

(See table 8 - facing page).while twining habit is a relatively

absolute criterion, classificati.on ofweeds by the height at which they formfruits can be rather arbitrary. First-Ly, the height of any one weed speciesvaries dramatically in response tofactors such as soil-water availabilj-ty:nd Aanci t-rr nf |-hn

-rlh^ T!vgrrJr L-I v! rrrc ur9y sLollu. I Lfurthermore seems unlikely that thesefactors consistently affect the heightof the host crop by precisely the saneamount. SecondIy, v,reed heights areexpressed relative to an 'average' cropheight (see note to table B), and evenunder a standard set of conditions, itis possible to observe enormous differ-ences in the average heights both with-in one population as well- as betweendifferent varieties of any one cropspecies. For example, some of theshortest present-day Turkish Emmersbarely exceed 60 cm., while the taflestexceed 150 cm. It is impossible to becertain, therefore, whether or notreaping high on the straw of an ancientcrop would have included heads of,sayf Agrosteruna.

Because of these uncertaintj-es (espe-cially in assigning certain species toC2 or C3), the 'C system' classifica-tion is, I feel, to be regarded as nornore than an optional (and sometimesdubious) supplement to the A and Bsystems described above. Certainly,identification of harvesting by uproot-ing, at least, is perhaps better attem-nl- cd hrr rrqo 6f l-ha nroconca aF aoro: ltsvvgtslvlgrrglv!nrr'r m hrcac f coa f ig.5 bel_ow) . (Forexamples of rC systemr classifications,see table 3).

Identification of reaping heightsfrom charred remains is aLso discussedby van Zeist (1968), Glynis Jones(L9791 , Hiflman (1973 and 1981), andReynolds (I98I).

26

8. SYSTEM C: CLASSIFICATION OF SEGETAL WEEDS (FROM CLASS A1) By THErRFORM AND HEIGHT WHEN GROWING IN CROP STANDS.

l;3Le: weed heights are expressed relative to supposed beight of the host crop,=: it is this relationship which determines which weeds get harvested. The exam-.-: used here is an'averager crop of Spelt wheat. 'Weed height' is taken as the--lrest point at which the plant forms fruits.

twining weeds These are automaticafly harvested when crop is uproot-ed or when reaped either l-ow or at mediun height

, on the strawi e.g. Polygonum convolvulus.free-standing weeds

- 3/4 height of crop or taller: These are harvestedby medium and low reaping; also by reaping highon straw when this is done carelessly; e.g.Agrostemma githago, Gypsophila pil-osa, etc.

free-standing weeds -

I/4 to 3/4 height of crop: These are harvested(together with C2 hreeds) when the crop is reapedfairly Iolv on straw; e.g. Anthemis cotula,Bupleurum rotundifolium, Papaver dubium, etc.

free-standing weeds - I VA height of crop: These are harvested only by

very low reaping or by uprooting when this is perform-without tborough 'root beatingr; eg. Aphanes microcar-pa, Polygonum arenastrum (prostrate forms), Galium ar-ticulatum, Aristol-ochia clematitis.

-_:.SSIFICATION OF NON-SEGETAL SPECIES:.e. CLASSES A2 TO A6) BY THE HABITAT

:l; h]{ICH THEY PROBABLY GREW..:--I species other than crops and

--.^.:ir probable weeds were next classi-:-:d according to the sort of habitat:::n which they were likely to have-=:ived in the catchment of this parti-:--ar site (Cefn Graeanog). OnIy those=;:cies assigned to classes A2 to A6.::e usd in this step of the analysis;-.:. we used only those species which-::e unlikely to have been able to:::vive as weeds of crops (see=-=:t.6.1, step 1, above) . Such plants:::cably arrived on Lhe site direct:::n non-arabl-e habitats in the area=:j may therefore offer clues to the--.'-:es of vegetationaf resources avaif-=--e in the area of the site durinq its-.-,ul/oLrurr.

:ne objective of this step in the::.alysis is therefore to allow amalgam-:::on of records of plants of like-.:oitat with a vievr to extracting infor--:tron on past patterns of exploita-:-cn of the pfant resources provided by=:ch habitat type.

By reference to present-day vegeta-tion in the area of Cefn Graeanog today,it seemed that the assumed non-segetalspecies present in charred remains fromthe site could be crudely divided intofour groups as follows:Df:

- weeds of waste land (ruderal-s);

n?. -

n.cl- rrr6 ^r

harf l.r cnani ac.vrvv 4vv,D3:

- plants of cleared woodland orwoodland fringes and glades; o

D4: -

marsh and bog species.However, none of these classes are

mutually exclusive, and it was eventua-IIy decided that the particular speciesrepresented in the Graeanog remainsoffered no possibility of distinguish-ing betsreen habitats D2 and D3, forexampl-e. This dilemma is perhaps appa-rent from the few examples of 'Dr clas-sification offered in table 3 (above) ,and in table 1I (below) in which class-es D2 and D3 have been amalgamated.

It will be apparent that this step(4) makes no use of ethnographic nodels.Step 4 is included in this paper mere-Iy because its omission wou.Id have lefta gap in the logical sequence of analy-^l ^

27

The following operations (5.2 Lo 6;4\were next applied to each sample sePa-rately:

6.2 AMAIGAMATION OF SCORES OF THOSECHARRED REMAINS ASSIGNED TO THE SAMELLAbS

At the site of Cefn Graeanog, the char-red remains were classified as outlinedin the preceding section (6.1). Withineach sample of charred remains, the'scores' (numbers of items) of allthose taxa assigned to any one classunder the A, B, C or D classificationsystems $rere next amalgamated to give'class totals' as indicated in tables9, l-0 and 1l (below) .

Reasons for amalgamating scores:At Cefn Graeanog, most taxa (consideredindividually) \.,ere present in so fewsanpl-es that, in isolation, there wasIittle sense in using their pattern ofoccurrence to indicate differences inhuman manipulations of the wild ordomestic plant products concerned.This problem of 'patchy' results is notunusual- on small, farmstead sites, andat Cefn Graeanog it was overcome onlyby amalgamating (within any one sample)the scores of those taxa or chaff clas-ses which, on the basis of present-dayparallels, coul-d be assumed to haveshared a common relationship with anygiven hurnan activity. In other words,in each sample, we amalgamated thescores of all those taxa assigned toany one of the A, B, C and D cl-assesoutlined above.

These amalgamations had two principaleffects: a) Any one class (within whichscores were amalgamated) was represen-ted in many more samples than rdere anyof its constituent taxa. b) The classtotals for any one sample were, ofcourse, much larger than the scores forindividual taxa. As a resul-t, differ-ences between archaeological samples inrespect of cfass totals were far more1ikely to reflect genuine differencesin human activities. In interpretingthe composition of samples of charredremains in terms of human activities,we therefore used class totals and notthe potentially misleading scores ofindividual taxa and chaff types.(Note: the scores of in

-a-ble 9. CEREAL TOTALS AT CEFN GRAEANOG: AI'IAIGAI4ATION BY THE CTASS OF3OP PRODUCI IN WHICH EACH COMPONEI.M IS }iORMAI,LY FOUI\D IN TTIE PRESE}TI-DAY:

..\IVPLE OF IYPICA], TUIALS SIT,ET FOR A SI}GI,E SAI\.{PI,Elkrte: The arnalgarnations in this table are repeatd for each salrple seperately.

The only cereal crrqDneJrts included in these srsnnations are tltose r,vhich are;-:rerally abr:ndant in onlv one of tie major crop products ccnfitcnly preserved by::.arring. Class 84 is crn-itted here as it is equiv-alent to a ccrnbination of:.asses E}5 and 86.

class of product in which each conponent is cqmpnestlo save spa.ce, each cdnponent is listed by only its ccrqruter code as given in fig.s)

B1-----@ing mste

_=-Jaw mste' )pres-nt

'cavirgs' frm@se saevugnG.

-stB3

clmhgs frmfiae siwing

rcs.

.qtB5

claings frmtEnd sorting st

B6Iea prire gr.3adv for mkY

no.pres-slt

-:eys

l423

Irt134lr;tfqI t"-arl4el4r143

71

ng

Hg

>o(

!^,trts { 18[20sals '15irtlet.

gn

n

!*lats

30

(44*tt"r=tt:

ggg

g

l.lone foudcefn Gramog

30

144*""r1X:

E9rgggs{HgH

x

ggg

:: -ss one)o( )o(

.:-j.ng the 'Br sub-totals, and these,-:- turn by adding 'C' class sub-totals.:.-.: 'C' class totals were, however,:::ained by adding the sub-totals from::-umns of similar 'C' cl-ass from each-: tbe rBr clusters; i.e. we added the:jo-totals from each of the C2 columns;-:

TABLE 10- SCORE TOTALS OF WILD AND SEGETAL SPECIES FROM CEFN GRAEANOG: MLGAIIIATIONS BY HUMAN ACTIVITY ASSOCIATIONS (i.e. BY TTBA, B AND C CINIIICATION OF Tm 3) : LAYOUT oF SCORE TOTALS SHEET FOR A SINGLE SAJ'IPLE

As before, the only species Eed hse to @ntrj-bute to cl6s tobls Ee tho* for wtrich onlv one of t'tE alt@tive classifitions Es probable within eachof tie systs of classificlion (i-e. witldn ey one of tie @lrJlffi A, B ild c in table 3).witlin my one sdrq)le, ja producirg grard tobls for aci of the 'B' clcss tie rele\mt 'B' Ebls frm t}le -Is in tible 9 de gosally added to t}|e@rcpording tobls in this table. CI6s 'AI*' dpries species of prcbable segetal sbtE but of metuin clGsifi@tion in ttle 'B' and 'C' systs.ltE A14 total. is added Co tlE 'A' clds qand total as ijrlited. 1\l 9@ sFe, htjn l]ares have ben abbleviated-

CLASS A1 Al* A3 A5 A6B1 B3

c2 cl n( c2 no

*

*

hth4is@tuIa

NeE fatElcpts.67-70) g

g

*

(n

f!o

l m+lE@tmples re@vn Cefn G!a@

rl

fedrcg)

EagHgg

H

BB

::d" lo!l@rs I n- sh@t Lipsl nki@ bua-l-f tms ls-s!rct tips I IEac cinq-seeos I s-flms lakie

--e 11. 'D' CLASS TOTALS OF SPECIES OF UNCERTAIN MODE OF ARRIVAL ONTO.: SITE (iC. UNCERTATN 'A' CLASS): AMALGATITTON BY HABITAT (D) CLASSES

---- --Lr- --^1----!^^ the scores of smcie^ - ^r*.r1^- L^Lr+-* rfefefenCe WhiCh afe_.-J Lrurs 4rdrYdL6LCs

-- -F_--_5 U! slL[Idt ll(ruI@L I- -iikelrz f. hA\/F Fecn qcocf:lq (urcdq nf crnnq] :nd- or which no other Lme+rj-vocal 'A' system classification was possible..,--.: The habitat (D) classes used here are outlined in 6.1, st4. On accor:nt of the'.,--:osition of plant ccnnnLrnities in the area of the site today, jt seeried poinl---r'i to assign species to classes D2 or D3 separately. These two classes were

-, -^c^-^ ^-^1 ^^-^+^r

-^ - h-Li !-+ ^r 1--^- i n urhi nh o:nh cmai oc ..,-- r ; L^r,. +^ h1r'^ h-.'- rldulLdL uldbbeb

---.. -F,-,.-.j WaS llKely t'O nave Deen gfo\^/Ing'- fho rriciilifrr nf fL^ -rt^ ^. ^-.^ ^--^^nm drrrina itc nriain:l ncnrml-innlLJ v' rrc srLe ur LEr rr uf ocaruj uu frrg f Lr urrjlrar uLLutEurvrr

IDl I nos.;c

^f ..*^ 1.-^ l---^-rlvl,-crrL

D2&D3pasture & wdlarld spp

nos. D4ma-rsh & bog spp.

nos.

-rtica dioica1: l l n+r ni arr

)oo(>o{>o