bronze age environment and economy in the troad - Universität ...

BRONZE AGE ENVIRONMENT AND
ECONOMY IN THE TROAD:
THE ARCHAEOBOTANY OF
KUMTEPE AND TROY
Simone Riehl

contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................................... XI
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................... XI
1 Environment and archaeology of the Troad............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Environmental preconditions and state of palaeoenvironmental research......................................................... 1
1.1.1 Geographic presentations of the environment .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Geofactors modelling the environment............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2.1 Geology and geomorphology ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2.2 Hydrology and hydrography........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.2.4 Climate and weather .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.2.5 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.3 The history of archaeobotanical research in the Troad....................................................................................................... 6
1.2 The archaeology of Kumtepe and Troy and the origin of the samples................................................................ 6
1.2.1 Kumtepe ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.1.1 Archaeological research history .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.1.2 The recent excavations and location of the archaeobotanical samples........................................................................ 7
1.2.2 Troy .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2.2.1 Chronology .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.2.2 Archaeological research history and results from the early excavations ..................................................................... 8
1.2.2.3 The recent excavations and location of the archaeobotanical samples...................................................................... 10
1.2.2.3.1 Early Bronze Age (Troy I-III) ............................................................................................................................ 10
1.2.2.3.2 Middle Bronze Age (Troy IV/V)........................................................................................................................ 11
1.2.2.3.3 Late Bronze Age (Troy VI/VII).......................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.2.3.4 Post-Bronze Age (Troy VIII/IX) ........................................................................................................................ 12
1.2.3 Comparative summary of the results from Blegen’s and Korfmann’s excavations.......................................................... 12
1.2.4 Other research aspects within the new excavations.......................................................................................................... 14
2 Methods.................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
2.1 From sampling to species list........................................................................................................................................ 15
2.1.1 Sampling and recovery ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2 Processing of the sediment and off-site subsampling....................................................................................................... 16
2.1.3 Identification and documentation ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 The evaluation of the archaeobotanical data ............................................................................................................ 18
2.2.1 Taphonomy of the botanical macrofossils from Troy and Kumtepe ................................................................................ 18
2.2.2 Quantitative analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2.1 Recording system and data preparation..................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2.2 Descriptive methods .................................................................................................................................................. 20
2.2.2.3 Multivariate methods................................................................................................................................................. 21
2.2.3 The ecological evaluation of the data ............................................................................................................................... 22
VII

contents
2.2.4 The economic evaluation of the data ................................................................................................................................ 23
2.2.4.1 Plant use in general and alternative origin of archaeobotanical seeds....................................................................... 23
2.2.4.2 Evidence of specific field activities........................................................................................................................... 26
3 Analytical results − Sample description and statistical analysis..................................................................... 27
3.1 Description and interpretation of the samples .......................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1 The Kumtepe samples....................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1.1 The Neolithic/Chalcolithic Kumtepe A ..................................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1.2 Kumtepe B architecture ............................................................................................................................................. 27
3.1.2 The Troy samples ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.2.1 A layer older than Troy I ........................................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.2.2 The Early Bronze Age contexts of Troy.................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.2.3 Burnt layers from Middle Bronze Age Troy ............................................................................................................. 31
3.1.2.4 Late Bronze Age buildings and ditches around the Lower City of Troy................................................................... 33
3.1.2.5 Post-Bronze Age Troy − Some samples from the Sanctuary..................................................................................... 36
3.1.2.6 Contents of pottery .................................................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Statistics .............................................................................................................................................................................. 37
3.2.1 Kumtepe and Troy............................................................................................................................................................ 37
3.2.2 Kumtepe ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.2.1 General patterns of some crop species....................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.2.2 Types of classification of samples and species.......................................................................................................... 38
3.2.2.3 Crops and weeds during the different subperiods of Kumtepe.................................................................................. 38
3.2.2.4 Diversity .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
3.2.3 Early Bronze Age Troy..................................................................................................................................................... 40
3.2.3.1 Patterns of crop and wild plant species...................................................................................................................... 40
3.2.3.2 Distribution and proportion of species and groups of species................................................................................... 40
3.2.3.3 Diversity .................................................................................................................................................................... 41
3.2.4 Middle Bronze Age Troy.................................................................................................................................................. 41
3.2.4.1 Associations of species and samples ......................................................................................................................... 41
3.2.4.2 Distribution and proportion of species and groups of species................................................................................... 42
3.2.4.3 Diversity .................................................................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.5 Late Bronze Age Troy ...................................................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.5.1 General patterns of the crop species .......................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.5.2 Eco-groups and life form in sample composition plots ............................................................................................. 43
3.2.5.3 Distribution of species during the different phases ................................................................................................... 44
3.2.5.4 Diversity .................................................................................................................................................................... 45
3.2.6 Summary........................................................................................................................................................................... 45
VIII

contents
4 Comparative ecology of the archaeobotanical remains from Troy and Kumtepe .................................. 47
4.1 The ecological interpretation of archaeobotanical data.......................................................................................... 47
4.2 Interrelations between ecology and economy ........................................................................................................... 47
4.3 Geomorphology, soil science and their contribution to landscape reconstruction in the Troad................. 48
4.4 Aspects of Eastern Mediterranean vegetation and their appearence in the Troad.......................................... 49
4.4.1 Grazing and browsing........................................................................................................................................................ 50
4.4.2 Fire..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.4.3 Settlement activity ............................................................................................................................................................. 50
4.5 Studies on past vegetation with emphasis on human influence ........................................................................... 51
4.6 Modern vegetation in the vicinity of Troy ................................................................................................................. 52
4.6.1 The pine woods of the High Plateau.................................................................................................................................. 52
4.6.2 Maquis, phrygana and steppe on the Low Plateau ............................................................................................................ 52
4.6.3 The moisture-loving flora of the Scamander valley and the delta region.......................................................................... 53
4.6.4 Other ‘pastures’ ................................................................................................................................................................. 53
4.6.5 Plantations and arable fields .............................................................................................................................................. 54
4.7 The archaeobotanical species spectrum of Troy and Kumtepe and its ecological information.................. 54
4.7.1 Potential habitats................................................................................................................................................................ 54
4.7.2 Maquis on the Low Plateau ............................................................................................................................................... 54
4.7.3 Moisture-dependent plant communities in the valley........................................................................................................ 55
4.7.4 The prehistoric grass species and their significance in landscape reconstruction ............................................................. 55
4.7.5 The main aspects of landscape development as evident from the archaeobotanical remains............................................ 56
5 Economic aspects in the Bronze Age Troad............................................................................................................ 58
5.1 Some environmental constraints of Mediterranean agriculture ........................................................................... 58
5.2 Crop husbandry before harvest − fallow and manure ............................................................................................. 58
5.3 Crop-processing after harvest ........................................................................................................................................ 59
5.4 Crop husbandry at Bronze Age Troy and Neolithic/Chalcolithic Kumtepe..................................................... 60
5.4.1 Barley cultivation .............................................................................................................................................................. 60
5.4.2 Free-threshing wheats........................................................................................................................................................ 61
5.4.3 Hulled wheats .................................................................................................................................................................... 61
5.4.4 Pulses................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
5.4.5 Fruit cultivation − with emphasis on olive ........................................................................................................................ 62
5.4.6 Other useful plants in everyday life................................................................................................................................... 63
5.5 The weed flora .................................................................................................................................................................... 64
5.5.1 Problems of species classification − Weed or wild plants ............................................................................................... 64
5.5.2 Grass pea: crop or weed................................................................................................................................................... 65
5.5.3 Ryegrass as a weed of cereal crops.................................................................................................................................... 66
5.5.4 Agricultural techniques...................................................................................................................................................... 66
IX

contents
5.5.5 The progression of the weed floras of Troy and Kumtepe ................................................................................................ 67
5.5.6 The location of the crop fields........................................................................................................................................... 68
5.6 Insect pests........................................................................................................................................................................... 69
5.7 The dung remains .............................................................................................................................................................. 69
5.8 Other aspects of animal husbandry in Troy ............................................................................................................... 69
5.9 On the organisation of economic systems .................................................................................................................. 70
5.9.1 Aspects of surplus production ........................................................................................................................................... 71
5.9.2 The agricultural territory of Troy ...................................................................................................................................... 73
5.9.3 Social implications of diet and consumer-producer site classification .............................................................................. 76
5.10 Troy in its regional context........................................................................................................................................... 78
5.10.1 Archaeobotanical evidence for Bronze Age trade ........................................................................................................... 78
5.10.2 Economic and ecological parallels between the Bronze Age Troad and other locations in Greece and West Anatolia . 79
6 Summary: A model of subsistence economy and environment in the Bronze Age Troad.................... 83
Catalogue ................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
References................................................................................................................................................................................ 113
Illustrations (figures, graphs, maps, tables)......................................................................................................................... 126
Plates.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 192
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................. 206
X

The geographical position of the Troad between the Black Sea
region, the Aegean and the prehistoric settlements of Inner
Anatolia, defines it as a focal point of cultural and economic
relations between these regions. However, no comprehensive
studies of Bronze Age environment and economy have been
conducted before in the Troad.
This archaeobotanical investigation is based on the study of
c. 270000 seed remains, belonging to some 336 types (186
species of 43 plant families) collected by the author in three
years of fieldwork between 1993 and 1995. In all, 38 samples
were studied from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age levels at
Kumtepe, and 325 samples from Early, Middle and Late
Bronze Age levels at Troy. The overall sequence offers a rich
dataset for study of agricultural economy and impact of
humans on the environment over a span of approximately 3800
years.
Increasing human influence will be demonstrated from
Kumtepe B. It will be shown that the resulting scarcity of wood
forced the use of dung for fuel, but this could not stop heavy
soil erosion processes occurring at least from Late Bronze Age
Troy onwards.
This publication is based on my PhD thesis submitted at the
Faculty of Geosiences (University of Tübingen) in June 1997.
The work benefited from the advice of my examiners Prof. Dr.
Dr. Hans-Peter Uerpmann (Inst. für Ur- und Frühgeschichte,
Univ. Tübingen) and Dr. Glynis Jones (Dept. of Archaeology
and Prehistory, Sheffield).
Abstract
Acknowledgments
abstract
This work will demonstrate that changes occurred not solely in
the range and relative proportions of crop species and the
associated weed spectra, but also in the locations of fields for
various reasons. The diversity in crops and the exploitation of a
new range of species increased from the Neolithic to Late
Bronze Age, and different cultivation methods such as
polycropping during Middle Bronze Age Troy, and changing
intensity in field management during different periods,
determined the development of agriculture in the Troad.
Overall, the economic patterns at Troy are striking similar to
those of the simultaneous Aegean sites, particularly during the
Late Bronze Age. An archaeobotanical perspective is offered
for the socio-economic development of Troy. During Early
Bronze Age the settlement was rural but with a stratified social
structure, and was engaged in subsistence farming. In Middle
Bronze Age there is evidence for the production of surplus on
the household level, with the appearance of small-scale
storage. During Troy VI and VIIa (Late Bronze Age) surplus
supplies from large-scale, specialised crop production were
probably appropriated from surrounding villages.
namely Amy Bogaard and John Meadows, who also helped
with improving the English.
Dr. Konstantin Pustovoytov (RAS Moscow) provided
information and results of soil science and realised the
radiocarbon dating of grape pips.
The people of the Troy project (Prof. Dr. Manfred Korfmann
and collaborators), namely Dr. Peter Jablonka and Utta
Gabriel, M.A., helped with answering archaeological questions
at Troy and Kumtepe and provided samples and meticulous
documentation.
I’m thankful for interesting discussions and encouragement
from the colleagues and friends in Tübingen and Sheffield,
Special thanks I owe Dr. Mark Nesbitt (Dept. of Archaeology,
London), who helped with valuable comments and his untiring
patience in reading the first drafts of this work. Mark also
provided access to his comparative collection of Turkish
grasses and the SEM apparatus in the Institute of Archaeology
of UC London.
VII

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
1 Environment and archaeology of the
Troad
This chapter aims to provide the reader with environmental
preconditions and cultural background information on the
Troad.
The environmental section only briefly outlines aspects of
vegetation. A more detailed description of the modern flora in
the vicinity of Troy is given in chapter 4. The archaeological
information on the sites Troy and Kumtepe is a selection of
aspects relevant for the archaeobotanical interpretation of the
data.
1.1 Environmental preconditions and state of
palaeoenvironmental research
The fact that prehistoric people founded settlements within
clearly definable localities, dependent on a combination of the
actual needs of the prehistoric group (subsistence, strategic
objectives) and the environmental state of the locality, makes
the investigation of prehistoric environments the basis for
understanding prehistoric cultures. In other words, the palaeoecology
of a region is an important factor for the foundation of
a settlement, because the practicability of a specific subsistence
economy characteristic for the prehistoric group defines the
siting of a settlement. In the course of the history of a settlement
the relation between ecology and economy becomes more
complicated. The economy of the already established group or
society can be determined by changing ecology-or more tangible
by changing environment, which reversely is modified by
human economic practices. For these reasons knowledge of the
palaeoenvironmental background is a fundamental component
for the understanding and interpretation of archaeobotanical
data (Table 1).
1.1.1 Geographic presentations of the
environment
There is still a lack of up-to-date and detailed maps in Turkey
(Güldalı 1979) especially in the Troad, which was until recently
largely a military district. This is particularly the case
with environmental mapping, including that of vegetation. The
only available vegetation map of the Troad shows rough patterns
of mainly agricultural units from the seventies (‛Map of
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ 1970). Older geographic maps of early
travellers are insufficient for scientific purposes (Cook 1973).
Military maps dating between 1913 and 1941 show mainly
strategic details but only minor aspects of relevance for the
natural environment.
The first to give an account of the historic landscape of the
Troad was Barker-Webb (1822), followed by Virchow (1879)
and recently Höhfeld (1989) on the historic settlement
development and land use. According to Leaf’s descriptions of
the cultural landscape in the 19th century, the lowland of Troy
was flooded and marshy in winter and malarious in summer.
Cultivation was only possible in the inland basins of the middle
Skamander (Menderes) river (Leaf 1912). In contrast to this
later description, Barker-Webb and Virchow report that the
winter-flooded areas are partially drained in summer, and used
for arable farming. The river plains are also recorded as being
the most important summer pastures in the 19th century.
1.1.2 Geofactors modelling the environment
Local geomorphology and hydrology, and their ecological consequences
(soils, vegetation) determined the cultural-economic
development of the Troad. Another geofactor, which is of
particular interest considering the time span of roughly 3000
years covered in this work, is the climate.
1.1.2.1 Geology and geomorphology
Systematic geological and geomorphological research in Anatolia
has been conducted only since the 20th century. Early
investigations on the geological evolution of the Dardanelles
were conducted by Penck (1917, 1918 and 1919), whose
method explained the tectonic base-lines of western Asia
Minor, starting from the morphology of the surface. The strong
relief energy of the landscape, which determines the erosional
activity, is explained by the high average altitude of Turkey
(1162 m in comparison to 330 m in Europe). Along with the
effect of the climate, erosion and deposition were always
important components in the creation of the landscape. Turkey
became continental only in the Lower Tertiary period with the
alpidic orogenesis (Güldalı 1979). The elongated, mainly eastwest
oriented rift valleys of western Anatolia evolved during
further tectonic movements towards the end of the Pliocene
(Güldalı 1979). With the tectonic activity earthquakes were
numerous (Erinç 1954 and 1967). Vulcanism, reactivated by
movements of the crust during the Neogene and the Quaternary,
lasted until historic times (Nemrut Daği; 1441) and was
always important on the Biga peninsula (Bilgin 1969), i.e. the
western appendix of the region south of the Marmara Sea, or
what is called in terms of landscape, the Troad. Since the year
zero 185 important earthquakes have been recorded in the
study area (Ilhan 1971). The earthquake activity has been
implicated in the rise and fall of Troy. Rapp (1982)
demonstrated that the destruction at the end of Troy VI
originates from earthquake-induced earth movements in the
underlying uncon-solidated materials.
The quaternary development of the western coastal areas of
Turkey was studied first by Pfannenstiel (1944, 1955 and
1956). Later, coastal morphology was object of interest for
several scientists, including Inandik (1961 and 1972) and Erol
((1968a and 1968b), Erol and Nuttal (1972)) on the Marmara
and Black Sea regions. The morphology of the southern Biga
peninsula (Troad) was investigated by Bilgin (1969). Further
geomorphological studies in the Troad have been mainly conducted
by Kraft (Kraft, Kayan and Erol 1980 and 1982). More
recently Kayan (1991) is working on coastal geomorphology in
the close vicinity of Troy.
The geomorphology of the region is structured by a high plateau,
a low plateau and the delta valley region (Map 1). The
plateaux are deeply incised by quaternary erosional events. The
Dardanelles have been a very active geological structure since
their emergence in the Pleistocene. During the Early and Middle
Quaternary a tectonic-erosional depression developed,
1

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
extending from the Black Sea through the Sea of Marmara
towards the Aegean. A part of this depression developed as a
fluvial-erosional basin of the Palaeo-Karamenderes valley
(Skamander) 50 to 80 km south of Troy. The first invasion of
the waters of the Mediterranean occurred from c. 70000 BP,
and the final capture of the Pre-Dardanelles drainage by rivers,
during the last Würm glacial regression of the sea. The Skamander
developed as a part of the northeast directed, Pre-Dardanelles
drainage system (Kraft, Kayan and Erol 1982). The
Skamander leaves the high plateau at Pinarbaşi, emerges onto
its alluvial plain and flows northwards to the Dardanelles. The
Simois (Dümrek) river, coming from the East, joins the
Skamander near its delta.
1.1.2.2 Hydrology and hydrography
The Mediterranean river regime differs from other types of
river regimes in its drainage curve, which extends parallel to
the curve of precipitation in very short distance. Therefore
heavy precipitation and floods in winter and spring, and low
waters in dry summers are typical (Güldalı 1979). An early,
general investigation of the history of Mediterranean valleys as
witnesses of accumulation and deposition was conducted by
Vita-Finzi (1969). He recognised two characteristic deposits
within a time span of about 125000 years. The lithologically
diverse and badly stratified ‛older fills’, which derive from a
unique depositional phase dating to the last interglacial are
often thought to be of climatic or catastrophic nature. Vita-
Finzi (1969) tends towards the explanation of changing surface
vegetation including the erosion of soils. The well sorted
‛younger fills’ are dated to a much younger period, i.e.
between Roman and Middle Ages, with erosion on slopes and
accumulation in the valleys. Anthropogenic influence is
thought to have been considerable. Vita-Finzi’s ‛younger fill’
could not be recognised by Kraft, Kayan and Erol (1982) in the
Skamander stratigraphy. For this deviation one has to consider
that local factors might have strongly influenced the picture of
the Mediterranean valleys. The history of the Skamander
valley can be roughly described as follows.
The last lowering of the world sea level occurred during the
Würm glaciation (at about 16000 BP) and reached a maximum
of about 100 m below present sea level. From that time onward
world sea level rose rapidly (Kraft, Kayan and Erol 1982). The
major geomorphic change in the Skamander plain over the past
7000 years was the progradation of the delta towards the
Dardanelles. Because of this progradation, the coastline shifted
in direction to the sea, although the sea level rose (Kraft,
Kayan and Erol 1982, Kayan 1996). In many Mediterranean
valleys the signs of sea-level changes are overlapping with
alluviation by the rivers, which are often assumed to be erosional
processes forced anthropogenically (Vita-Finzi 1969). The
accumulation of sediment in the Skamander delta was caused
by an unknown degree of human activity on the low plateau
and resulting soil erosion (Pustovoytov in prep.).
Human influence on soil erosion is documented since antiquity
(e.g. Plato in the 4th century) and is mainly interpreted as due
to excessive clearing and browsing. The rate of delta progression
is often an indicator of inland erosion. In the case of the
Skamander delta, erosive processes can be acertained since the
Early Bronze Age. The question of anthropogenic influence is
addressed by Pustovoytov (see 1.1.2.3).
The prehistoric coastlines determined by the accumulation of
sediment in the delta of Skamander are well-known from
Kayan’s investigations (Kraft, Kayan and Erol 1982, Kayan
1996). The ruin of Troy is six kilometres from the delta coast
today, while historical sources from the 12th century AD
document the coastline as about two kilometres distance from
the “town Truva”. Troy was a coastal settlement at least during
the Early Bronze Age periods Troy I and Troy II, and was not
much more than 1 km from the sea until Late Roman I. The
same situation is valid for Kumtepe (Map 1).
Today the southeastern part of the river valley is about 10 m
above sea level. The river regulations in the 20th century
changed the delta region of Skamander from flooded plains
during winters to a well drained river system. Since this time
the accumulation of sediment is negligible.
1.1.2.3 Soils
The reconstruction of the prehistoric environment is one of the
central aims within the recent archaeological investigation at
Troy. Soil science is integrated into Troy project, to investigate
the importance of the hinterland of Troy, i.e. the high and particularly
the low plateau, on which Troy is situated on the most
western edge. Soil represents the only autochthonous, palaeogeographic
indicator which can give information on prehistoric
activity within this locality. Although large regions of the
Mediterranean landscape are eroded, there are still areas, where
the original, prehistoric soil is preserved. Since 1995
Pustovoytov (1995) has investigated the soils in the vicinity of
Troy.
Pustovoytov (in prep.) conducted a prospection of the modern
soil-cover in the hinterland, which resulted in a soil map of the
region. Radiocarbon dating of humus and carbonates has given
information on the minimum ages of the soils. Dating buried
soils provided information on the beginning of the superposition,
i.e. accumulation of eroded sediment. Palaeobotanical
contents of soil profiles, such as pollen, phytoliths and carbonised
macroremains are still under investigation, but are
expected to bring information on the former vegetation in the
region.
The following summary gives some preliminary results on the
development of the soil-cover in the Troad.
The development of the soils on the high and the low plateaux
started in early Holocene at the latest. Since then, the soilcover
on the high plateau remained almost undisturbed until
now, while the low plateau was already partially eroded in prehistoric
times. The soil profiles from areas on the low plateau
that do not show signs of erosion, retain valuable information
for the reconstruction of the landscape. Other objects that
preserve characteristics of the ancient landscape are buried
soils, i.e. soils covered with sediment. These overlying sediments
consist of eroded and mixed material from old soil horizons.
Buried soils were found in ravines on the low plateau.
One of those buried soils could be determined as a former
ploughing horizon, which correlated with arable farming in the
Byzantine period (around 1100 AD).
Previous research demonstrated the coexistence of different
2

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
ecotopes, such as closed woods (oak) and open vegetation
(Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan 1992, Krönneck 1995). The
reduction of areas with woodland from Early Bronze Age to
Late Bronze Age, as suggested from the archaeozoological
remains, is also reflected in the soils (i.e. radiocarbon ages of
the soil carbonates (Pustovoytov, pers. com.)). The relatively
early existence of a patchy, open vegetation, i.e. more or less
closed woodland alternating with patches of maquis (open
woodland, consisting of shrubs and trees, more than 1 m in
height) and steppe vegetation, has been also suggested by other
landscape archaeologists for Early Bronze Age Greece
(Rackham 1982 and 1983).
Regarding erosional processes, these are mainly interpreted as
deriving from anthropogenic influence during the later Holocene.
However, the reasons for erosion, such as intensive land
use and poor management and their contribution to an eroded
landscape, are still under debate, not only in terms of their
chronological appearance within prehistory, but also because
of the role that climate could have played in a changing
landscape. A critical discussion of geoarchaeological results
and their economic and ecological meaning for the prehistoric
development of the Argive region is given by Bloedow (1995).
Episodes of soil erosion were found in several areas of
Greece. The erosional episodes for different regions do not
correlate in time, which might be the main argument against
the presumption that small-scale climate changes (e.g. moist
winter periods with strong rain fall) could have been the major
cause for these erosional periods. An argument for
anthropogenic causes, is the correlation between the periods of
erosion and the periods of intense human settlement (Runnels
1995).
An object in the Troad that could be studied for erosional processes
during Late Bronze Age-Archaic period, was the tumulus
Paşatepe, c. 1.5 km south of Troy. Its archaeological
dating is either Late Bronze Age (Troia VI-VII) (Winnefeld
1902) or Archaic (Schliemann 1891). It was demonstrated that
the soil at this location was already eroded before the erection
of the tumulus (Pustovoytov in prep.).
In the whole, three main steps in the developmental history of
the soil-cover in the Troad can be described:
Soil genesis on the high and low plateaux started at least in the
early Holocene. The intensity of geological processes decreased
and the surface of the hinterland stabilised.
There are no indicators of anthropogenic influence during the
early to middle Holocene. Signs of vegetation change on the
low plateau exist, but no signs of arable farming have been
detected yet.
Anthropogenic influence was strong during the late Holocene
on the low plateau, but negligible on the high plateau. Four
agricultural phases could be demonstrated:
- a Late Bronze Age-Archaic phase of arable farming, on the
southern slope, c. 1.5 km south of Troy,
- a Hellenistic-Roman phase, in the central part of the low plateau,
c. 4 km east of Troy,
- a Byzantine phase, in the same area as B.
- a modern phase.
Pustovoytov (in prep.) offers a chronological scheme for the
anthropogenic processes in the landscape. According to him,
deforestation in the central part of the low plateau very likely
started around 8000 BP and lasted at least until shortly after
3000 BP, i.e. comprises the first settlements in the Troad until
the Dark Ages. Erosion caused by agriculture could be demonstrated
for the Greek-Hellenistic, the Roman and Byzantine
period. These preliminary results are still under investigation
and have to be confirmed by further research.
Without anticipating the archaeobotanical results, one might
already speculate on the ecological and economic development
of the Troad, based on the results from geomorphology and
soil science. Assuming an active clearance of the landscape for
different purposes (for grazing of sheep and goats on the
slopes, for fields), soil erosion might have occurred at least
from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, which is reflected
in an introductory opening of the landscape in this period. In
the course of time enormous amounts of alluvium accumulated
in the Skamander valley and provided fertile ground for arable
farming, which was probably used in the following periods.
1.1.2.4 Climate and weather
The general climate of the eastern Mediterranean coast is
dominated by, on the one hand, the continental-tropical
atmospheric movements in the months of summer (May-
September), which bring mainly dry winds, and on the other,
the cyclones of heavy precipitation dominant from November
until May, which come in from the West (Güldalı 1979). The
climate of western Anatolia and the coast is therefore typically
Mediterranean with hot, arid summers and moderately cool and
moist winters. The mean annual precipitation (680 mm) is far
above that which would make irrigation agriculture necessary
(the yearly sum of precipitation in Çanakkale from 1961 to
1972 was between 520 and 980 mm (Alex and Burry 1982).
The palaeogeographical results imply that aridity could not
have been a problem in Troy in any of the periods under
concern.
The evidence for climatic change since the last glacial is highly
controversial, particularly for the Subboreal period (Bintliff
1982). Palynological evidence is contributing a lot to the reconstruction
of past climates, although palynologists discuss
the extent of this contribution (van Zeist 1969). In practice,
pollen data is used to reconstruct past vegetation, which again
is assumed to be an indicator of past climate. The fluctuations
in AP (Arboral Pollen) and NAP (Non Arboral Pollen) indicate
changes in humidity, but they cannot show whether these
changes were caused by changes in temperature or in precipitation
(Bottema and van Zeist 1981). Van Zeist (1969) points out
the ambiguity of interpretations of the pollen record. For
example, he demonstrated for the Zagros an aridification
between 10000 and 8000 BP, which is represented by steppewoodland
communities. This relative aridity cannot be due to
less precipitation, because at the same time archaeological
settlements show a cereal oriented subsistence economy
(barley and wheat in Ali Kosh and Beidha). It is more likely
that temperatures were higher, or that arid phases were longer
than today.
Climatic fluctuations from changes in humidity were also suggested
for younger periods (Beyşehir occupation phase with a
3

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
beginning of roughly 2900 BP) in southern Turkey, where decreased
summer temperatures or a high presence of clouds
were interpreted from a decrease in Compositae pollen, that
were recognised to have increased in the previous phase by hot
upwinds through strong insolation and heating of the earth
(Bottema, Woldring and Aytug 1986).
Other problems arise with the synchronisation of the eastern
vegetation successions with the Middle European basic succession,
particularly with regard to the postglacial woodland development
on the Mediterranean coast (Beug 1967).
The apparent inconsistency is a strongly deviating vegetation
development in different regions. Considering additionally the
low coverage of pollen cores, these variations are not that astonishing.
For example van Zeist and Bottema (1982) could
demonstrate that differences in vegetation development existed
between northern Israel and northwestern Syria in the Postglacial
period (11/10000-6000 BP), but also in earlier periods,
such as the Pleniglacial. Variations are sometimes explained by
differences in wind circulation systems, an aspect which was
discussed by Bintliff (1982) as a more progressive approach to
past climates.
After the Pleniglacial period humidity seems to have increased
continuously, with regional differences, such as a later increase
of humidity in southeastern Turkey, deducted from a later distribution
of woodland (i.e. increase of wood pollen). Generally
an increase of humidity took place between c. 10500 and 6000
(5000) BP, when modern climatic conditions were reached.
The palynological evidence from Near Eastern sites (excluding
western Anatolia) suggests that at least from 6000 BP onward
no considerable change in vegetation or climate occurred
(Bottema and van Zeist 1981). A problem of lack of direct
evidence becomes obvious in the palaeo-vegetation map by
van Zeist and Bottema (1982). The map is based on the palynological
results from Greece, but shows continuous forest
cover for the western Anatolian coast from around 8000 BP.
There are also difficulties in interpreting climatic indicators in
the eastern Mediterranean for the period between 3500 and
1000/750 BC (Subboreal period), which might have been
caused by a regime of variable weather. Bintliff (1982) observes
that “the implications for the Mediterranean latitude
(with the development in north-west Europe) are not clear-cut.
One might expect after the Piora fluctuation (cool phase in the
northern hemisphere during the Atlantic period, 5000-3500 bc)
onwards in time, a marked variability at different longitudes of
the Mediterranean with unusually dry zones adjacent to unusually
wet zones... ” (p. 510).
Within the Subboreal period, the end of the Late Bronze Age
has been the object of vigorous discussion, in the search for
reasons for the collapse of Mycenaean civilisation.
The architectural evidence for the collapse is visible in destruction,
but also in constructions. There are intentionally fire-destroyed
buildings in Mycenae and other archaeological sites
(Gla) in LH IIIB, but also reinforcement of fortifications and
the construction of underground water supply systems at
Mycenae and other archaeological sites (Tiryns), for defensive
purposes. Numerous sites were abandoned or destroyed either
within or at the very end of LH IIIB (before 1200 BC). Some
are believed to have been destroyed by natural disasters, such
as earthquakes (Tiryns). Depopulation of the centres in the
subsequent LH IIIC phase is archaeologically recognisable.
Besides the main ideas on the reasons for Mycenaean collapse,
such as the neo-marxist theory of internal social revolution,
disruption of commerce by the Sea Peoples, invasion over land
from the North, or the more unpopular idea of invaders on a
lower cultural level than the inhabitants, there is also the argument
of climatic change as a reason for the collapse.
Carpenter (1966) suggests in his hypothesis a mosaic of
drought and normal rainfall over the eastern Mediterranean
region around 1200 BC (around the end of the LH IIIB), as a
consequence of the distribution of relief and atmospheric circulation
(Bintliff 1982). According to Carpenter, the drought, as
the main factor for the disruption of agriculture, affected areas
of Crete, the southern Peloponnese and the Argolid but did not
particularly affect the northwest Peloponnese, Thessaly and the
rest of northern Greece. His hypothesis that the Late Bronze
Age collapse was linked to climatic change was supported later
by palaeoclimatological investigations by Lamb (1967),
Bryson et al. (1974), Weiss (1982), and more cautiously by
Kuniholm (1990). They confirmed that a pattern of drought
such as that postulated by Carpenter is in fact possible, while
Neumann (1993) takes the view that the opposite, i.e. cool and
humid winters, was the case. The chronology of the respective
events is another problem, because of a lack of dates.
Some archaeologists have doubts about the Carpenter hypothesis,
because settlement continuities and discontinuities do not
fit into this mosaic pattern of dry and moist regions (Dickinson
1974). Archaeologists are not satisfied with Carpenter’s explanation,
because it does not answer the question as to who destroyed
the palaces.
After c. 750 BC the climate generally was comparable to the
present day, although the palynological evidence is difficult to
interpret, because of increasing human interference with woodland
distribution (van Zeist, Timmers and Bottema 1968,
Bintliff 1982).
Precipitation in the Mediterranean belt of Turkey varies
considerably from one year to the next. Inter-annual weather
fluctuations determine the likeliness of risks of crop failure
with the practised system. According to Kuniholm (1990) crop
failures are not necessarily explained only with climatic
change. He observed that crop failures are often caused by
people’s tendency to give up practices that tradition had proved
right. The shift to other agricultural practices would result in
catastrophic crop failures. On the other hand, ethnographic
observation in Greece demonstrated that usually the economy
of agrarian households was very well adapted to a broad
spectrum of expected but unpredictable changes of the weather
and not to the ‛climate-average’ (e.g. Forbes 1976). Between
these two perspectives (the shift to a different agricultural
practice and the reaction to inter-annual weather fluctuations
with a diverse set of practices) the time factor, under which
fluctuations appear is significant. In the first case one might
assume a longer period (e.g. within a few decades), before the
weather fluctuates into another direction. In the second case
one might assume shorter periodic deviations in weather (e.g.
within several years); people would surely not have forgotten
traditional farming in this time.
4

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
This demonstrates that knowledge about the potential
variability of the weather would be very useful for
considerations about the influence of natural factors on the
economy of the people. Information about the relative
probability of a crop failure might be obtained by the
observation of the variability of precipitation across a time of
several years.
Nišanci (1973) found sums for the Troad precipitation in the
winter months (Dec.-Feb.) of 100-158 mm. The percentage of
the abundance of summers (June-Aug.) without rain for the
same region was 21-30%. Between 1961 to 1972 the precipitation
in Çanakkale in August was six times zero, in
January it was four times below 50mm. These numbers show
the likeliness of dry months within one year, which can
determine the harvest even when the yearly sum of
precipitation is high (see above, Alex and Burry 1982).
1.1.2.5 Vegetation
Before Davis (1965-1988) published 10 volumes of the Flora
of Turkey, the only monumental work was Boissier’s Flora
Orientalis (1867-1888). Many articles on individual aspects
and some books (e.g. Kürschner, Raus and Venter 1995) were
published, but the Flora of Turkey remains the most comprehensive
and is therefore the basic reference for this work.
One of the particularities of the Turkish flora is that Turkey is
the meeting place of three phytogeographical regions, the
Euro-Siberian, Mediterranean, and Irano-Turanian regions,
which form the enormous richness of the Turkish flora. West
Anatolia, Mysia and the Troad belong predominantly to the
Mediterranean phytogeographic region, i.e. the East
Mediterranean province. In Mysia, enclaves of Euxine (Euro-
Siberian belt) vegetation exist (Kaz Daği). The Mediterranean
flora of West Anatolia shows many affinities with that of the
East Aegean islands and even with the Greek mainland (Davis
1965-1988, vol. 1, 21).
Characteristic of the East Mediterranean province is the sclerophyllous
vegetation, but geophytes, therophytes and suffrutescent
chamaephytes are also numerous.
Below 1000/1200 m maquis vegetation is dominant, on deeper
soils forests prevail. Leading woody species include Quercus
coccifera, Q. aegilops, Cistus spp., Olea europaea var.
oleaster, Pistacia spp., Pinus brutia (often a dominant forest
tree), P. pinea, Juniperus oxycedrus, Phillyrea media, Arbutus
andrachne, Carpinus betulus, Celtis australis, Ceratonia siliqua,
Laurus nobilis, Myrtus communis, etc.. Maquis vegetation
is often degraded and replaced by phrygana (here used as
synonym for garrigue, open vegetation, consisting of sclerophyllous
shrubs up to 1 m height). Here Cistus spp. and Sarcopoterium
spinosum, and Lamiaceae are among the leading
species. Near rivers or dried-up river beds Nerium oleander,
Platanus orientalis, Vitex agnus-castus, and Vitis sylvestris are
common.
Above 1000/1200 m the Mediterranean region is largely dominated
by conifers. Pinus nigra is the most widespread species.
Where it has been destroyed by fire, Cistus laurifolius can occupy
these areas.
Above the tree line (± 1700 m) various cushion communities
with often spiny species of Astragalus, Acantholimon and
Onobrychis become dominant.
Except from a few old plant lists (Ascherson, von Heldreich
and Kurtz 1881), vegetation studies in the Troad are very
sparse. The vegetation map by the UNESCO/FAO shows the
Troad comprising five distinct vegetation stages differentiated
primarily by altitude (UNESCO/FAO 1970). The ‛Western
Mediterranean Evergreen Oak Stage’ in which Troy is situated,
extends inland from the coast about 10 km and more. This
typical Mediterranean scrubland is composed in the close
vicinity of Troy (low plateau) of Quercus coccifera (pricklyoak),
which is the most important sclerophyllous tree in terms
of ground cover, Cistus sp. (cistrose), Sarcopoterium spinosum
(thorny burnet), etc. Other typical maquis and phrygana elements,
such as Arbutus andrachne (strawberry tree), Pistacia
terebinthus (cyprus terpentine), etc., are only found further
away from villages in real maquis communities. In the areas
close to arable fields intensive browsing by goats and sheep
resulted in further degradation to garrigue or even batha
(chamaephytic shrubs, up to 50 cm in height, with predominating
Sarcopoterium spinosum), which are relatively poor in
species.
A more detailed description of the plateau and valley
vegetation around Troy as observed between 1993-1996 will
be given in chapter 4.
In 1965 there was still a lack of synthesis of floristic surveys
conducted in Turkey. One of the causes is an “extreme inaccuracy.....of
many published distribution maps” (Davis 1965-
1988). About 15 years later the situation had not changed a lot.
Information on local vegetation history or ecological change
was still sparse. No concrete results on the woodland vegetation
of past times were available, especially as to its extent and
composition (Güldalı 1979). The opinions ranged from
dominating broad spectrum deciduous woodland to dominating
maquis type vegetation, with recently higher preference for the
latter opinion. Pollen analytical investigation in the Troad is
rare, and apart from a recent pollen analysis in the Iznik region
(Bottema and Woldring 1995), and two short reports on pollen
contents in mudbrick from Troy II (Gennett and Gifford 1982,
Huber and Rapp 1987), there is no palynological data
available.
On the other hand, single plant communities (e.g. maquis or
woodland vegetation) are well investigated (e.g. Quézel 1978,
1981a and 1981b). Many of these phytosociological articles are
published in Turkish (e.g. Seçmen and Leblebici 1978).
As already stated above, knowledge of the history of the Mediterranean
flora and vegetation is still in the stage of an outline
scheme (Pons and Quézel 1985). Today only about 13% of
Turkey is covered with woodland, in contrast to 70% in historical
times. The remaining portion of land is used for cultivation
and for browsing (mainly steppe and maquis) (Güldalı 1979).
Pollen analysis revealed only a few truly Mediterranean taxa in
the Late Pleistocene; the Mediterranean vegetation had not yet
reached its full differentiation and extension. Towards the last
glacial period the percentages of indicators of more open vegetation
increased (Quercus, Pistacia, etc.). In the eastern Mediterranean
the Late Glacial between 16000 and 11000 BP seems
5

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
to have been unsuitable for a dense tree growth. Already
during the second part of the Postglacial (from 7000 BP
onwards) the anthropogenic influence becomes significant. The
first recognisable influence of man on the vegetation is with
agriculture and pastoral activities, but according to Pons and
Quézel (1985), there is still not enough knowledge about
anthropogenic influence for prehistoric periods, because of
inadequate location of pollen sites. Human influence on the
vegetation in relation to the formation of maquis vegetation has
recently provoked controversial discussions. A short
presentation of this aspect is given in chapter 4.
Vegetation history for the Troad is indirectly recorded, or deduced
from Greek pollen data in van Zeist and Bottema (1991).
According to this scheme the modern woodland is a relict of
sclerophyllous mixed forest.
From palaeogeographic investigations (Kayan 1996) we know
about the slow progradation of the delta. The ground water
level was high, and therefore marshy vegetation was widespread
within the area. Wood cutting and clearing of the vegetation
was surely practiced from the beginning of the settlements,
and there are signs from soil science (Pustovoytov in
prep.), archaeozoology and not least from archaeobotany, that
the vegetation was already partially open, but still with larger,
oak wooded areas (Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan 1992) in
Early Bronze Age.
The landscape descriptions of the last century by Barker-Webb
(1822) and Virchow (1879) show a vegetation very similar to
the modern. Only the valley, which is well drained today, was
more marshy.
1.1.3 The history of archaeobotanical
research in the Troad
The excavations by Blegen from 1932 gave first rise to systematic
archaeobotanical investigations in Troy. Phytolith
analysis of cultural layers mainly from Troy I/II was conducted
by Rapp and Mulholland (Mulholland, Rapp, and Gifford
1982, Mulholland and Rapp 1987). Samples were taken, e.g.
from burnt bricks of the Troy II Megaron IIA, a witness of the
early blossoming of the city, but also from ashy layers and soil
predating the settlement. The aim of conducting these analyses
was to recognise changes in past plant communities and plant
use by humans. Rapp and Mulholland found that stems of the
grass Arundo donax (giant reed), which is common on
Mediterranean river sides, was the main contributor to the
phytoliths in almost all the samples and was possibly used as
building material. The samples from the Megaron brick contained
only few phytoliths, mainly grass. These bricks were
also sampled for pollen with better success (Huber and Rapp
1987). The taxa recorded were Pinus sp. (pine), Quercus sp.
(oak), Pistacia sp. (pistachio), Asphodelus sp. (asphodel),
Caryophyllaceae (pink family), Gramineae (grass family), and
Compositae (daisy family), a very typical combination for the
Mediterranean. Earlier pollen analysis was conducted by
Gennett and Gifford, also with samples from archaeological
layers (Gennett and Gifford 1982). They found very high
numbers of Pinus pollen.
Besides the investigations on phytoliths and pollen, analyses of
botanical macrofossils were conducted. The latest analysis by
Shay is based on two samples of emmer grain from Troy I
levels (Shay, Anderson, and Shay 1982).
Earlier analyses were similarly restricted to small amounts of
material (Schiemann 1951, Lindau 1922, Wittmack 1890).
Wittmack identified plant remains from storage rooms that
were sampled by Virchow. The remains were dated to Troy II
levels. This ‛wheat’ was abundant in “hand high” (!) elongated
layers (Virchow 1879, p. 68). There was a lot of confusion
with the identifications. First the wheat was identified as
Triticum durum var. trojanum (Wittmack 1881, p. 779) and
thought to be emmer. Then Wittmack made several revisions
of his identifications so that his former Triticum durum var.
trojanum changed to Triticum vulgare var. trojanum and was
thought to be two-grained einkorn (Wittmack 1886, p. 33). The
wheat grains from these earlier layers (older than Troy II) were
described as bigger and thicker than the later finds (Wittmack
1890). Schiemann (1951) corrected Wittmack’s identifications
further. Several of the former Triticum monococcum grains
were now designated as Triticum dicoccum. This confusion
indicates the problems of cereal grain identification in general.
At that time, sampling was not advanced enough to extract the
more readily identifiable chaff remains.
Besides the cereals, Schiemann found silica skeletons of Hordeum
cf. maritimum (sea barley), Bromus sp. (brome grass).
and Vitis vinifera. Other crops found by Wittmack in Troy II
layers were Pisum sativum, Vicia faba in minor amounts and
small lentils (2.3 mm in diameter). Further remains from a
layer, older than the previous, which were collected from vessels,
included mainly wheat and Vicia ervilia. The only weed
that was mentioned by Wittmack was Fumaria sp. (fumitory),
which was a modern contaminant in the samples.
Considering the rich finds of early excavations and the incomplete
study of this material, it is very regrettable that most of
the plant remains from Virchow’s collection disappeared
during wartime. A part of Schiemann’s collection is now in the
Botanical Garden in Berlin-Dahlem (Raus 1992), but the
original material was destroyed by bombing during the Second
World War (Kilian 1997). Huge amounts of grain excavated
during Blegen’s excavations are also lost, i.e. they are not in
the archives of the museums in Çanakkale or Istanbul (Rose,
pers. com.).
Beside the new investigations (since 1991) in Troy and Kumtepe
no other archaeobotanical research has been conducted in
western Anatolia until recently, when Dr. Emel Oybak (Izmir
Region Excavations and Research Project Team) started in
1996 with archaeobotanical analysis from the sites Bakla Tepe
(Chalc.-Early Bronze Age) and Liman Tepe (Chalc.-Late
Bronze Age) in the Izmir province (Oybak 1997).
1.2 The archaeology of Kumtepe and Troy
and the origin of the samples
The geographical position of the Troad between the Black Sea
region and the Aegean on one side and the prehistoric settlement
centres of Inner Anatolia on the other side, defines it as a
focal point of cultural and economic relations during the prehistory
of these regions.
The following paragraphs summarise the early archaeological
6

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
results in relation to their relevance for the archaeobotanical
interpretation; therefore they do not claim to be
comprehensive. The same is performed for the recent
excavations, but incorporating the origin of the samples.
1.2.1 Kumtepe
The small site of Kumtepe (less than 1.4 ha) lies c. 5 km northnorth-west
of Troy, at the western limit of the Troian plain, 50
m west of one of the Skamander River’s arms, and was occupied
from Neolithic/Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age. The site
was first recognised during Blegen’s excavations at Troy in
1934, and was assumed to be of interest because of surface
potsherds similar to those of Early Troy I. Sperling excavated
on the tepe for 10 days in 1934, and since 1993 a team of M.
Korfmann has continued the investigations, after a part of the
site was destroyed by farming activities (Korfmann et al.
1996). After the field season in 1995 there are no further plans
at the moment to continue the excavation.
The cultural stratigraphy starts with Kumtepe C on the top,
which is parallel to Troy I, followed by Kumtepe B layers,
which are older than Troy I (early), and finally the Neolithic
Kumtepe A layers (Bertram 1995).
1.2.1.1 Archaeological research history
During the small-scale excavation in 1934, Sperling defined
eight phases of the three-period site (Kumtepe A, B and C).
According to Sperling, the pottery of the end of Kumtepe (i.e.
Kumtepe C) is typologically indistinguishable from that of the
initial phases of Troy I. Architectural remains and burials were
found in Kumtepe B and C, while in Kumtepe A only stratification
implied that houses stood near by (Sperling 1976).
Rough identification of archaeozoological material was conducted.
Kumtepe A layers contained huge amounts of shells,
such as from Ostrea plicata (oyster) and Mytilus edulis (mussel),
derived from human consumption. Among the domesticated
and wild animals, Capra/Ovis (goat/sheep), Bos (cattle)
and Dama dama (fallow-deer) were sparsely recorded. In
Kumtepe B, a probable Thunnus (tuna fish) and a probable Sus
scrofa (wild boar) were found, in addition to the species
already mentioned from Kumtepe A. Kumtepe C had the same
species spectrum. Capra/Ovis and Sus were more numerous
than before, and cattle less represented.
An abundance of shells is characteristic of the site. The nearby
coast during the settlement period provided a relatively stable
and bountiful food resource. The spectrum of hunted deer and
wild boar, and domesticated goat, sheep and cattle from the
beginning of the settlement are also typical of the early periods
in Troy.
Surveys on other sites nearby, such as Han Tepe, Çoban Tepe,
and Kara Ağaç Tepe, indicate the presence of other settlements
at least from Kumtepe C period, which according to Sperling,
“reflect an increase in population and a need for more land”
(Sperling 1976, p. 357). He closes the discussion with an
interesting speculation. In his opinion “some people moved
away” at the end of Kumtepe C, “to join in the initial
settlement and fortification of the hill of Troy.....as it became
more obvious that Kumtepe failed to provide the kind of
security offered by the more advantageously located, newly
fortified site” so that “what took place in the region” was “not
a loss of population but a regrouping for the sake of protection”
(Sperling 1976,
p. 357). His conclusion might be supported by the argument
that the desertion of Kumtepe C must have happened
gradually. There are no signs of a general destruction, and
there is the evidence of expanding the fortification walls in
very short intervals in early Troy.
Within the excavation campaign in 1934, Sperling found a
reoccupation of Kumtepe (Kumtepe II) after another
millennium, which falls within the time span of Troy V and VI.
1.2.1.2 The recent excavations and location of
the archaeobotanical samples
In 1993 rescue excavations at Kumtepe were conducted, after
the landowner started to level the mound, and had already removed
c. 80 trailer-loads of stones.
In addition to the remains dating to Troy I and V, already
recognised by Sperling, surveys within the new excavations
brought stray finds of Troy II, III and VI. This suggests that the
settlement of Kumtepe might have existed through the whole
Bronze Age, as a neighbouring village of Troy. Except from
Kumtepe A and B horizons and a few remnant areas of
Kumtepe C, the horizons of later periods were all destroyed
(Korfmann et al. 1995).
Three trenches were excavated, G28, F28 and F29. Architectural
remains consisted of rectangular buildings with stone
foundations, with construction differences in the different
phases (e.g. those of phase B3 with large stone slabs). Some of
the building techniques, such as fish-bone technique’, have
parallels in Troy I and other sites (e.g. Beşik-Yassitepe)
(Korfmann et al. 1995).
Kumtepe B architecture could be divided into four building
phases with a high proportion of wooden posts in the lower
horizons. The remains of an apsidal house were also found in
the oldest Kumtepe B horizons (Korfmann et al. 1996). In
1995 another house-complex of five rooms was excavated with
surprisingly large size of 5 x 7 m (Korfmann 1996).
Most of the archaeobotanical samples (28 in number) are from
horizons dating to Kumtepe B, which starts around 3400 BC
and ends with the beginning of the Troy settlement.
Only a few samples could be taken from the Neolithic period
Kumtepe A, which includes a cemetery close to the bedrock, so
that analyses of the Kumtepe material concentrates on the
Bronze Age material. The few samples (7) from Kumtepe A
levels were quite different from Kumtepe B horizons but because
of the small number of samples, the differences are difficult
to assess as either functional or cultural in nature. The
samples could not be dated precisely to phase due to chronostratigraphical
reasons, and are discussed in detail in chapter 3.
The palaeogeographic situation was the same as that of early
Troy, directly on the seashore (Kayan 1996).
7

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
1.2.2 Troy
1.2.2.1 Chronology
The dating of the different periods in Troy is one of the focal
points of chronological discussions. Since Blegen (1963)
many, often divergent dates for the different phases have
evolved (Korfmann and Kromer 1993). The results of the new
excavations tend to an older dating.
The matching of the different periods of Troy with the
common terms of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age, is part
of the problem. While the traditional approach places,
according to differences in material culture, Troy I to Troy V
under Early Bronze Age, the recent investigations put at least
Troy IV and V in the Middle Bronze Age. In the meantime it
has been suggested that there is a chronological overlap
between Troy I and Troy II, and radiocarbon dates show
overlap also from other periods. A cultural break between Troy
III and IV was also recognised. Recently Korfmann has
matched the different periods from Troy with cultural
definitions (Korfmann 1996). According to him, Troy I-Troy
III represent close relations to the coastal eastern
Mediterranean region, Troy IV and Troy V show clear
connections to Anatolian cultures and Troy VI and Troy VIIa
represent a very advanced civilisation of Troy. In Troy VIIb he
claims a ‛Troy-Culture’, determined by Balkan influences.
The archaeobotanical work concentrates on the periods Troy I
until Troy VII. The later periods, i.e. the Greek-Hellenistic and
the Roman, were not part of the archaeobotanical research
project, but will be mentioned from time to time in contrasting
the Bronze Age results with the whole settlement period. From
the thickness and preservation of the archaeological layers, the
periods are not represented equally in the site and were not
excavated to an equal degree. Therefore no samples were obtained
from periods Troy III and Troy V. The remaining periods
(Troy I/II, Troy IV, Troy VI and Troy VII) are represented
unequally in archaeobotanical samples for the same reasons.
To deal with a relatively equal amount of samples for each
time period and to have a sensible amount of samples for a
statistical analysis, it was decided to group the samples for the
general view of the plant remains in the Bronze Age, i.e. Troy I
and Troy II under Early Bronze Age Troy, Troy VI and VII
under Late Bronze Age Troy. Middle Bronze Age Troy is
represented almost exclusively by Troy IV samples. Because
the samples from Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic period
were not part of the question they were summarised for the
data analysis as Post–Bronze AgeTroy.
1.2.2.2 Archaeological research history and
results from the early excavations
First mentioned in writing by Homer in the Iliad, the city of
Troy has been under discussion since antiquity. Interpretation
of the Iliad, a research problem in its own right, was the
impetus for further mythologising in later and historical time,
and this remains the case (Latacz 1990). The myth of Troy, i.e.
the fall of a wealthy and powerful city, might have been the
main impelling force on Schliemann’s search for Troy and his
first excavations (Schliemann 1881, 1884, 1890 und 1891).
With four excavations (1871-1873, 1878-1879, 1882, 1890) he
provided the basis for further investigations, and dug out the
famous treasures. At that point he was not aware of the correct
chronostratigraphy of the site. The Mycenaean Troy layers he
was looking for, because of their supposed equivalence with
the Homeric Troy, were mainly excavated by his successor
Dörpfeld from 1893, who also developed the chronostratigraphical
system of Troy I to Troy IX (Dörpfeld 1902).
Between 1932 and 1938 a team of American archaeologists
excavated at Troy under the leadership of Blegen, who improved
the chronology of the site (Blegen 1950a and 1963).
What follows is a summary of the main results from these early
excavations, selected for their relevance to the archaeobotany.
With the find of the fortification wall of Troy I (from c. 2920
BC) Schliemann and Dörpfeld demonstrated that the site was
of the ‛fortress’ type from its inception. Blegen divided Troy I
into 10 (a-j) architectural phases. They will not be discussed,
because, apart from the problem of chronological classification
of the soil samples, it is not possible to apply a chronological
system of 47 settlement phases to a sensible number of
samples.
The main architectural features in Troy I are large, freestanding
houses, built of mudbrick on a stone socle, but no
complete plans were recovered. The well-known ‛rectangular
megaron’ or ‛house 102’ (where six infant burials were discovered
by the Blegen team) that is visible in the ‛Schliemann
trench’ is one of the oldest buildings in Troy. Typical pottery
for the early phases is dark monochrome burnished ware.
Later Aegean ceramic imports appear, including fragments of
EH/EC II Urfirnis which show that the middle of Troy I overlaps
in date with EH/EC II on the Greek Mainland and on the
central Aegean islands. At the end of Troy I, Aegean imports
are recognisable by sauceboat fragments. Instruments of common
handcrafts (needles, pins, awls from metal and bone,
querns and grinders from stone, spindle whorls and loomweights
from terracotta) are strongly represented. The end of
Troy I bears evidence for destruction by fire.
Parallels to other Aegean sites exist with the Early Bronze Age
site Thermi I-V, which has traditionally been equated with
Troy I. The ceramic analysis suggests that the Thermi sequence
is contemporary with all of Troy I-II (Podzuweit 1979a and
1979b).
The deposits of Troy II (2600-2450 BC) have eight architectural
phases (a-g). In Troy II the fortification walls are extended
and provided with two gateways flanked by towers.
One of these gateways is approached by a ‛ramp’. The top of
the fortress is dominated by the huge parallel megara, of which
the largest is Megaron IIA. Its walls were made of mudbrick
set within a half-timbered framework on top of a massive stone
socle. Inside a large circular hearth (dia. 4 m!) was found,
which must have needed huge amounts of fuel to keep burning.
In the south-east of the citadel lies a multi-roomed structure.
The number of monumental megara declined in favour of more
obviously residential dwellings taking the form of blocks or
‛insulae’, and the middle of Troy II is characterised by extensive
rubbish pits (‛bothroi’), perhaps designed originally as
emplacements for large pithoi (Blegen 1950b). As Troy II
progresses, more of the pottery is red to tan in colour instead of
black, although black-polished ware is still common. There is
also evidence for the use of the fast wheel with its succession
8

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
of new shapes, such as shallow dishes and plates in redslipped-and-polished
ware. The depas amphikypellon (a kind
of beaker with two handles), which is related by many
archaeologists with wine consumption appears in this period.
Some of the more famous pottery finds from Troy are the
highly stylised human facial features. The finds of burials
suggest that intramural child burial was practised, but adult
burials must have been made outside the settlement. Two
destruction horizons caused by fire are known from the
beginning (IIa) and from the end (IIg) of Troy II.
In the latter horizons large amounts of gold and silver were
brought to light by Schliemann, which, together with the architecture,
suggest enormous prosperity and the wide extent of
Troy II’s contacts with other areas (Aegean and also in inland
Turkey). The jewellery in this phase is interesting for its parallels
at other sites like Poliochni V (Lemnos) (cf. Pernicka et al.
1990). Textile production must have already been at a high
level, because spindle whorls were common, and in a late Troy
II house there was evidence for a loom in form of parallel rows
of loomweights.
There are only a few architectural remains from Troy III
(2390-2200 BC). Small one-to-three roomed houses grouped in
larger complexes seem to contrast with the houses (megara) of
the previous periods. This fits into the general pattern of Early
Bronze Age Aegean and western Anatolia, where the earlier
phases of the Early Bronze Age are characterised by large
megara of much the same size, each consisting of just two to
three rooms, and in later Early Bronze Age phases by smaller
complexes which incorporate megaron units of greatly reduced
size. The houses of Troy III are likely to have been built of
stone rather than of mudbrick on a stone socle (Blegen 1951).
Many of the finds (including pottery) are of types already
found in Troy I-II. Animal figurines from terracotta appear, but
it is not possible to designate which kind of quadruped animal
they represent. The end of Troy III is marked by a demolition
for unknown reasons.
The same event is apparent at the end of the five Troy IV
(2200-2000 BC) architectural phases. Houses are built of mudbrick
on a stone socle again. The houses seem to consist of a
row of four two-room residential units fronting on the same
street. The domed oven is introduced at the beginning of the
period. Many of the objects are much the same as in Troy III.
Most of the vases are wheel-made, and straw-tempering for
large vases is very common now.
Blegen (1951) distinguished three to four architectural phases
of Troy V (c. 2000-1870 BC), although the horizons seem to
be poorly represented. No significant changes differentiate the
Troy V pottery from that of Troy IV. According to the old
excavations the evidence for deer decreased and the bones of
pig and cow became the most frequent types found. The sparse
representation of layers from this period might also be the reason
for the lack of knowledge about the end of the Troy V
period.
Troy VI (c. 1700-1250 BC) was divided by Blegen, Caskey
and Rawson (1953) into eight sub-phases (a-h). The wall
constructions have three different phases and three corresponding
gateways. Cut limestone blocks with rectangular
faces constitute a wall of more than four meters thickness and
nine meters height, originally even higher because it was surmounted
by a mudbrick superstructure. Towers project from
the exterior face and demonstrate concern for the capability of
the defenders. The foundations of the wall extend a meter or
more below the contemporary ground level outside of the citadel,
but the foundations rest neither on bedrock nor on virgin
soil, in contrast to standard Mycenaean practice. This type of
foundation may have been an anti-seismic precaution by the
ancient builders. However, the walls were destroyed at the end
of Troy VI, possibly by an earthquake (Rapp 1982).
No palaces were found, but the reason might be that the top of
the citadel was shaved off in Hellenistic and Roman times
down to levels well below those of Troy VI. Domestic
buildings were large, rectangular structures with relatively
simple plans, differing strongly from the previous periods, and
were found in the early excavations in concentric terraces
within the citadel only. Numerous pithoi were excavated in this
area. Megara were quite numerous (e.g. houses VI A, VI B,
and VI C). The Pillar House presumably had a second storey.
Half-timbering might have been an alternative building style
(house VI F).
The sharp break in the ceramic tradition between Troy V and
Troy VI is even more rigid compared to the relative ceramic
continuity detectable throughout the earlier periods in Troy.
The very typical, ‛Grey Minyan’ is a local west Anatolian ware
and derived probably from the Early Bronze Age ‛Inegöl Grey
ware’ found in the region southeast of the Sea of Marmara
(Allen 1990, French 1966). In the last phases of Troy VI,
Mycenaean pottery is locally imitated in the form of painted
vessels made in the local Tan Ware. There are also other imitations
of Mycenaean objects as well as imports (ivory) (Bryce
1989).
A cemetery of cremation burials in jars dating exclusively to
the end phase of Troy VI was found outside the walls of the
citadel. Grave-goods were badly preserved, and according to
Blegen, Caskey and Rawson (1953) a low societal status of the
buried might be indicated. Another thought is that the
cremation burials are the remains of a massive burial program
conducted in a hurry, connected with the final disaster, i.e. an
earthquake, which is suggested by the masses of collapsed
stonework. There are no convincing signs of a general
conflagration all over the site. Some scholars have seen in the
myth of the Trojan Horse a metaphor for this earthquake, in
that the horse was sacred to Poseidon, the Greek divinity
responsible for earthquakes (cf. Wood 1985).
The Troy VIIa settlement is dated c. 1250-1190 BC and has
been generally assumed to be a short-lived settlement on the
grounds that no sub-phases have been detected within it
(Blegen et al. 1958). The fortifications, collapsed in Troy VI,
were reconstructed in Troy VIIa, which perished later in a general
conflagration, which destroyed both the buildings within
the citadel and those outside. If the Trojan War and the
destruction of the town by Mycenaeans is a historical event,
Troy VIIa is the likely candidate for the city of Priam (Mellink
1986, Foxhall and Davies 1984, Page 1959, Wood 1985).
Some of the large Troy VI buildings were reconstructed in
Troy VIIa, but many had been too badly damaged by the
earthquake and were simply built over. The houses of Troy
VIIa are more densely packed within the citadel than were the
mansions of Troy VI. They tend to be one-to three-room
9

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
structures which share party walls and are irregular in plan.
The floors of the houses sometimes have pits dug for the
emplacement of large storage pithoi below ground level. Water
supplies within the area enclosed by the walls consist of a well
in a paved, seemingly public court just east of the overbuilt
foundations of House VIF and a large cistern or well in Tower
VI g (see Map 2). Remains of several houses outside the walls
(Houses 740-741 south of the east gate and House 749 at the
southeast) indicate that a lower town of some sort extended
beyond the walls of the citadel in Troy VIIa as in Troy VI.
The material culture of Troy VIIa is almost identical to that of
the preceding settlement, and the residents of Troy VIIa were
therefore presumably the survivors of the supposed earthquake
which levelled Troy VIh (Blegen et al. 1958).
The chief difference between the citadels of Troy VIh and
Troy VIIa lies in the use of space within the fortifications. The
excavators have argued that a greatly increased population
sought protection inside the walls during Troy VIIa,
presumably as a result of some external threat. The
preoccupation of this population with storage space as attested
by the subterranean pithoi has been further interpreted to
reflect a state of siege at the end of Troy VIIa. The violent
destruction of Troy VIIa has been interpreted as evidence of
the failure of Troy’s inhabitants to withstand the siege against
which they had apparently prepared themselves. The mass of
the citizenry would have lived outside of the walls in the lower
town of this period and in small agricultural villages dotted
around the Trojan plain. Perhaps part of the citizenry had
moved within the walls in Troy VIIa, but this change need not
reflect a period of siege and could simply represent a change in
the order of Trojan society. Perhaps Troy VIIa was no longer
ruled by a monarch, while the aristocratic class which had
occupied the mansions of Troy VIh had likewise been
eliminated, as assumed also on the Greek mainland where
palaces disappear as functioning entities at the end of the LH
IIIB period.
Mycenaean trade was decreasing during this period, and this is
assumed to be evidence for a hypothetical siege of Troy by
Mycenaeans. It remains to be established how much of the
‛imported Mycenaean’ pottery from Troy VIIa comes from the
Peloponnese, how much from Aegean islands, and how much
from Mycenaean sites on the coast of Asia Minor itself.
On the basis of the Iliad and Odyssey, the destroyers of Troy
VIIa have traditionally been identified as Mycenaean Greeks
from the central and southern Greek Mainland. Looking to
archaeological evidence, it has been suggested that the
attackers were not Mycenaeans. Many questions in relation to
the discussion of the historicity of the Trojan war are still far
from being solved. For example, are the mainland Greeks
likely to have destroyed Troy at more or less the same time as
their own centres in the Peloponnese were being destroyed
The distribution and origin of specific pottery types (i.e. the
‛Coarse Ware’ of Troy VIIb1) which are assumed to answer
the origin of the sackers of Troy VIIa remain unresolved.
Arguments for and against the historicity of the Trojan war are
both well established, so that belief or disbelief in this war
becomes an act of faith.
Troy VIIb1 (c. 1230/1180-1150 BC) tends to be founded on
walls of Troy VIIa with rebuilt houses. The differences in material
culture between Troy VIIa and VIIb1 seem to be minor.
At the end of Troy VIIb1 there is no sign of any general destruction
level. The duration of Troy VIIb1 is usually estimated
at about half-a-century, largely on the basis of the Mycenaean
imports.
Troy VIIb2 (c. 1150-1050 BC or later) is represented by
modified Troy VIIb1 houses, i.e. the addition of extensions or
the piercing of doorways through party walls, seemingly in
order to increase the size of the individual dwelling units. A
new element in pottery is the ‛Knobbed Ware’, which has traditionally
been taken to represent a new population element in
residence at the site. The ‛Knobbed Ware’ has parallels across
the Hellespont which suggest that its makers may have
migrated into the Troad from Thrace, to which in turn they
may have moved from further west. Most of the pottery
nevertheless consists of the Late Bronze Age Trojan wares
familiar from earlier phases, both Minyan and Tan Wares, so
that much of the population of Troy VIIb2 is usually
considered to have consisted of descendants of the Trojans of
Troy VI, VIIa, and VIIb1. The Troy VIIb settlement was
probably destroyed by fire.
After this, the site of Hissarlik was deserted for as much as
three centuries before Aeolic Greeks reoccupied it in the late
8th century BC at about the time when the Homeric epics, the
Iliad and the Odyssey, were being written down for the first
time.
1.2.2.3 The recent excavations and location of
the archaeobotanical samples
In 1988 the fourth period of excavations started under the
leadership of Korfmann (Bronze Age) and Rose (Post-Bronze
Age) (Korfmann 1991a and 1991b, Rose 1992).
1.2.2.3.1 Early Bronze Age (Troy I-III)
As mentioned above, the excavations brought new understanding
about the chronology of this site, such as the contemporaneity
of late horizons of Troy I with early strata from Troy
II, and the exact dating of the periods by radiocarbon dating
(Korfmann and Kromer 1993). Recently a new chronological
scheme was developed by the archaeologists (Korfmann 1996).
Final Troy I layers (later than Troy Ik) seem to be contemporary
with the first phases of Troy II. Troy III still belongs
to the same line of development in ceramic production and
architecture, so that the three periods have to be considered as
a unity, a material culture that lasted for more than 1000 years.
This epoch is named by Korfmann the ‛Maritime Troia
Culture’ according to its particular distribution-pattern along
the coasts of the Marmara Sea and the Aegean (Korfmann
1996). In 1990 remains of a house outside the Troy II
fortification wall were excavated (D7), along with remains of a
multiphase gate structure belonging to Troy III period.
The domestic architecture of D7 was botanically sampled, and
along with stratigraphical investigation of Early Bronze Age
horizons in trench E3 botanical sampling took place.
The results from these samples are discussed in chapter 3,
where the samples are described in their archaeological
context.
10

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
Korfmann develops some ideas on social implications with the
partial contemporaneity of late Troy I and Troy II (2600-2490
BC). According to him, the Troy II remains originate from an
elite, while common people were living outside the citadel,
continuing to practice Troy I traditions. An argument supporting
this hypothesis is, that ‛Troy II culture’ was never found in
its pure, rich expression outside Troy and could never convincingly
be traced back to its origin (Korfmann 1994).
The ‛Schliemann trench’ was from the beginning a main
interest of the new excavations (Korfmann 1991b). Within this
trench all finds belong to Troy I. The former ‛Megaron’ of
Troy I turned out to be a sequence of joint long houses, not
unusual in Early Bronze Age Anatolia and the northern Aegean
(Korfmann 1991b). In the south of the ‛Schliemann trench’ a
burnt layer, older than Troy I (which would be parallel to
Kumtepe B) or belonging to Troy Ia was found. The archaeobotanical
samples taken from this horizon (D5BP08, D5BP09)
are discussed within their archaeological context in chapter 3.
1.2.2.3.2 Middle Bronze Age (Troy IV/V)
Architectural remains from Troy IV and V were not well represented
in the early excavations, but the new excavations in
1992 uncovered some remains of two-room structures in D7/8
(Korfmann 1993). The main reason for the earlier underrepresentation
of Middle Bronze Age layers is attributed to building
activity in antiquity, when the top of the hill was graded for
other buildings such as the Athena temple. Schliemann is also
thought to have played a major role in the destruction of these
horizons. The new excavations found significant evidence for
the importance of the Middle Bronze Age settlement, which is
represented as mentioned before, e.g. in the multiphase gate
structure of Troy III in the middle portion of the ‛Schliemann
trench’, and the Troy III and IV architectural remains in trench
D8 excavated in 1992 and later (Korfmann 1993). The
buildings within this trench are two-room structures with joint
separation walls, described as an ‛Anatolian settlement
scheme’ (Korfmann 1995). Several burnt layers were evident
in this trench and many botanical samples were taken. Fortynine
Middle Bronze Age samples originate from this trench,
and after the exclusion of multiple sampling 25 samples could
be used for the statistical analysis. The samples are discussed
in their archaeological context in chapter 3.
The position of the fortification walls became clearer in the
new excavations. The earlier hypothesis of a continuous
growth of the circumference of the fortification walls through
the different periods had to be revised, e.g. the walls of Troy
IV should have extended far outside the citadel walls of Troy
VI. Troy IV went through six conflagrations in succession.
This fact and the indication “that hunting was then pursued to
an unusual degree” (p. 3), led Korfmann (1995) to the
suggestion that troubled times dominated in Troy IV.
The conclusions from the new excavations were that Troy IV
and V differ sharply from the previous periods, and according
to the architectural remains (one party-wall between two different
buildings), the pottery, the appearance of new implements
like the domed ovens and suggested change in life-style (increased
proportion of wild game in the diet) this epoch is
named by Korfmann as the ‛Anatolian Troia Culture’, to
indicate closer connections with the interior than in the
previous periods (Korfmann 1996).
1.2.2.3.3 Late Bronze Age (Troy VI/VII)
The circumference of the Troy VI Lower City was found with
the new excavations. The existence of a Lower City was first
proved by excavations close to the fortification walls. The
stone foundations imply that a settlement outside the citadel
was planned from the beginning. It is suggested by the
evidence of wholly new architectural plans and structures in
Troy VI, that a completely new population settled the hill in
this period (Korfmann 1995). Beside houses with solid
foundations, there are also less stable oval-or apsidal houses,
such as those excavated 1991 in K8. Although this kind of
building is continuously built in the Late Bronze Age Aegean
(Sinos 1971), it is designated by Korfmann as less typical for
the Late Bronze Age in the Troad, but well-known from Early
Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age southern Europe. Within
this trench (K8) nine samples were taken, from which seven
contained enough remains to be considered statistically.
Further remains of buildings from Troy VI/VII were excavated
in the trenches D9 and H/I17 in 1992. The buildings from D9
confirm the high population density in Late Bronze Age,
because here again the houses are directly joined to the
fortification wall. In the following year nine samples were
taken from this trench. Other types of domestic architecture,
i.e. post-or pillar buildings, were excavated in trench H17,
which is situated in the middle part of the Lower City at almost
the same altitude as the citadel (32 m). According to Korfmann
(1993) this type of less permanent construction is typical for
this quarter of the Lower City, and implies good availability of
construction wood. Mudbrick and stone buildings were also
found in this area. ‛Negative architecture’, cut into the
limestone bedrock and intended to take a wooden bastion was
recognised, which might have encircled a part of the Lower
City (Korfmann 1994). Unfortunately, preservation conditions
were poor and almost no archaeobotanical remains resulted
from the Post-Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age samples of
this area. The existence of the extensive Lower City (200000
m²) confirms opinions of a historic nucleus of the Homeric
epic and equivalence with Troy VI and VII. Also other
elements that are described in the epic, such as a ditch around
the Greek camp and a wooden palisade, are thought as having
been excavated in the meantime. A Troy VI ditch around the
Lower City, with a gateway and palisade was excavated 400 m
south of the Troy VI fortification wall, and a second ditch was
found by geomagnetic prospecting 80-100 m south of the
previous ditch system (Korfmann 1995). The ditch, which
measured 3 m in width was filled with different accumulation
horizons of mid-Troy VI. A representative archaeobotanical
sample from the Late Bronze Age filling was discussed earlier
(Jablonka, König and Riehl 1994).
The topographical position of Troy on the top of a limestone
plateau is a strategic one and also a junction for trade routes,
because the coast line was close to the city of Troy in the
different periods (Kayan 1996) and foreign ships had to pass
there on their way through the Dardanelles to the Black Sea.
Korfmann (1993) does not see parallels in the idea of the
11

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
Aegean Polis, but rather in the model of “old oriental Palatial
Cities” or Near Eastern “residence and trade towns”, such as
Alişar, Kültepe or Hattusa (also Karahöyük, Açemhöyük,
Maşat Höyük). The periods Troy VI and Troy VII are named
by Korfmann (1996) as the ‛Troian High Culture’.
Troy VI and VIIa do not show differences in the material culture
and only the architecture shows a slight change with
smaller and differently spaced rooms. Differences in building
techniques in Troy VI (i.e. the post buildings of the lower city)
are interpreted as social differences within the population. The
end of Troy VI was interpreted in the earlier excavations as
caused by an earthquake, but this might be under question in
view of the finds of long-range weapons in the new
excavations.
Troy VII domestic architecture was excavated in trench E8. In
this area 13 of the 16 botanical samples were extremely rich.
Also in z7 Troy VII architecture with large stone foundations
were found. Only two samples could be used for statistical
analysis. The samples in their archaeological contexts are discussed
in chapter 3.
The trenches z6-8 and A7-8 were excavated from 1994 on a
larger scale and uncovered more Late Bronze Age domestic
architecture. Several rooms were sampled, with 21 samples
from mainly Troy VIIa layers.
Periods VIIb1-3 (4) are named by Korfmann (1996) as the
“Troian Culture with the imprint of Balkan influences”, which
mainly refers to the ‛Knobbed ware’. A Troy VIIb2 house with
two building phases was excavated in 1995 in the trenches of
E8. The older building was destroyed by fire during the general
conflagration of Troy VIIb2. The newly erected building contained
imported protogeometric pottery amongst the finds.
Another building in E9, belonging to Troy VIIb3 (latest phase
of Troy VIIb) was also sampled. Altogether, 33 samples were
taken from these contexts, discussed in chapter 3. The following
three centuries appear to be of sparse settlement. The find
of a seal, dating around 1100 (i.e. the Dark Ages) with Luwian
hieroglyphs, which might have belonged to a writer,
strengthens Korfmann’s assumption that Troy was culturally
oriented towards Anatolia during the whole second millennium
(Korfmann 1996).
1.2.2.3.4 Post-Bronze Age (Troy VIII/IX)
The investigation of the Troy VIII and IX horizons has been
conducted by Brian Rose and his team from the University of
Cincinnati (Rose 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995a). Because
the aim of this archaeobotanical study was to understand
Bronze Age environment and economy, the later periods were
not comprehensively studied. In all, 20 samples were taken,
with five from Archaic horizons, three from Classical, eight
from Hellenistic, and only four from Roman contexts. The
results from the analysis of these samples are only used here
for comparative purposes. A detailed study of plant remains
from Post-Bronze Age horizons is the aim of further research.
The focus of the Post-Bronze Age excavations in Troy is on a
“detailed reconstruction of the religious history of the Greek
and the Roman settlement” (Korfmann 1994, Rose 1992). This
research focus evolved in correlation to Troy’s or Ilion’s
political and religious status. After the Archaic period (700-
480 BC), Ilion became the capital of a new league of Troad
cities which was focussed on the cult of Athena Ilias.
Alongside these changes ostentatious buildings were erected in
the early Hellenistic period (331-200 BC), such as the theatre
A and the temple of Athena. In 85 BC the city was destroyed
by the Roman legate Fimbria. With the rebuilding shortly
thereafter Troy IX (85 BC-500 AD) begins. Late Roman/Early
Byzantine habitation is now documented by excavations in the
Lower City, where an orthogonal plan of streets has been
found by geomagnetic prospecting (Rose 1992).
Excavation of trenches in I/K 17/18 uncovered remains of
buildings, and in H16/17 a glass factory was found. Generally
the botanical remains were badly preserved because of their
position close to the surface. Only two samples from these
trenches provided enough remains to work on (H17BP07,
I17BP07). The Post-Bronze Age excavations in the Lower City
also show an apparent discontinuity of settlement between the
end of the Bronze Age (1050 BC) and the Middle Hellenistic
period (c. 200 BC), at least in the excavated sections of the
Lower City (Rose 1993). Archaic and protogeometric pottery
was found in the area of the sanctuary and might in future clarify
the history of the population of Troy at the beginning of the
first millennium BC (Rose 1994).
The sanctuary, i.e. mainly the trenches in A8/9 and z6/7, has
been excavated since 1992. It was founded c. 700 BC, and
continued in use through Archaic and Classical periods. It was
completely rebuilt in early Hellenistic, like the other
monumental architecture, and after Fimbria’s destruction it was
rebuilt on the debris of the former constructions (Rose 1993).
There are three altars from different periods in the Upper
Sanctuary and two additionally in the Lower Sanctuary. Seven
archaeobotanical samples from the Sanctuary contained a
relatively large number of seeds.
1.2.3 Comparative summary of the results from Blegen’s and Korfmann’s excavations
12

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
Kumtepe
Schliemann (1871) - Dörpfeld (1893) -
Blegen and Sperling (1932)
1934 by Sperling: Kumtepe I (A-C), remains of Kumtepe
II (≅ Troy V)
pottery of Kumtepe C typologically indistinguishable
from that of the initial phases of Troy I
presence of other settlements at least from Kumtepe C
period
Korfmann and Rose (1988)
1993 by Korfmann
Kumtepe C layers already destroyed by farming
activity
stray finds of Troy II, III and VI
the settlement of Kumtepe might have existed
through the whole Bronze Age, as a neighbouring
village of Troy
rectangular buildings with stone foundations
12

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
Troy I
Troy II
Troy III
Troy IV
Troy V
Troy VI
Schliemann (1871) - Dörpfeld (1893) - Korfmann and Rose (1988)
Blegen and Sperling (1932)
‛fortress’ type
10 (a-j) architectural phases
‛rectangular megaron’
dark monochrome burnished ware, Urfirnis, stylised
human facial features
Aegean imports (sauceboat)
spindle whorls and loomweights from terracotta
strongly represented
destruction by fire
eight architectural phases
fortification walls are extended
Megaron IIA
more of the pottery red to tan in colour instead of black,
depas amphikypellon, fast wheel
high level of textile production
gold and silver
enormous prosperity, wide extent of contacts (Aegean
and also in inland Turkey)
two destruction horizons, caused by fire: beginning (IIa)
and end (IIg)
small one-to three-roomed houses grouped in larger
complexes
animal figurines from terracotta
end of Troy III is marked by a demolition for unknown
reasons
houses are built of mudbrick on a stone socle again
domed oven is introduced at the beginning of the period
Most of the vases are wheel-made
demolition for unknown reasons
three to four architectural phases (Blegen)
pottery not distinguishable from Troy IV
eight sub-phases
wall of more than four meters thickness and nine meters
height
numerous pithoi, sharp break in the ceramic tradition
between Troy V and Troy VI, ‛Grey Minyan’, Mycenaean
pottery locally imitated
Megara, half-timbering an alternative building style
cemetery of cremation burials
walls were destroyed at the end of Troy VI, thought to
be an earthquake
layer older than Troy I
contemporaneity of late horizons of Troy I with
early strata from Troy II
‛Megaron’ turns out to be a sequence of joint long
houses
“Troy II remains originate from an elite, while
common people were living outside the citadel
continuing to practice Troy I traditions”
houses outside the Troy II fortification wall
multiphase gate structure
Troy III still belongs to the same line of development
in terms of ceramic production as Troy I and
II
remains of megara type buildings, an ‛Anatolian
settlement scheme’
significant evidence for the importance of the Middle
Bronze Age settlement
the walls of Troy IV could have extended far outside
the citadel walls of Troy VI
six conflagrations in succession
circumference of the Troy VI Lower City is
uncovered
stone foundations imply that a settlement outside
the citadel was planned from the beginning
evidence of wholly new architectural plans and
structures in Troy VI: a completely new population
houses with solid foundations, less stable oval-or
apsidal houses, post-or pillar buildings interpreted
as reflecting social differences within the population
high population density in Late Bronze Age
finds of long-range weapons as argument against a
destruction of the city by an earthquake
13

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
Troy VIIa
Troy VIIb1
Troy VIIb2
Dark Age
Schliemann (1871) - Dörpfeld (1893) - Korfmann and Rose (1988)
Blegen and Sperling (1932)
short-lived settlement
Troy VI and VIIa do not show differences in the
reconstruction of the fortification walls
material culture except in architecture, with
the residents of Troy VIIa were presumably the survivors
of the supposed earthquake
smaller and differently spaced rooms
houses of Troy VIIa are more densely packed within the
citadel
floors of the houses sometimes contain pits dug for the
emplacement of large storage pithoi below ground level
water supplies within the area enclosed by the walls
remains of several houses outside the walls
destruction
tends to be founded on walls of Troy VIIa with rebuilt
houses
modified Troy VIIb1 houses
‛Knobbed Ware’
much of the population of Troy VIIb2 is usually considered
to have consisted of descendants of the Trojans of
Troy VI, VIIa, and VIIb1
Troy VIIb settlement was probably destroyed by fire
Hissarlik was deserted for as much as three centuries protogeometric pottery in the area of the Sanctuary
before Aeolic Greeks reoccupied it in the late 8th century
BC
1.2.4 Other research aspects within the new
excavations
Spectacular results have been obtained by the use of new techniques,
such as the geomagnetic prospecting. With this
method, a reconstruction of the Roman and Hellenistic Lower
City and the Troy VI ditch has been drawn (Becker and Jansen
1994, Becker, Faßbinder and Jansen 1993, Jansen 1992).
The new excavations also laid emphasis on the investigation of
the region around Troy. Sites like Kumtepe and Beşik-Tepe,
both excavated in earlier years, are of central interest. Under a
Post-Bronze Age settlement on Beşik-Yassitepe, which lies
directly on the coast, about 7 km from Troy, horizons of Troy I
were found that have illuminated important chronological and
topographical aspects. Geomorphological investigations have
shown that the sea progressed far into the Beşik Bay in the 5th
millennium BC, interpreted by Korfmann (1986) as the “Harbour
of Troy” (Kayan 1991 and 1996).
A cemetery near Beşik-Tepe dating to Troy VI has remains of
a wealthy population, with quite a few finds of Mycenaean ceramics
that prove a wide range of contacts. Several sites near
Beşik Bay and the Hellenistic tumulus Beşik-Sivritepe also
have Late Neolithic horizons (about 1000 years older than
Troy I), demonstrating a varying population density during
different periods.
Aspects of prehistoric settlement patterns within the whole area
are the subject of a thesis by Aslan (1997b). He has been
conducting surveys since 1994 in a closer radius around Troy
(c. 10 km), which is congruent with a planned National Park.
Aslan (1997a) confirms the following settlements. During
Neolithic three settlements are recorded for the area. Beside
Kumtepe, a possible settlement (Beşik) is situated c. 6.5 km
south of Kumtepe, and a definite settlement (Çiplak) c. 2 km
south of the later Troy, separated from Kumtepe by the sea.
During Troy I/II there are at least five other settlements all in a
distance between 4.5 and 6.5 km from Troy, which is encircled
by them. Two settlements are on the northern coast, one on the
western coast, Kumtepe in front of Troy and the fifth in the
hinterland, on the border of the high plateau. No information is
available for Troy III, IV and V. During Troy VI and VII, six
mainly small settlements in a different position from Early
Bronze Age are evident. Three elevated points (Pinarbaşi, Eski
Hisarlik, Fiğla-Tepe) 8-10 km south of Troy were fortified
during Troy VI. As fortifications located at the exit of the
River Skamander from the Ida mountains, they might have
been of great importance during the Late Bronze Age
(Korfmann 1996). Two other settlements are situated at the
northern coast, another one at the western coast. In the Archaic
period, there is a slight increase of settlements in almost the
same positions as in Troy VI/VII. During Hellenistic period the
settlement pattern is very dense with nine settlements, 2-6 km
apart from each other, and it culminates with c. 15 settlements
(Troy in the centre) in the Roman and Byzantine periods
(Aslan 1997a).
14

chapter 2: methods
2 Methods
2.1 From sampling to species list
2.1.1 Sampling and recovery
The methodology of sampling was a popular subject at the end
of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, and enough has been
written about the ‛right’ way to sample to give the beginners
options to develop their own sampling strategy (e.g. Nesbitt
and Samuel 1989, van der Veen and Fieller 1982, Mueller
1975).
Archaeobotanists were looking for sampling strategies
adaptable to all sites to fulfil the aim of comparability between
sites, but from the literature it becomes quite clear that each
sampling strategy has to be adapted to the conditions on each
excavation. In consequence different sampling strategies are
usually combined within one excavation.
M. Jones (1991) discusses four different sampling strategies.
‛Haphazard or grab sampling’ is described as unstrategic and
passive: differences of structures are not taken into account and
these unrecognised factors are interpreted as part of the data
itself. ‛Haphazard sampling’ might happen in large excavations
with excavators with different levels of experience. However,
today one might assume that such excavations are rare, where
nobody has any idea where or what they are excavating.
Usually there is some kind of documentation about the sample
context. ‛Purposive or judgement sampling’ is described as the
most effective sampling method in terms of information
content, but has the danger of being too presumptuous. It seems
to be the most commonly practised sampling strategy. Who
would ignore their knowledge about the site in the search for
further discoveries ‛Interval sampling’, conducted with a grid
over the excavation surface, is described as dangerous, because
there will be a loss of information and problems in separating
the differences within one population from those of the surface.
It seems quite unlikely that anybody would only sample with
this method, and would neglect all the other finds from the
excavation. With the ‛probabilistic or random sampling’ the
probability that each unit will be sampled is the same. Under
the condition that excavators know in advance the structuring
of the whole site and can clearly define all the contexts, they
can sample those contexts with random numbers and finally,
calculate the representativeness of the samples. Patterns might
be accidental, however, and if additionally the sampling rate is
low, this method can also lead to misinterpretation. When
‛random sampling’ is applied and previous knowledge
neglected, one might not sample the most important contexts in
terms of the actual broadness of the species spectrum (van der
Veen 1983). A pattern like the one Jones used for his
interpretation of ‛consumer’ and ‛producer sites’ might emerge
accidentally. ‛Random sampling’, therefore, is more
appropriate as an additional method rather than a basic one (M.
Jones 1984).
The only way to exclude accidental patterns is to enlarge the
coverage of the sampling. This latter method seems to be most
commonly used on excavations with large-scale
archaeobiological investigation. Though in most cases it is not
possible to sample the whole sediment from a site and to
ameliorate representativeness by high coverage,
archaeobotanists disagree about which sampling method
provide samples that are more or less representative for the
whole site. Some archaeologists assume ‛random sampling’
obtains the most representative samples for a site (M. Jones
1991), others argue that randomly chosen samples are not
representative of the whole site, because plant remains are not
randomly distributed over the site (Schaaf 1981), which is an
assumption not many archaeobotanists agree with.
However, it is obvious that large amounts of samples, of large
volume, from the widest possible range of contexts, to get a
broad spectrum of species make an investigation representative
(Jones 1983b, Jacomet, Brombacher and Dick 1989).
Between 1991 and 1996 a total of 456 botanical samples were
taken at Troy and Kumtepe. The material analysed includes
only the 363 samples taken from 1991 to 1995. These are 38
samples from Kumtepe and the remainder from the different
periods of Troy (only those samples with more than 20 items
are listed in the appendix; for sample location see Map 2).
The sampling took place under different criteria. The number
of samples from each site (Troy and Kumtepe) was partially
related to the size of the settlements. Including the Lower City
of the Late Bronze Age, Troy measures more than 200000 m²,
while Kumtepe is only about 14000 m². To date, only about
640 m² were excavated and sampled at Troy, which makes it
clear that although a lot of sediment was floated for botanical
remains, the representativeness of these samples of the whole
site might be questionable. ‛Random sampling’ always proved
to be incompatible with the excavation methods at Troy. It
seemed more sensible to rely on the excavators’ experience to
define contexts. To describe the sampling method in Troy and
Kumtepe in the terms used here, an extended kind of
‛judgement sampling’ would be the most appropriate.
Samples were taken by the archaeobotanist, but also by the
excavators. When samples were taken by the excavators, an
instruction sheet for sampling and documentation was distributed.
10140 litres of sediment were floated. The sample sizes
were between one and 260 litres with a mean of 30 litres,
which is often recommended as a standard size for botanical
samples. Samples of more than 100 litres were ‛stored’ on big
plastic sheets and floated in periods of lower ‛sample income’.
Big contexts were also checked for their homo-or heterogeneity
by sectioning the surface and processing the sediment separately.
The documentation sheet that came along with the
samples provided information including the date, trench, coordinates,
a context definition or at least description of features,
dating (stratigraphic or typological), a sediment description,
the sediment volume and a rough sketch of the location of
the sample within the excavated area.
In the case of large contexts, such as floors, samples were taken
at several different locations, in order to determine whether
there was any spatial patterning within these contexts. The
result was either that different activity zones could be recognised
(as in D8), or that no significant differences over the surface
could be detected (as in A7), in other words that subsamples
would have been representative of the whole context.
These contexts are described in chapter 3.
15

chapter 2: methods
2.1.2 Processing of the sediment and off-site
subsampling
The first mention of the flotation system as a method for
processing archaeobotanical samples goes back to the
beginnings of the 20th century (Wittmack 1905). The physical
principle is simple and is based on the lower specific gravity of
carbonised plant remains compared to water. After the
sediment is poured into the water, the charcoal comes directly
to the water surface and can be collected easily. The technical
way that this method is conducted depends on the size of the
samples and the financial means of the excavation. The
cheapest way is the ‛hand flotation’ as used by Helbaek (1972)
at Ali Kosh. This method consists of decanting plant remains
over the rim of a bucket or similar container into a sieve and
reminds one of ‛gold washing’, as the Swiss school of
archaeobotany calls it. Occasionally one can read
recommendations to dry the sediment before processing, in
order to increase the buoyancy of the seeds. According to
recent experiences of other archaeobotanists, however, this
increases corrosion, because repeated drying and wetting
results in cracking of the charred plant remains.
Another cheap method is ‛tub flotation’, which consists of a
container with a bottom of fine wire mesh. The sediment is
placed into this container and the whole is immersed in water.
The rising carbonised particles can be skimmed off with a fine
sieve (Struever 1968).
All the hand methods are very slow in terms of sediment
volume that can be processed in a reasonable amount of time.
Therefore, if an excavation can spend some money for an old
oil barrel and a water pump, it is strongly recommended to use
a flotation machine. Comparisons of processing capacity show
that the ‛Ankara machine’ (French 1971) and the ‛Cambridge
machine’ (Jarman, Legge and Charles 1972) can process the
largest sediment volumes in a given time. For a discussion of
the technical development see Pearsall (1989).
One of the few problems with flotation is that the taxa differ in
their tendency to float, i.e. very compact remains might stay in
the heavy fraction sieve. Therefore neglecting the heavy
fractions biases the quantitative interpretation of the remains
(Jones 1983b). The most reliable way to recover any plant
remains in the heavy fractions is to sort them. Some
archaeobotanists have tried chemical flotation to increase the
buoyancy of the remains (Bodner and Rowlett 1980). In most
cases salt solutions are used to increase the volumetric weight
of the water (e.g. carbon-tetrachloride, zinc-chloride, sodiumchloride).
A curious method was ‛froth flotation’, where
kerosene is used (Pendleton 1979 and 1983), and which is
considered to be useless (pers. com. M. Nesbitt).
Additionally, important barriers to the use of chemical flotation
are heavy environmental stress and high costs, and the
contamination of the material that makes it impossible to use it
for further analyses, such as DNA extraction. The
archaeobotanical research at Troy started with wet sieving of
the botanical samples in 1991. With this method, the remains
were highly fragmented and seeds of wild plants were almost
absent. For this reason a mechanical flotation system, which
consists of an old oil barrel and a water pump (the ‛Siraf’-type,
a modification of the ‛Ankara machine’ according to Nesbitt
and Samuel 1989), was used from 1993 (Figure 1). To
minimise the waste of water, the machine was built as a
recycling system. Two years later a second, more powerful
machine was also constructed. Comparisons of efficiency
between these two machines are discussed below.
Experiments concerning the buoyancy of carbonised remains
were conducted by Jones (1983b) on the Macedonian site
Assiros. There, seeds from bitter vetch and some chaff remains
were not lifted during flotation.
At Troy and Kumtepe the heavy fractions of all the samples
were dried on a big plastic sheet. Only those heavy fractions
with visible plant remains were chosen for further
subsampling. The heavy fractions of some samples from
Kumtepe were compared with the light fractions. The different
plant species were summarised under different seed type
categories, according to their assumed buoyancy. Most seeds of
wild plants in this assemblage (52 of 108 species) belonged to
the small and light category. They mainly represent weeds and
water-indicating plants. Four categories for the wild plant seeds
were created. For the crop categories also four groups were
formed. The cereal chaff was mainly from hulled wheats, small
to medium seeded crops consisted of Ficus carica, Linum
usitatissimum, and Vitis vinifera. Principally, and not
surprising, there was a link between the counts in the heavy
fraction and the numbers in the light fraction. No case occurred
in which the numbers in the heavy fractions where higher than
those in the light fractions. The percentage of heavy fraction
seeds in the total number of seeds in the samples under
consideration lay between 2% and 15%, with a median at 6.5
% and an average at 7%. In wild plant seeds the percentage of
objects from heavy fractions is lower, because they are rarely
heavy and compact, i.e. very often hollow. The numbers of
chaff remains from heavy fractions were always high, in
relation to their percentages in the light fractions. This was
because the generally less buoyant chaff was the most
abundant type of remain in the samples. In cases where the
sediment particles filled the hollows of corroded objects, such
as grains, these were also abundant in the heavy fractions. On
the whole it was found that heavy fractions rich in less buoyant
remains occurred very rarely, possibly in relation to specific
sediment characteristics, and that sorting of the heavy fractions
would not change the general results. However it should still
remain obligatory to check heavy residues for their potential to
shift the proportions of different categories.
The discussion of efficiency evolved from the question of the
comparability of results achieved under the application of
different methods and has mainly been discussed by American
archaeobotanists (see Watson (1976) for the SMAP and
Wagner (1982) for the IDOT machine). There are discussions
about efficiency in terms of time needed for the flotation of a
specific amount of sediment (Kaplan and Maina 1977, Keeley
1978), and in terms of completeness of recovery, i.e. loss of
remains or contamination (Pendleton 1983, Wagner 1982).
Compared to other techniques (i.e. sieving; for wash-over and
peroxide flotation (Badham and Jones 1985), for charred
remains one can recommend flotation for its higher efficiency,
16

chapter 2: methods
in both its completeness of recovery and in the time needed for
processing. Wagner (1988) estimates that flotation is about 50
times more effective than wet-sieving in regard to the recovery
of plant remains in quantity. Only with clayey sediments is
flotation problematic. Many seeds will stay in the heavy
fraction because of clay sticking on them. Hand sorting may
not be enough and reflotation will eventually result in the loss
of material.
At Troy, the results from 1991 demonstrated that wet sieving
causes much more destruction to the remains than flotation
does. Also, flotation (either hand or mechanical flotation) is
less time consuming than other methods. The processing time
strongly depends on the type of sediment and is the longest for
clayey sediments. At Troy the amount of sediment that could
be floated in one hour was not more than 30 litres, including
the emptying and cleaning of the sieves and preparation of the
flots for drying, which took most of the time. The sediment
often contained fine roots which clogged the sieves.
The recovery rates of different flotation systems depend mainly
on the mesh size. The smallest mesh size should not be larger
than 0.5 mm. Schaaf (1981) found that a complete recovery is
given with a mesh size of 0.25 mm. The smallest objects in the
Troy material measured about 0.4 mm (Characeae). With the
use of a mesh size of 0.125 mm a complete recovery of the
remains was guaranteed. In the third year a 0.25 mm mesh
made the processing less time consuming. The use of a second,
more powerful flotation machine in Troy from 1994, which
resulted in problems of clogging of the sieve, made it necessary
to use a 0.5 mm mesh with this machine (water regulation at
the inlet could not prevent the repeated clogging of the sieves).
Higher water pressure also results in a higher destruction rate
of fragile remains. A comparison of the efficiency of the two
flotation machines with differing water pressure, and different
processing speed, was conducted with some of the big samples.
A second flotation machine was built in 1994, because the old
system was thought to be no longer powerful enough to deal
with large samples in a sensible amount of time. The main
change was an increase in water pressure. This was only
possible after 1993, when the site was connected to the local
water supply of the village. The stronger water pressure
resulted in a faster flotation, but the clogging of the sieves by
tiny roots and fine sediment particles could not be stopped with
a reduction of the water pressure. The 0.125 mm sieve was
replaced by a 0.5 mm sieve. Additionally the strong water flow
from the spout through the sieves, was assumed to have a
strong destructive influence on the remains in the sieves.
Some of the samples were split and processed with both
machines. Unfortunately the question of efficiency was
approached quite late in the sampling campaign of this
excavation, and not enough samples were processed like this to
get a final conclusion about the efficiency of the two flotation
machines. However, at least some tendencies can be outlined
here.
The assumed general loss in material was not verified, but
there is a tendency to lose very small seeds, such as Trifolium
sp. or Cyperus longus, because of the bigger mesh sizes used
with the second flotation machine. The only sample with high
numbers in crops, which were discussed above in relation with
the buoyancy of macroremains, showed more remains with the
use of the second, more powerful flotation system. It is likely
that the stronger water pressure increased the buoyancy of
chaff remains and cereal grains. Because of the differences in
efficiency, it was decided from 1996 to use the second flotation
system only when large samples were split into two halves, to
accelerate the processing.
The flots or ‛light fractions’ were sorted for identification in
the laboratories in Sheffield and Tübingen. Fully sorting large
samples or fine fractions (

chapter 2: methods
in the analysis, however. At Troy there was no problem of field
burning, because the excavation areas in the Upper City have
been protected from agriculture since the first excavations, and
the excavation levels are up to several metres below the
original surface.
Of further interest are uncarbonised objects mixed with the
carbonised material. Some species were preserved both in
carbonised and mineralised form. A yellowish, mineralised and
a white to grey preservation form of seeds could be
differentiated. The species and genera amongst which
mineralised seeds were found are Anthemis sp., Chenopodium
sp., Carex divulsa-type, Scirpus maritimus, Euphorbia sp.,
Ficus carica, Fumaria sp., Glaucium sp., Papaver sp., Galium
sp., Vitis vinifera. Eleocharis uniglumis varied slightly in
colour and appeared more like the silicified awn fragments that
were quite abundant in some samples, or the Phragmites stems
in mudbrick from the Early Bronze Age Troy Megara. The
Boraginaceae (Alkanna orientalis-type, Anchusa officinalistype,
Echium sp., Lithospermum cf. arvense, Lithospermum cf.
tenuiflorum) with their hard seed coats were sometimes
greyish, due to contact with fire. Some of the seeds had a
carbonised endosperm. With the observable differences
between mineralised subfossil seeds and uncarbonised modern
seeds it was quite easy to separate the rarely occurring modern
contaminants in the flots.
Uncarbonised seeds of the Boraginaceae, Papaveraceae, and
Cyperaceae were also tested for their composition. The
sediment in Troy is characterised by a high portion in
limestone, and solution and deposition of carbonate particles is
common. By eye it was difficult to decide whether the
uncarbonised material was carbonate or amorphous silica. The
treatment of some seeds with 10% HCl revealed that carbonate
was deposited only superficially on the seeds of the genera
Eleocharis spp. and Echium sp., but underneath a translucent
coat with detailed visible cell pattern occurred. Another
characteristic, supporting the argument that the remains were
‛silicified’ was the behaviour of the ‛Becke lines’ under the
microscope, when the seeds were surrounded by glycerine.
The uncharred seeds of the Papaveraceae (Glaucium sp.,
Papaver sp., Fumaria sp.) were differently preserved. They
dissolved completely in HCl, i.e., carbonate had accumulated
in the centre of the seed, and this process was followed by a
decay of the outer epidermis in the past.
In some of the samples the chalky oogonia of Chara sp. and
the megaspores of Isoëtes histrix and Isoëtes duriei were quite
abundant. Although some of them had a greyish or reddish
color that indicates contact with fire, it was difficult to decide
from their appearance whether they are subfossil or modern.
Keepax examined the spectrum of possibilities for
contamination of botanical samples with the use of flotation
systems (Keepax 1976 and 1977). In a sampling sequence she
could detect uncarbonized seeds down to 100 cm depth.
Keepax’s arguments that this might lead to contamination are
not appropriate for Troy. The Characeae are submerged algae
and therefore not part of the flora in the direct environment of
the excavation. The trench (D8) that most of the Characeae
came from is on the top of the hill, and the plants must have
been brought there. After the water supply for the flotation was
excluded as a source for contamination, the only possible route
by which modern oogonia could have been introduced was
through the excavators. It was found that from time to time
they used to wet the profiles, which improves visibility during
the drawing process. This water was free from any kind of
algae, however. The water comes from the local water pipe and
is clean. The species can only grow outside its natural habitat
when its oogonia are actively put into an artificial habitat like a
water tank. In any case the fragile oogonia could hardly have
survived the process with the spray bottle.
Although the presence of mainly uncarbonised, submerged
algae in some of the trenches is remarkable, the Characeae
cannot be modern contaminants.
One problem of possible contamination was solved by
radiocarbon dating 1 . The sample E3BP01 was stratigraphically
dated to Troy II (2600-2450 BC). The context was of some
curiosity because, according to the excavators, the sample was
part of a block of loam. The species spectrum was
extraordinary rich, and contained many species only found
within this context. The state of preservation was unusual. The
seeds seem to have kept their organic tissue partially
uncarbonised. Besides the totally carbonised chaff remains of
emmer and einkorn, the numerous Ficus seeds (103) were
uncarbonised, and those of Vitis vinifera L. (41) occurred either
carbonised, uncarbonised or partially carbonised. The species
spectrum of the wild plants was enormously rich and gave
revealing information on potential habitats represented within
the material, such as the moist to wet habitats of species like
Cyperus longus (24), Juncus sp., Scirpus maritimus, and Typha
cf. latifolia. Amongst plants from open to weedy vegetation,
the Gramineae, especially the genus Phalaris spp., were very
numerous.
It was particularly important to know whether the Vitis vinifera
seeds were old or modern, because this sample was also the
one with the most abundant and best preserved seeds. Further
investigations concerning vine cultivation at Troy would only
be possible when the correct date of the seeds was available
(compare paragraph on Vitis vinifera in the catalogue). After
measurement, many of the grape seeds were radiocarbon-dated.
The partially-carbonised seeds were kept separately from the
wholly carbonised seeds. The results were for both
preservation stages almost identical, i.e. 2460-2040 BC (KI-
5781) for the partially-carbonised seeds, and 2470-2140 BC
(KI-5782) for the wholly carbonised seeds. These dates are
among the latest from these strata, which would assign the
remains to Troy II-IV. The preservation of uncarbonised grape
remains made it possible to avoid the usual taphonomic
problems in the comparison of measurements from modern
uncarbonised and prehistoric carbonised material (see
catalogue under Vitis vini-fera).
2.2 The evaluation of the archaeobotanical
data
2.2.1 Taphonomy of the botanical macrofossils
from Troy and Kumtepe
1 I wish to thank Dr. K. Pustovoytov/Moscow and Dr. N. Kovaliykh and W.
Skripkin/Kiev for the dating
18

chapter 2: methods
The set of data of the identified and counted botanical remains
raises the question of how far the data represent the original
situation. In other words, what are the processes affecting the
assemblage between the beginnings of the deposition of plant
remains and recovery and analysis by the archaeobotanist The
solution of these questions is difficult, and even more so the
consideration and integration of the results into the
interpretation of the data. Some of the taphonomic effects on
plant remains are known, e.g. that of combustion (more
damage occurs with increasing temperature). All later
processes during deposition, or sampling and extraction of the
carbonised remains, result mainly in fragmentation.
For the taphonomic effects on macroremains during
carbonisation, Boardman and Jones (1990) obtained
quantitative data from charring experiments. They tested
destruction of different parts of the cereal plants caused by
carbonisation. Their results suggest limits to the interpretation
of cereal remains. One of their main discoveries was that those
components which are characteristic of early crop-processing
stages and which are rarely represented in archaeological
contexts (i.e. straw, free-threshing cereal rachis) are the first to
be lost through charring. Crop-processing might not to be
recognised on this basis. During combustion, some of the
species/taxa seemed to be more resistant to destruction than
others. The grain generally survives better than the chaff.
Einkorn chaff generally survives best. As already mentioned,
glume wheat chaff survived better than rachises of naked wheat
or barley, of which the latter was less resistant.
Where little chaff from free-threshing cereals (rachis segments)
is found at archaeological sites, this could be a result of loss of
material by its pre-depositional combustion and might not
necessarily reflect the original function or even economic
behaviour.
According to Hillman (1983), electron spin resonance (ESR)
determinations of the charring temperature should be standard
archaeobotanical procedure. This would show the likelihood of
chaff and straw loss. The interpretation of ESR results remains
difficult, however, because of the somewhat unclear influence
of depositional and post-depositional processes.
With the material from Troy and Kumtepe, it has not been
possible to investigate pre-depositional taphonomy by
techniques such as ESR analysis. Therefore taphonomic
consideration has had to concentrate on depositional and postdepositional
processes. The following section discusses some
questions of taphonomy relating to these processes. For this,
sedimentological aspects were considered within the
excavation. The need for a sedimentological analysis was
suggested when a relationship between the amount of
macroremains in the sediment and the sediment characteristics
was observed during the flotation process.
At the beginning of the flotation in 1993, it was observed
thathe state of preservation of the remains seems to be related
to the type of sediment in which they are found. The first
thought was that by understanding this relationship, one would
learn more about the depositional conditions of the sediment,
and therefore of the remains, aiding interpretation not at least
in terms of representativeness (Willerding 1971). In the first
stage of this work a comprehensive analysis of the sediments
was planned, but this aim was given up, because the laboratory
efforts required were disproportionate to the value of the
results.
Amongst the most promising qualities of the sediment that
might be related to the taphonomy of carbonised remains are
those that indicate any kind of mechanical process, for
example, whether the quantity of carbonised remains is low
when the sediment is chalky and rich in sharp-edged stones.
Loss by ignition, which provides information on the organic
proportion within the sediment (e.g. microfauna, roots) was
also thought to be suitable evidence for ‛mechanical stress’.
Organic matter could represent the remains of aggressive
agents such as roots or microfauna, actively disturbing the
sediment particles and therefore mechanically destructive of
carbonised plant remains. The organic content in the sediment
can be measured through the loss by ignition, the loss of weight
after heating to 400°C representing the organic portion.
The proportion of chalk (CaCO 3 ) was measured because of its
potential to harden the sediment and to damage the fragile
carbonised remains. The content of chalk was measured with a
second combustion at a higher temperature. The loss of weight,
i.e. the former content of CaCO 3 can be calculated from the
molecular weight of the escaping carbon dioxide. In general the
chalk proportion at Troy was slightly higher than that of the
Kumtepe samples. From the few samples analysed from Troy,
those from the Lower City came up with the highest proportion
of chalk (trenches I 17, p28 and w 28), due to their proximity
to outcrops of bedrock. Samples from those trenches were at
the same time quite poor in remains, so that one could assume
a relationship exists. More samples have to be analysed,
however, to prove that this pattern is not coincidental.
Further, the results from the sediment analysis were planned to
be related to fragmentation and distortion of the carbonised
material. Preservation of the grains in these samples was
therefore recorded.
Different methods exist for recording the state of preservation
of subfossil seeds and fruits, e.g. Murphy and Wiltshire (1994)
for waterlogged material and Hubbard and al Azm (1990) for
carbonised cereal grains. A scheme similar to that of Hubbard
and Al Azm was used to evaluate the remains from Troy and
Kumtepe. This assessment scheme contains three states of
fragmentation and three states of distortion that are estimated
with scores from one to three for the carbonised cereal grains.
The three states of fragmentation are mainly matter of postdepositional
preservation. These are (1) ‛not fragmented’, (2)
‛single split offs, but with more than 50% of the grain
preserved’, and (3) ‛heavily fragmented, difficult to identify’.
Pre-depositional fragmentation, e.g. during crop-processing, is
recognisable by swelling at the surface of the break during
charring. Such grains were not considered. For corrosion or
distortion, which mainly represents the effects of combustion,
there was the choice between an (1) ‛intact surface’, (2) ‛single
split offs of the surface’ and (3) ‛surface hardly preserved, up
to skeletal structure of the grain’.
The 30 samples which were evaluated for loss of ignition,
chalk content, fragmentation and corrosion of the cereal were
from different periods, and came from the Upper and the
Lower City of Troy and Kumtepe.
19

chapter 2: methods
The main results from estimating the state of preservation and
distortion are that the grains differ only slightly within the
whole sample set. As expected, corrosion and fragmentation
are closely related, so the more corroded a grain the higher the
fragility. The organic content of the sediment seems not to
exhibit the expected relationship to the carbonised remains. In
the samples considered, loss by ignition was low when
corrosion of the grains was high. Therefore it is questionable
whether modern soil activity (i.e. roots, microfauna) played
any role in destruction of carbonised plant remains at Troy.
The sedimentological methods applied here provided information
about the sediments, but seemingly not about the taphonomy
of carbonised plant remains within them. The conclusion
is that the main destructive influences on carbonised remains
can be expected during combustion and during recovery by the
archaeobotanist (sieving, flotation, etc.). However, the high
values of chalk in the areas of the Lower City are probably a
consequence of the bedrock being quite close to the surface.
The scarcity of remains in these areas is possibly related not to
the sediments, but to destructive activities on the surface during
later settlement periods (e.g. Roman).
One method for exploring the depositional and preservational
variability of different archaeological layers is the calculation
of the densities of plant remains per volume of sediment floated.
One problem in deducing taphonomic information from
densities of finds is that the number of seeds originally deposited
is unknown. Seed density was therefore used here only to
compare the different periods, as a precondition for further
interpretation. In all periods samples with a very low density
exist. High densities (>500 seeds per litre sediment) are reached
in the Troy I/II samples, due to dung remains, and in
Troy IV (>800 seeds per litre sediment) and VIIa (>700 seeds
per litre sediment) samples, due to storage finds. But only in
Troy IV is the average density more than 500 seeds, which is
explained by high numbers in storage contexts, and by the
presence of six horizons of conflagration. The strikingly low
density in the Troy VI samples is partially due to inadequate
sediment processing (wet sieving) in the first campaigns, where
large numbers of small seeds were probably destroyed. For
Post-Bronze Age samples low densities might be explained by
the proximity of some of the layers to the surface, and a relatively
low incidence of burnt layers, which is also partially the
case for Troy VIIb and Kumtepe samples.
2.2.2 Quantitative analysis
A variety of methods were applied to the archaeobotanical data
from Troy and Kumtepe. Alongside descriptive methods, with
the comparison of proportions of specific plant species within
samples or periods, it was also necessary to use more advanced
statistical methods (see G. Jones 1991). The different
techniques that were used to evaluate the data, and the different
questions that were addressed, are described below.
2.2.2.1 Recording system and data preparation
Information used to classify the samples and species included
context definitions, dating and ecological data. Ecological
aspects included the potential habitats and life form.
The problems related to the application of modern plant ecology
to prehistoric finds are discussed below. The basic groupings
of plants were done according to the modern communities
recorded in Davis, and to observation during field excursions
between 1991 and 1996.
The raw data was modified in order to apply correspondence
analysis (CA). The original data table consists of 344 samples
and 318 categories. It is given in appendices 1 and 2, for
samples with more than 20 seeds.
For the statistical analysis the data were summarised where
possible. For example, the grains of Hordeum vulgare L.
(straight, cf. naked), Hordeum vulgare L. (twisted, cf. naked),
Hordeum vulgare L. (hulled), Hordeum vulgare L. (twisted,
hulled), Hordeum vulgare L. (straight, hulled), Hordeum
vulgare L. (twisted), Hordeum vulgare L. (straight), were
summarised as Hordeum vulgare. This procedure resulted in 94
categories (species) for the whole data set, using only the 147
samples with more than 50 seeds. Although this modification
of the data at first glance seems strongly interventionist, the
positive effect of such an organisation of the data in terms of
reduction of ‛noise’ is apparent, considering the proportion of
data used in relation to the original, unmodified data. Although
a large number of samples were omitted in summarising data,
98.8% of the original number of seeds were still usable. The
modified data table was transposed from Excel into Cedit, and
from there into Canoco. Further reductions and transformations
were conducted within the later data evaluation.
2.2.2.2 Descriptive methods
The first steps of data analysis were done in Excel, with simple
evaluations of sample composition for each sample or for the
different periods. Some examples are presented in chapter 3, to
give the reader an impression of the sampled contexts. Basic
similarities or differences between samples could be
recognised.
Hubbard (1980) discusses the application of presence analysis
on the research question of the development of agriculture in
the Near East. Presence analysis does not consider the total
counts of species and may give a better impression of how
common a species is within the set of samples than seed
numbers. Presence analysis, according to G. Jones (1991) a
semi-quantitative method, has synonyms like ‛constancy’,
‛ubiquity’ or ‛frequency’ in community ecology. Presence
analysis is only reliable for samples of equal size and under the
precondition that multiple sampling of the same context can be
excluded. Because the latter is dependent on the co-operation
between observations of archaeobotanist and excavators, it
might sometimes be a problem. One deposition event (e.g. a
layer within a building) might be sampled several times, or
different events within one feature (e.g. in a ditch) might be
unrecognised. When the number of samples is small, the
weight of a dependent sample mistaken as an independent
sample (multiple sampling) could be very heavy. E.g. one
20

chapter 2: methods
mistaken sample amongst a total of 10 samples results in an
error of 10%, whereas the same sample amongst a total of 344
samples results in an error of only 0.29%.
To exclude multiple sampling, the raw data were examined for
the origin (co-ordinates) of the samples, and on the sample
composition of neighbouring samples. Except for pits filled by
clearly distinguishable events, samples from neighbouring
locations which showed the same composition and the same
proportions of species or categories were summarised as one
sample.
The percentage occurrence of specific plant groups (e.g. crops)
within different periods gives an impression of dominance or
underrepresentation of each species. Dominance within the set
of analysed samples should not be confused with the meaning
of “importance”, which would be an “unjustified assumption
that numerical values reflect importance” as G. Jones (1991)
pointed out (for earlier discussions see also Dennell 1976). But
at least percentage occurrence provides a clear pattern of the
increase or decrease of ubiquities of single species from one
period to another.
The percentage occurrence of some of the crops was calculated
for the sequence Kumtepe, Early Bronze Age Troy, Middle
Bronze Age Troy, Late Bronze Age Troy, Post-Bronze Age
Troy and is presented in Graph 45.
2.2.2.3 Multivariate methods
According to G. Jones (1991) the two main approaches within
statistical analysis are ‛pattern searching’, where groupings of
the data are sought and ‛problem-oriented analysis’, where
rather complicated analyses find application. The different kind
of analyses in this work were mainly used for ‛pattern
searching’.
For the preparation of the input files, those samples were
chosen that were assumed to be representative of the sampled
context, i.e. that had more than 50 records (van der Veen
1992). Fifty-seven percent of the original number of samples
were excluded. A method of reducing the volume of data by
reducing the number of categories (taxa) has been worked out
by van der Veen and Fieller (1982). They have calculated the
number of items required to estimate relative quantities at
different levels of accuracy and confidence, for different sizes
of parent population. For the cut-off point of species
represented in the Troy and Kumtepe samples, ubiquities of
more than 10% were chosen. This lies within the range (5-
20%), assumed to characterise rare species in community
ecology (Gauch 1982a, and 1982b, Lange 1990), and reduces
the number of species categories from 318 to 94, i.e. 266714
seeds or 98,8 % of the total amount of seeds.
Samples or species below the threshholds mentioned were
omitted from the multivariate analysis in order to conduct the
necessary data compression. No other manipulation of the data
was necessary to apply Canoco.
Canonical discriminant analysis is used to discover those
variables that best discriminate between groups, thus allowing
ungrouped units to be assigned to them (Pearsall 1989). It starts
from the assumption that a set of objects (species) belongs to
more than two groups (crop-processing stages), i.e. that the
group to which an individual belongs is known. “Linear
combinations of the variables are sought that display the
difference between the presumed groups as clearly as possible.
The aim may be to confirm that the presumed groups are
indeed distinct or to provide a criterion for allocating
unclassified individuals to a group” (Baxter 1994, p. 186).
Canonical discriminant analysis was used to determine cropprocessing
stages. The problems of comparing samples without
knowing the stage of crop-processing they come from are
pointed out by Jones (1983a, 1983b and 1984) and Hillman
(1984a and 1984b). The statistical method to detect cropprocessing
stages, was worked out by Jones (1987a, 1987b),
and is based on ethnographic research in Greece (Kolofana).
Samples from traditional crop-processing were analysed for
characteristics that best distinguished between the known
groups. New variables were defined (discrimination). The four
groups of remains that result from traditional crop-processing
are: winnowing by-products, coarse-sieve by-products, finesieve
by-products, and fine-sieve products. The characteristics
that best distinguish between the known groups (new variables)
are combinations of three morphological characters of the weed
seed. The characters are seed size (Big/Small), ‛headedness’
(tendency of seeds to remain in heads during crop-processing,
rather than to be dispersed (Free/Headed)), and
‛aerodynamics/lightness’ (Heavy/Light). The combinations of
these three characters in one weed species lead to six overall
categories of weed taxa, the new variables (see appendix 4,
CPS). The application of the new variables to the whole set of
species leads to the allocation of the samples to the four cropprocessing
stages.
The potential weed species of Troy samples were assigned to
categories. The analysis was run and plotted to Jones’ Kolofana
data with SPSS. The results are included in chapter 5 (see
Graph 41).
With the calculation of individual correlation coefficients, the
strength of a relationship between the values of two variables
(species) can be ascertained. Over the whole set of samples the
values of one variable (species) are compared with those of the
second variable (species). If there is any relationship between
the values of the variables, i.e. if the variables vary together,
they are correlated. To visualise the strength of a correlation
one might imagine a plot, with the values of one variable on
the x-axis, the values of the other variable on the y-axis. The
samples (cases) would be the reference points in the plot. The
plotted points would lie for a perfect correlation on an
imaginary straight diagonal. Usually correlations are weaker.
The degree of correlation, or the closeness with which the pairs
of values fit a straight line, is numerically expressed by the
correlation coefficient (r). The standard error of the correlation
coefficient is a measure for the significance of the correlation
coefficient. In the analyses conducted here a probability level
between p=0.00 and p=0.02 was chosen. The standard error
p=0.02 means that there will appear to be a significant
correlation in 2% of the tests, even if there is no actual
correlation between the variables. This factor could only be
excluded by taking p=0.00, but in this case one would have to
exclude too many very probable actual correlations.
21

chapter 2: methods
The correlation of different taxa may provide a chance to
answer the question about the origin or function of those taxa.
For example, in case of a correlation between Scirpus
maritimus and cereals there would be a certain likelihood that
they grew together in a field, which would be a result of
specific ecological importance. If there was no correlation
between Scirpus maritimus and a domesticated plant at all, this
could support the conclusion that Scirpus maritimus was
exclusively cut for other, e.g. architectural, reasons.
A correlation analysis was conducted with SPSS for selected
wild plants (grasses and wild legumes in their association with
the crops). The results are presented in chapter 4.
Another way to detect general associations of plant species is
correspondence analysis.
Correspondence analysis (CA) is “a technique for displaying
the rows and columns of a two-way contingency table as points
in corresponding low-dimensional vector spaces (e.g. a twodimensional
graph) ” (Baxter 1994, p. 100). The ordination
technique arranges sites (i.e. samples) along axes on the basis
of species composition. The first axis is that which accounts for
the largest share of the variation within the data; subsequent
axes account for decreasing shares of the total variation.
Usually the points which do not look well separated on the first
and second axes can be displayed better on the third or
following axes.
The presentation of CA is similar to biplot diagrams, and the
choice between the two methods depends on the nature of the
data being used. While biplots seem to be more appropriate for
continuous data, data in form of counts is more appropriately
treated using CA.
The method is relatively widely used in archaeology. Fields of
archaeological application include studies on Palaeolithic
seasonal patterns, where e.g. the absolute frequency of tool
types in different sites is investigated under the hypothesis that
they will cluster according to their geographical location.
Similarly one can check whether plant taxa cluster according to
any given characteristic, e.g. dating, function, ecological
groups, etc.. CA is therefore widely used in community
ecology, e.g. with the study of modern weed ecology (Jones
1991 and 1994b).
Usually CA and correlation analysis complement each other, in
that species which are correlated are usually found to
correspond the same way. The advantage of CA is that all the
data are presented together in a compact form, whereas
correlation analysis considers only two variables at once.
A problem with the CA graphs is that they can be too ‛busy’,
containing so much detail because of superimposition that they
become incomprehensible (Baxter 1994). One way to deal with
this is to present the data as two separate graphs. In this
analysis both separate plots and also plots that combine
different aspects of information were provided.
relations between species, groups of species and samples or
groups of samples which were not recognised before. The
program used was Canoco 3.1 (Ter Braak 1987-1992). The raw
data selected for CA consisted of 147 samples (cases) and 94
species (variables). The criteria for data selection were the
same general statistical requirements as for correlation and
discriminant analysis. Only samples with more than 50 items
went into the analysis (compare appendices 1 and 2). Also,
only species with more than 10% ubiquity in the raw data set
were considered. The results were plotted with Canodraw 3.0
(Smilauer 1992).
Species and samples were classified into groups, such as ecogroups,
life form categories, periods and subperiods, and
context types. Different options were integrated into the
correspondence plots which provided information on the
general distribution of species and samples, and at the same
time on e.g. abundance or presence for species classes in each
sample, species abundance or presence for sample classes for
each species, etc..
Another measure used to describe the composition of a plant
assemblage is its diversity.
The ratio of numbers of species to the numbers of seeds is the
simplest expression of diversity, but it is influenced by the
sample size. Because the same ratios can be produced
depending on the degree of evenness of abundance (i.e. few
species with even abundance can produce the same ratio as
many species with uneven abundance) the evenness should also
to be considered. Species diversity therefore takes into account
the total number of species represented and the abundance of
each species (Pearsall 1989). Or, in ecological terms, it is a
function both of the number of classes present and of the
evenness or uniformity of the distribution of relative
abundances of the classes (Kintigh 1989). The comparability of
diversity measures between different sites is a problem,
because of preservational differences.
Low species diversity (e.g. in crops) at the level of the whole
assemblage is often interpreted as a sign of specialisation (see
chapter 5).
It was decided not to use statistical methods (Shannon-Weaver
index) to calculate diversity for the different periods, because
of taphonomic problems (accumulation cannot be excluded for
many of the samples). Instead, only the presence of crop
species in each period was compared to give an impression of
the broadness of the spectra of cultivated plants.
The hypothesis in this work was that the samples would cluster
according to their archaeological period and events and that the
species might cluster in ecological groups, so that different
groups of species or taxa characterise the samples in
chronological and functional terms, which would support the
patterns already visible by descriptive methods or detect
22

chapter 2: methods
2.2.3 The ecological evaluation of the data
As mentioned above, in the course of pattern searching an
ecological classification of the species was conducted (see
appendix 4). Using schemes to classify plant species in terms
of their potential ecological habitat is difficult for living
populations and even more so for archaeological populations.
This aspect is comprehensively discussed in phytosociology
and archaeobotany (e.g. Lang 1962, Tüxen 1958, Behre and
Jacomet 1991, Deichmüller 1967, Ellenberg 1953, Hillman
1991, Jones 1992, Körber-Grohne 1979, Küster 1991,
Willerding 1979).
The problems with the application of modern phytosociology
and autecology to archaeobotanical plant assemblages are
summarised by van der Veen (1992), who prefers the autecological
approach.
The main reasons for the incompatibility of the
phytosociological method with archaeobotany are the totally
different quantitative approaches of phytosociology and
archaeobotany, complicated by archaeobotanical questions of
taphonomy, and multiple sources of plant remains found in the
same context, and the selectivity of sample composition, which
stems from the fact that not all plants in a community produce
seeds at the same time. Because a plant species might grow
within different plant communities the phytosociological
system is somewhat rigid, while autecology allows much more
flexibility in considering potential habitats in a prehistoric
landscape (see also Küster 1991). Furthermore, a chronological
change in ecological attributes is known for several species.
This includes a change in optimal habitats, so that modern
indicator species might be misleading. One should consider the
evolution of weed floras the same way as the evolution of crop
plants. In the course of time the weed flora increases in species
(Willerding 1979).
In view of these factors, a phytosociological approach was not
attempted in this work. The eco-groups that were formed for
the species from Troy and Kumtepe should be understood as a
model to summarise species with similar autecological
behaviour.
One example of the problems with the classification of
archaeobotanical species is reflected in the discussion on
Chenopodietea and Secalietea as two different
phytosociological classes of weed communities. Some
botanists support the separation of the summer annual
Chenopodietea (sown in summer or spring) and the winter
annual Secalietea. Archaeobotanical reports sometimes infer
cultivation times by working out which of these two
phytosociological classes dominates the archaeobotanical
material (e.g. van Waateringe 1979). Others reject the system
as not applicable for different reasons (Nezadal 1989). The
evolution of weeds through time in their rhythm of seed
germination brings additional problems in drawing conclusions
about the past from modern weed communities.
The formation process of weed communities and the factors
that influence this formation are very complicated, and at the
moment there seems to be no unambiguous method to group
archaeobotanical weeds under specific categories. Hanf (1990a
and 1990b) divides the factors that are responsible for the
composition of the weed assemblage into two groups. The first,
the ‛unspecific factor group’ includes general elements in the
creation of the flora, like climate and soil conditions as a
whole. The second group are the ‛specific factors’, like soil
treatment, crop planting and harvesting methods, the
cultivation of specific crops, and fertilisation, which explain
the link between the previously mentioned classes and specific
types of cultivation. Chenopodietea weeds seem more likely
to derive from garden-type cultivation (i.e. high soil fertility),
while Secalietea weeds are more closely related to cereal
cultivation. Jones (1992) relates Chenopodietea weeds with
garden-type cultivation, because both classes,
Chenopodietea and Secalietea, are more likely to be
strongly dependent on soil treatment than on germination
times.
Research on the nature of weed communities and the
possibility of grouping weed species under different categories
led to other ecological approaches, such as classification
according to different strategies of the weeds (competitor,
ruderal, stress-tolerator) by Grime et al. (1990). New projects
are under development to look for functional attributes in the
weed plants that correlate with the habitats they grew in (Jones
1994a).
With a few exceptions (i.e. crops, aquatic plants like the
Characeae, shrubby plants and trees or other plants with
markedly different habitus (shape) (like Typha spp.)), most of
the plant finds have to be assumed to represent possible weeds.
There are some species that are definitely from grazing
habitats. Ecological data on the species was collected mainly
from Davis (1965-1988). Some of the possible weeds could be
excluded from the weed category using correlation analysis,
when they were not correlated with any of the crops or their
waste products (e.g. small-seeded legumes). Using the
ecological information the species were classified into five
principal ‛eco-groups’ (see appendix 4). Under this
classification, the weed category contains only typical weed
species in the modern sense, although one must be aware that
categories such as ‛open vegetation’ also contain potential
weeds, and that the species in these categories also very likely
occurred as weeds. This is worth remembering when looking at
the correspondence plots. For the crop-processing stages, the
weed class was enlarged by adding some of the species from
the former open vegetation group, and a list of probable weed
species resulted from this. Data examination was conducted
with both probable and possible weeds, to find the most
realistic formation of the weed communities represented at
Troy and Kumtepe.
The palaeohydrology and soil science results were essential for
the assessment and location of past plant habitats around Troy
and Kumtepe (see chapter 1). Knowledge of the distribution of
land and water and the soil cover in the hinterland of the study
area in the past, made it possible to define the prehistoric flora.
Potential habitats were located with respect to coastlines and
degree of openness of the vegetation, using the eco-groups of
the archaeobotanical species.
23

chapter 2: methods
2.2.4 The economic evaluation of the data
2.2.4.1 Plant use in general and alternative origin
of archaeobotanical seeds
The basic question of the origin of the plant remains is often
answered by emphasising the point that archaeological layers
mainly contain crops and their weeds, brought into the
settlement by the inhabitants. Generally, crops and their weeds
are the most common source of seeds, which is also the case at
Troy and Kumtepe (for the discussion of crop-processing and
the weed flora, see chapters 4 and 5).
The analyses revealed, however, that several species were not
correlated with the crops. Other possibilities for their origin
had to be considered. The ‛productivity idea’ of modern
civilisation seems to leave no room for gathering in farming
societies, and one sometimes gets the impression that people’s
interest in exploiting plants from more-or-less natural
vegetation stopped with the Neolithic. In fact, people in
Mediterranean countries do use wild plants for different
purposes, sometimes in large amounts. In view of ethnographic
studies, which demonstrate that arable farming is not the only
activity producing preservable remains throughout the year, it
was decided to also consider sources of archaeobotanical seeds
other than crop-processing activities.
Although there are conditions whereby seeds accumulated
accidentally are archaeologically insignificant, one should be
aware of the possibilities, in the case of plant species that
cannot be interpreted as weeds, such as some of the species
found at Troy and Kumtepe. For example, vineyards or gardens
may have been fenced with spiny shrubs such as
Sarcopoterium spinosum or Paliurus spina-christi, to protect
the plantations from grazing animals, as it is still practised
today in the Troad (e.g. Taştepe). Seeds of these plants could
be easily transferred with the harvest into the settlement.
Another example is the presence of seeds from halophytes.
These do not necessarily indicate that those plants were
amongst the weeds, and that cereals were cultivated on salty or
marshy ground. In some cases, an accumulation of the seeds by
a natural route might be possible. The salty marshland habitats
near the coast or the delta were presumably partially desiccated
in the hot summer months (Barker-Webb 1822, Virchow
1879). The so-called ‛steppe witches’, plants that form into a
ball after drying up in summer (e.g. Salsola kali), are driven by
wind over the landscape to disperse their seeds. It is not
difficult to imagine the Bronze Age settlement of Troy
operating as an accumulation barrier for these plants.
Apart from the crops, many of the typical modern weed plants
were used for consumption in different periods and regions.
Their dietary value might have been discovered because they
grew among the crops.
Amongst the wild plants recorded from Troy, several are
known historically as food plants. Prepared as salads, Anchusa
officinalis, Calendula officinalis, Malva sylvestris, Onopordum
acanthium, Phragmites australis, Portulaca oleracea, Salsola
kali, Silybum marianum, Stellaria media, Urtica dioica,
Valerianella dentata, etc. provide an enrichment of the diet, as
do spices such as Origanum vulgare. Because most of the
vegetables are consumed before flowering, however,
archaeobotanists do not assume that the leaves were consumed
when only the seeds are found in archaeobotanical contexts.
Many wild plants are effective in alternative medicine.
Problems in proving medicinal use from the archaeobotanical
evidence, lead many archaeobotanists to reject consideration of
the potential medicinal use of plants. Finds of the seeds cannot
be taken as an evidence that other, less preservable parts of the
plant (e.g. leaves) were used, but suggest that the plant could
have had some value to ancient people.
However, the ethnoarchaeologist might be convinced that prehistoric
people were concerned with questions of death, disease,
and health and had also developed herbal medicines. The
information on medicinal use of plants should not be condemned.
Table 2 lists the most efficiently used plants in historic
and modern herbal medicine, which were recorded in the
archaeobotanical material from Troy and Kumtepe (sources:
Riddle 1985, Bremness 1995). Whether medicinal use of a
specific plant is a plausible explanation for archaeobotanical
finds has to be decided by looking at the sample composition
and the context in which it was found.
Wood was a valuable raw material for different construction
purposes (timber for representative buildings and ships) and
especially for charcoal production. Charcoal production was
until recently a small but important branch of industry in Mediterranean
countries (Hepper 1992). Ore dressing requires
higher temperatures than burning wood can supply; with the
emergence of metal-working, therefore, charcoal production
must have become a highly valued craft.
Architectural use of plants, i.e. for roofing, matting, basketry
and other useful domestic objects, must be assumed in the case
of many of the wetland plants recorded at Troy and Kumtepe
(Phragmites australis, Juncus spp., Typha latifolia, Scirpus
maritimus). Other, less obvious, uses that are still known to
people living in Mediterranean countries could be the source of
seeds within the village. Besides matting, Juncus spp. are also
usable as pens; peeled and soaked in olive oil they may be used
for lighting (Hepper 1992). Another ‛craftsman’s plant’ still
used today in Near Eastern countries is, for example,
Thymelaea hirsuta, which has very tenacious branches and is
therefore used for producing ropes (Danin 1983).
Although there is no archaeobotanical evidence of linen
production, there is archaeological evidence at least since Troy
II of the early importance of textile production. The use of dyes
to create variety in costumes is also demonstrated (see chapter
1). Amongst the category of plants from open vegetation
habitats, Anchusa officinalis (red colours from the bark of the
root) and Reseda luteola (yellow dye) have to be mentioned as
potential dye plants. Before dyeing the cloth had to be cleaned
of natural fats, which could have been achieved, for example,
using extracts of Chenopodium album and Salsola kali roots as
a kind of soap.
The importance of hunting and herding makes leather-dressing,
and the need for tannins, very plausible. In Turkey the cupules
of Quercus aegilops were until recently an important source of
tannins.
24

chapter 2: methods
In Near Eastern countries, where trees and wood are valuable
raw materials, people make intensive use of the maquis,
garrigue and batha, and other alternative fuel sources. For
example, Sarcopoterium spinosum and other spiny plants are
important fuels, alongside the use as fuel of dung and waste
products from cereal processing, or a draff mixture from olive
oil and wine production (Hepper 1992). With the early opening
of the vegetation and intensive charcoal fabrication for metal
production, at least in Late Bronze Age, one might imagine that
a few of the shrubby plants came into the settlement as fuel.
Considering the high value of wood for different craft purposes
and the early decline of Mediterranean woodlands, it seems
likely that people used alternative fuel sources for cooking and
heating from the earliest days.
The spiny plants, which are numerous in several plant families
in Near Eastern countries, have been important sources of fuel
since at least biblical times. In particular, Sarcopoterium
spinosum, a characteristic plant of maquis, garrigue and batha,
which is not browsed by animals, is cut and collected today in
Near Eastern countries (Seçmen and Leblebici 1978, p. 227).
Not only spiny plants, but all dry vegetative plant material is
used for fuel, such as brushwood from fruit-tree pruning, chaff
remains from crop-processing, etc.. In addition, vegetative
material rich in oil was always used for fuel. Olive and grape
draff, for example, are known to be burnt together (Hepper
1992).
Today dung is still a welcome fuel, mainly in arid and treeless
regions. The importance of dung in the formation of
archaeobotanical contexts has only recently been discussed.
Some archaeobotanists conclude that dung used as fuel was the
main source of carbonised plant remains at their sites (e.g.
Miller 1984, Miller and Smart 1984, Bottema 1984).
Ethnographic investigations reveal the importance of dung as a
fuel, not least by the tradition along with dung cake preparation
and preferences in the use of it. Different kinds of dung cakes
exist, according to their seasonal origin, the preparation
method, and the animals they derive from. Amongst the six
different types of dung cakes that are listed by Anderson
(1995) the compacted sheep dung cut from byres (sarma) has
the best burning qualities. Summer sheep droppings can also be
swept up and moulded into a ‛bun’ shape. Kerpiç, which was
found in relation with the architecture in Troy, is early summer
cow dung compacted into a mould, whereas Kerme is winter
cow dung, compacted and cut into bricks. The preparation
method, whereby additional plant material is mixed into the
dung cake, is generally assumed to give poorer burning quality,
and may affect the interpretation of archaeobotanical samples
as dung remains (Miller 1984). Amongst the plants that are
used as tinder, and are collected and dried for this purpose, are
Astragalus sp., Juncus inflexus, Phragmites australis, Salix and
Vitis vinifera branches (Anderson 1995).
The interpretation of archaeobotanical macrofossils as dung or
fodder remains, especially in English literature, leads not only
to economic and ecological conclusions (deforestation), but
also to the reconstruction of the social environment, because of
the connection of fuel scarcity with economic poverty (Fenton
1985). Additionally, when used as fuel, the dung is lost for
purposes such as fertiliser. The sociopolitical aspects of using
dung for fuel are sometimes expressed in the concept of some
kind of ownership of the dung by the shepherd (Anderson
1995).
The palynological, archaeozoological and archaeological
results from Troy (Gennett and Gifford 1982, Uerpmann,
Köhler and Stephan 1992) suggest that dung was an important
source of archaeobotanical remains. The wild plant species, not
associated with the crops, and which were thought to derive
from animal feed or dung, were evaluated for their suitability
for cattle or for sheep/goat nutrition. It has to be assumed that
the different growing heights of these species make them
variously accessible to animals. Due to their masticatory
apparatus and carriage, cows are adapted to grazing taller herbs
(they are not able to pull up short grasses with their tongue),
while sheep tend to graze on lower vegetation layers. Goats are
a special case, with the ability to browse on trees. An
assemblage dominated by low-growing potential fodder plants
should indicate that the remains in question are probably
derived from sheep dung rather than from cattle.
In most archaeological contexts with unknown formation
processes there seems to be no definitive way of identifying
dung samples from the plant macro-remains alone. In some
exceptional cases it might be possible (as for the remains older
than Troy I, in trench D5, see chapter 3.2.2.1). Investigations of
the survival of plant seeds during digestion have been mainly
conducted by agronomists, e.g. to assess whether or not cattle
were responsible for the spread of weeds on farm land (e.g.
Atkeson, Hulbert and Warren 1934, Burton and Andrews 1948,
Russi, Cocks and Roberts 1992, Gardener, McIvor and Jansen
1993, Malo and Suárez 1995), whereas syn- and
postdepositional taphonomic influences on dung fuel has
mainly been studied by archaeobotanists (e.g. McLaughlin
Smith 1990).
The taphonomic processes that lead to the formation of dung
cakes are relatively complicated. Food selection by animals
and humans and digestion are the most important filters
between the available plants in the environment and the seeds
in animal dung.
Considering feed selection by animals, one recognises that
digestibility remains high until the onset of flowering (Arnold
1964). Taste, smell, toxicity and physical protection of a plant
affect its palatability. Spikes and thorns offer plants a form of
physical protection from predation, but animals may still target
these plants due to a lack of alternatives.
Selection by humans concerns whole vegetation units or the
composition of fodder. The different areas and different
households Anderson (1995) observed, used different
husbandry regimes. Sheep herders kept the animals inside
during the winter and fed them on a combination of cereals,
legumes and crop-processing residues. Fodder can also be in
the form of fresh or stored herbage, or even fruits such as dried
grapes, which are fed to the rams before the mating season.
Although mature herbage is the least nutritious (Fishwick
1952, Jones and Wilson 1987), it is likely to be stored as fodder
in this form. This also means that hay is likely to be cut around
the seed-bearing stage, which may increase the chance of seeds
entering the animal dung through fodder. As mentioned before,
crop-processing residues are also an important source of animal
fodder. Such residues are not very nutritious, but the
digestibility of straw can be improved by supplementing the
25

chapter 2: methods
diet with more digestible nutrients. Growing browse legumes
would be a much more efficient system. But legume cultivation
is labour-intensive and it is hard to imagine subsistence farmers
growing forage legumes in place of food crops simply to
supply food for livestock. Cultivation for human consumption
if necessary, or for animal feed otherwise, seems more
probable (Halstead and Jones 1995).
Ruminant digestion determines the viability of the seeds taken
in with grazing or feed. Although ruminants chew their feed
more than once, and may damage plant seeds repeatedly,
Anderson (1995) could demonstrate that at least 50% of the
seeds of wild plants eaten were found intact in dung samples.
Seeds from different species do not pass through the digestive
tract with the same speed. For example, the seeds of the smallseeded
grasses pass through faster than those of the largeseeded
grasses (e.g. cereal grains) (Burton and Andrews 1948).
This also means that grazing animals can have seeds from a
range of ecological and geographical environments in their gut
at the same time. The resistance of the seed coat is also
important for the viability of the seed, i.e. small, hard coated
seeds (e.g. the small seeded legumes) are more likely to survive
digestion. These factors determining the viability of seeds
could be also recognised in the ‛dung samples’ from Troy.
If animals are fed with crop-processing by-products, the dung
can contain enormous amounts of rachis remains, which would
make a differentiation from pure crop-processing by-products
in the archaeobotanical record difficult, if not impossible. The
most common plant families Anderson (1995) found in modern
dung cakes were Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Labiatae and
Polygonaceae which were also predominant in the prehistoric
dung remains from Troy, in addition to the small seeded
legumes. When dung remains can be recognised in the
archaeobotanical record, husbandry regimes are reflected in the
composition of the plant remains.
2.2.4.2 Evidence of specific field activities
As already mentioned, the dominance of a specific weed class
(Chenopodietea, Secalietea) might characterise the
manner of arable farming. Another aspect which might reveal
the intensity of soil treatment is the dominant life form in the
weed flora. Generally one assumes that annual weeds appear
with more intensive soil treatment, i.e. disturbance of the
ground and destruction of the roots by technically more
advanced implements. With this intensification of the soil
treatment annual plants increase. The nitrification of the soil
develops simultaneously (see Jones 1992, van der Veen 1992).
Another activity that provides information on the technical
state of agriculture, is that of weed control. Hillman (1984a)
mentions the case of evidence of the absence of seeds of highgrowing,
obvious weeds. This issue is also strongly related to
harvesting methods, which are assumed to be recognisable by
considering the growing heights of weeds.
Determining sowing times is likely to be important in estimating
the seasonality and productivity of a site (Hillman 1981
and 1984a). The yields of autumn sown crops are higher. Legumes
are usually not cold-resistant enough to be sown in
autumn. According to ethnographic evidence, spring sowing is
practised because of scheduling conflicts in autumn. Some
archaeobotanists approach the question of the seasonal availability
of food plants using the two weed classes of Chenopodietea
and Secalietea (see above). Since the proportions of
Chenopodietea and Secalietea are more likely to depend
on soil treatment than on germination times, however, the question
of sowing times was not addressed here.
Amongst discussions concerning the economic nature of prehistoric
sites, such as ‛farming settlement versus pastoralists’
(Hillman 1981), more controversial models such as ‛producer
versus consumer sites’ also exist (M. Jones 1984). The basic
idea behind these models is, that in ‛pastoralist’ or in so-called
‛consumer sites’ plant food is imported. The by-products of
certain stages of crop-processing should be missing from the
archaeobotanical material. The model of a non-producing settlement
predicts a limited presence of weeds, i.e. only those
species that were not removed during crop-processing , e.g.
because of similarities with the crop grain. Other categories,
associated with early crop-processing stages, should not be
found. The above argument equates the absence of evidence for
the early stages of crop processing with evidence for the absence
of these activities. Assuming spatial patterning of activity
zones, however, it is equally possible that areas of the site
containing evidence for the early stages of crop-processing
were not sampled. The economic nature of Kumtepe and the
different periods at Troy is discussed in chapter 5.
During his ethnographic studies in Turkey, Hillman (1984a)
observed the uprooting of barley by hand as a fast and effective
harvesting method. In the archaeobotanical record, this should
lead to the presence of large numbers of culm bases.
Recognising this in the archaeobotanical context is
problematic, because of the cumulative nature of many refuse
deposits and the rarity of ‛primary product’ finds. Chaff
remains associated with culm nodes, for example, might be
derived from an accumulation of refuse from harvesting ears
and straw separately, but also from uprooting the whole plant.
Another question that has been actively discussed in the last ten
years, is that of reaping close to the ear. The argument was that
the number of weeds, harvested with the crops could be
minimised by harvesting close to the ear. The archaeobotanical
evidence for a harvest close to the ears would be a lack of lowgrowing
weeds. Here again the problem of drawing
conclusions based on absence of evidence occurs. The
primitive cereals (e.g. Anatolian emmer) have very variable
growing heights (between 0.25 and 1.10 m (Hillman 1981, p.
151) or only 15 cm as observed in Jordan (pers. com. John
Meadows)), so that the presence of low-growing weeds does
not necessarily mean a harvest far from the ear. The presence
or absence of low-growing weeds might more realistically
inform us about the potential growing heights of the cereals.
26

chapter 3: analysis
3 Analytical results – Sample description
and statistical analysis
This chapter provides information on the origin and
composition of the samples. Correspondence analysis was
applied to look for explanatory patterns reflecting the Bronze
Age Troians’ economic behaviour (e.g. the range crops and
their relative importance in people’s diet, technical aspects of
agriculture such as intensification, etc.) and the ecology behind
it. Further interpretation and discussion of the analytical results
is presented in chapters 4 and 5.
3.1 Description and interpretation of the
samples
The samples were taken from different archaeological contexts
identified by the excavators. The contexts may be of
‛morphological type’ (e.g. burnt layers) and functional type
(e.g. ovens). This means that in the first case the context
description does not refer to a specific activity, while in the
second case the description implies more or less clearly what
kind of activity was carried out at that location (e.g. cerealprocessing,
storage, cooking, waste disposal, etc.). The
‛functional units’ used here are often related to architectural
objects.
The inclusion of the ‛functional units’ in the description of the
samples, provides additional information about the conditions
under which the material was deposited.
Six different ‛function types’ or contexts were distinguished.
1 Floors inside the buildings, which sometimes contain storage
finds, represent architectural units of the surface that the
people were living on. They were well represented in all the
periods from Kumtepe B onwards, but especially in Late
Bronze Age contexts. These samples were combined with
samples from walls (which were frequently sampled in
Kumtepe A and Early Bronze Age only) and other architectural
objects (e.g. postholes) that were parts of houses and related to
floors.
2 ‛Fills’, i.e. sediment layers which are not defined as floors
but were related to architecture. Many of the Early Bronze Age
samples came from fills. ‛Fills’ were layers close to any kind
of wall and cannot easily be assigned to a specific activity.
Similarly difficult to interpret in terms of their origin are
remains from pits, ditches, channels and wells as places of
accumulating waste material. They were often sampled at
Kumtepe and the samples are usually rich in material.
3 Ovens, hearths and working places near ovens are relatively
small, concentrated deposits mainly within houses, in which
the remains of crop and food processing had a good chance of
survival. (The few remains found within fireplaces, however,
were heavily corroded.) Such contexts were well represented in
Middle Bronze Age and Kumtepe B layers.
4 Contents of pottery and pithoi were frequent in almost all the
periods except from Kumtepe B and Late Bronze Age Troy.
5 Burial contexts were sampled rarely (only in the Late Bronze
Age) and were, as expected, mainly without botanical remains.
6 rubble, unknown or not interpretable contexts. The samples
were related to structures, but these deposits were not clearly
definable, in terms of function. Most apparently related to the
construction of foundations or demolition and collapse of
buildings. There were many samples from Kumtepe, Late
Bronze Age and Post-Bronze Age levels from such contexts.
The proportion of the different ‛functional units’ over the
sequence of periods varies considerably. Floors are mainly
represented amongst Late Bronze Age samples, fills amongst
Early Bronze Age samples, ovens are very common amongst
the samples from Kumtepe B and from Middle Bronze Age
Troy, pottery contents appear mainly in samples from Post-
Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age contexts, and burials had
significant seed content exclusively in Late Bronze Age Troy.
Broadly speaking, the Late Bronze Age samples come mainly
from architectural contexts like floors and walls, while the
Middle Bronze Age samples are mainly related to food
preparation (ovens, vessel contents). The samples from the
earlier periods (Early Bronze Age and Kumtepe layers) derive
mainly from waste and storage facilities.
For the benefit of readers who are not statistically minded, a
more qualitative description of the samples is presented here.
The samples were mainly selected for contextual reasons, e.g.
when secure archaeological infomation about the context was
available. Multiple sampling of the same context was also
noted (for the location of the Troy samples from the Upper
City see Map 2).
3.1.1 The Kumtepe samples
3.1.1.1 Neolithic/Chalcolithic Kumtepe A
In contrast to Kumtepe B samples, which yielded the majority
of data from this site, Kumtepe A is restricted to the
‛bioprofile’ and trench F28 with only 7 samples. Two samples
from Kumtepe A came from inside a building. One of those
(BP21) represents the possibly disturbed contents of a vessel,
with a species spectrum dominated by Eragrostis sp. (open
vegetation) and with a few cereal remains. The other sample
(BP20) seems to be an already cleaned deposit of a crop
legume mixture of lentil and bitter vetch in a ratio of almost
1:1, close to a wall. The only accompanying weed is Lathyrus
sativus/cicera.
Because only seven samples were obtained from Kumtepe A
horizons, the observable differences between Kumtepe A and
B samples could be either functional or economic in nature.
The archaeological and archaeozoological results strongly
suggest economic differences (pers. com. M. Uerpmann).
The main differences in archaeobotanical sample composition
between Kumtepe A and B are in the food plants. In the
Kumtepe A levels, beside fruit trees (fig) the grain legumes
(lentil and bitter vetch) are most abundant, while cereal crops
are only sparsely recorded. With oysters as another main
component of diet, the everyday food of the Kumtepe A people
can be described as very rich in proteins and in ‛low quality’
carbohydrates. Such a diet may be reflected in the dental health
of the Kumtepe A population.
27

chapter 3: analysis
3.1.1.2 Kumtepe B architecture
Most of the archaeobotanical samples from Kumtepe are from
Kumtepe B horizons that start around 3400 BC and probably
end with the beginning of the Troy settlement. The samples
come from the trenches F28, G28, and F29. Kumtepe B
architecture could be divided into four building phases, with a
higher portion of wooden posts in the lower horizons. The
remains of an apsidal house were also found in the oldest
Kumtepe B horizons (Korfmann et al. 1996).
Figure 2 shows five representative samples from trench F29.
The samples are from pits (BP01, BP06), ‛working places’
(BP02, BP04) and from a hearth (BP05). They were dated to
Kumtepe B3, but according to new analyses they are more
likely to belong to Kumtepe C (pers. com. U. Gabriel).
The samples are all dominated by hulled wheat chaff. BP01
(n=6913), which derives from a pit close to a suggested
‛working place’, has the broadest species spectrum of all the
samples from this trench. Emmer and einkorn chaff make up
the majority of the sample. Cereal grains are almost absent.
Remains from many other crops are present in small numbers
(barley, lentil, bitter vetch, fig, grape). Amongst the most
abundant weeds are Chenopodium album, Polycnemum majus
and Lolium spp.. Other species in very high numbers are
Trifolium sp., Eragrostis sp., Polygonum sp., Thymelaea sp.
and Sarcopoterium spinosum. The most plausible interpretation
of this pit seems to be that of a ‛kitchen-rubbish’ pit; not, in
any case, a storage bin. A certain amount of crop-processing
may have taken place in the adjacent ‛working place’ to the
left. It is unlikely that all of the wild plants represent weeds
(e.g. aquatic plants). This means they might have come into the
settlement a different way or for different purposes. The
species spectrum seems to represent an accumulation of plants
from different habitats. Probably the rubbish was used as fuel
for the hearth to the right, and/or remains of burned animal
dung could have been thrown into the pit. In fact, we find a
very similar species composition, but with much smaller seed
numbers in the hearth (BP05, n=565). The ‛working place’
contains only a few remains (BP02, n=37; BP04, n=33). They
consist mainly of hulled wheat chaff and grasses (weeds, open
vegetation). The excavator’s assumption of a place where
cereals were processed for cooking seems plausible.
Another pit in the neighbouring room (BP06, n=220) has the
same species composition as the pit in BP01 (hulled wheat
chaff) except for the high proportion of moisture-indicating
plants (Juncus sp., Chara sp.). Juncus sp. is not correlated with
any of the crops, neither it is willingly taken by animals, so that
other uses might be indicated such as matting, basket
production or kindling.
Several profiles and pits were sampled in trench F28.
Almost 50% of the sample from a pit in the inner part of the
house (BP09, n=143) consists of cereal grains. The
preservation conditions were poor, but the majority of these
were hulled wheats. The dominant weedy components (open
vegetation and weeds) are Lolium persicum and medium to
large Gramineae seeds. This pit very likely represents a storage
pit for mainly processed cereals, which is indicated by the
dominance of grains and the high numbers of large-seeded
grasses. Large grass seeds, and particularly those of Lolium
spp., can be morphologically very similar to cereal grains, i.e.
very difficult to separate from the grain during cropprocessing.
The weed flora seems to have been already very
well adapted to the crops in Kumtepe B1.
An excavation baulk was sampled for the botanical contents of
a stratigraphic sequence, which differed only slightly in sample
composition. The two lowest samples (BP22, BP23) are very
similar in composition to Kumtepe A samples, and it has to be
questioned, particularly in the case of BP23, whether they do
not belong to the Neolithic horizons of the settlement. Another
argument supporting this assumption is the relatively high
proportion of moisture-indicating plants (freshwater habitats)
in the lowest samples; this category of remains was already
seen to be more common among Kumtepe A samples than in
Kumtepe B samples. There is additionally a relatively high
incidence of species of woodland and maquis vegetation in
BP22. Weedy plants are almost not represented in the two
lowest samples. This clearly differs from the definite Kumtepe
B samples above, where weedy plants (weeds and open
vegetation) are strongly represented. Another important feature
is the decrease in the proportion of fig seeds from the lower to
the upper layers.
Overall, these results suggest a cease of fig to the later periods
at Kumtepe. At the same time, cereals and their weeds increase
in number.
As stated above, oysters and other constituted a major part of
the diet of the Kumtepe people. A pit with large amounts of
shells dating to Kumtepe B2 was subdivided into four
stratigraphical units with samples from an upper shell layer
(BP05, n=93), an upper part of an intermediate layer without
shells (BP06, n=335), a lower part of the same intermediate
layer (BP07, n=459) and a lower shell layer (BP08, n=58).
Generally the preservation was much better in the intermediate
layer than in the shell layers, where the inсidence of
mechanical damage by the hard and sharp-edged shell
fragments was high. From the sample composition, the two
different shell layers have more similarities with each other
than with the intermediate layer. The higher proportion of
cereal grains in the intermediate layer compared to the shell
layers is probably in part a result of the different preservation
conditions. The finds (shell refuse) define the context as a
rubbish pit. Botanically, all the samples are dominated by
cereal grains (barley in the shell containing layers, wheat in the
intermediate layer), but they must also be interpreted as waste.
The grains were probably burnt accidentally during food
processing, and thrown into the pit when the hearths were
cleaned.
In the 1995 season at Kumtepe, the eastern part of the south
profile of area F28 (Figure 3) was sampled (‛bioprofile’;
Uerpmann 1995). The sediment was processed by flotation,
and the heavy fractions were sorted for ceramics and
archaeozoological remains.
The profile sequence was subdivided by a hiatus (a period of
soil formation lasting several hundred years, pers. com. K.
Pustovoytov) into the Kumtepe A and the Kumtepe B layers.
28

chapter 3: analysis
Three pits are evident, of which two are in Kumtepe B layers
(sequence 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and pit 27 in Figure 3).
The spectrum of domesticated plants of the whole profile
includes mainly Triticum dicoccum and Triticum
monococcum, with a slight dominance of emmer. Barley was
very rare, as were the grain legumes. Ficus carica is very
frequent and numerous in the Kumtepe A layers. Fig seeds
are present in mineralised and carbonised form. During the
final stage of the settlement the pits were probably not used
as storage facilities, since chaff remains i.e. waste products of
cereal processing are dominant, and cereal grains are rare.
The spectrum of wild plants includes mainly grasses,
particularly Lolium spp., which grew as cereal weeds. The
density of remains in the pits was very high, and generally
higher in the Kumtepe B layers than in the Kumtepe A
layers, due to the more abundant chaff remains in Kumtepe B
layers.
The bottom of the profile (Figure 3) is a buried soil, and was
almost without botanical remains.
In sample BP43 (n=55), crops (emmer and einkorn) are rare,
thus giving an impression of a high proportion of
representatives of open vegetation. Moisture-indicating
plants and fig are, typically for Kumtepe A samples, also
recorded.
The Kumtepe A pit was subdivided into three parts. All the
three samples (BP40, n=98; BP41, n=174; BP42, n=46) are
again dominated by fig seeds, of which a small proportion
are mineralised. Cereals are sparsely represented and
amongst them barley constitutes a larger proportion. In the
upper part of the pit (BP40), the moisture-indicating plants
(Juncus sp., Cladium mariscus) are more strongly
represented, and allude to the environmental situation of the
site. Two layers cover this pit and are almost sterile (both
samples contained fewer than 21 remains). This indicates a
cessation of settlement activity, either in this part of the
settlement, or generally in accordance with the hiatus
mentioned above.
The ‛hiatus’ (BP37, n=21) represents a phase of soil
formation, when it is assumed that the settlement was left
open for a period spanning from several decades up to
several centuries. The few species represented here are
mainly Gramineae and Juncus sp., which might either
indicate the natural vegetation at the time of soil formation or
an admixture of remains from the cultural layers above and
below.
Above the hiatus a group of “fine stratified floors or a
sequence of hearth layers” follows (BP36, n=124)
(Uerpmann 1995). This sample is very similar to the above
sample (BP35, n=237). Anthemis cotula and rye-grass are the
dominant weeds of these samples. Small-seeded Gramineae
are also very common. It seems that crop-processing waste
was deposited on these floors, or burned in the hearth. Two
further layers follow, of which the lower is almost devoid of
remains. The upper layer (BP33, n=253) is dominated by
chaff remains, grasses and weeds, which are the main
components of crop-processing by-products (the grasses are
correlated with the chaff remains, but not with the grains,
which demonstrates that the grains and the chaff accumulated
in different episodes). Into these layers two pits were dug
during the settlement.
The eastern Kumtepe B pit was not stratigraphically
subdivided. The soil texture was loose and apparently ashy
with a high proportion of charcoal (BP27, n=561). Glume
forks of einkorn and emmer are represented in a ratio of
approximately 1:2, and dominate the samples, along with
large numbers of Lolium spp. and other Gramineae. Chara
sp. and Juncus sp. were always present in small numbers.
The western pit was subdivided into five different samples
(BP28-BP32). These samples were all very similar in their
composition, and all were dominated by chaff remains from
emmer and einkorn. The only differences were that the
sample from the bottom of the pit (BP32, n=422) had a large
proportion of mineralised fig seeds, and that the middle part
of the pit contained many beetle remains, probably crop
pests. The lowest sample from the middle section (BP31,
n=82) was underlain by dense layers of sea shells. The
following sample (BP30, n=249) contains mudbrick
fragments and is very similar to BP29 (n=451). The
uppermost fill layer of the pit (BP28, n=574) is almost
identical in composition to BP27, the sample from the eastern
pit.
The layers covering the Kumtepe B pits were described as
floors and are contaminated by modern seeds (Chenopodium
sp. and Triticum aestivum from historic or modern burning of
fields). BP26 (n=37), which might be contemporary with
Kumtepe B3, is dominated by barley grains. BP25 (n=54) is
again dominated by emmer and einkorn chaff and similar to
the lower Kumtepe B samples.
To summarise, the bioprofile confirms the differences
between Kumtepe A and Kumtepe B apparent from other
contexts. With proviso of the small sample number from
Kumtepe A (see 3.2.1.1), but bearing in mind the
archaeozoological results, the archaeobotanical data is
interpreted as reflecting economic change.
Fig was one of the main components of human diet in the
Kumtepe A settlement. During this period, the proportion of
plants from moist habitats was also high, and probably in
some way related to the high proportion of seafood in
people’s diet.
During the hiatus in settlement between Kumtepe A and B
the vegetation seems to have been open, and no striking
change in vegetation is indicated.
During Kumtepe B, diet was based on emmer and to a lesser
degree on einkorn and barley. Moisture-indicating species are
still present, indicating that the location of the arable fields
might not have changed much. Insect pests could have been a
problem for Kumtepe B farmers. This is speculation, because
the presence of unidentified beetle remains in one of the
Kumtepe B pits might merely indicate that it was used as a
cesspit at this time, an interpretation supported by the
presence of a very large number of mineralised fig seeds.
29

chapter 3: analysis
3.1.2 The Troy samples
3.1.2.1 A layer older than Troy I
At the start of the new excavations, horizons older than Troy I
were found in a sondage south of the Schliemann trench
(Korfmann 1991b). Below an early Troy I fortification wall, a
sterile layer of chalky sediment was found that covered another
thickly-plastered wall. Below this wall were found, another
chalky layer and a burnt layer, together described as a burnt
composite floor c.15 cm thick (Figure 4). Unfortunately, only a
very restricted sondage was excavated, so that nothing can be
said about the extent of this layer.
This context was sampled at different depths and turned out to
be very homogenous. One representative sample BP08
(n=6258) had an extremely broad species spectrum.
Only a few crop remains are represented; there were single
rachis remains of barley and a few grape and fig seeds. More
than 80% of the plant remains came from open, not too dry
vegetation, namely Trifolium sp., Medicago sp., Carex divulsa,
and Poa trivialis type. In general, seeds of Cyperaceae were
abundant and many different species or genera of this family
were identified. The species range of the grasses and the smallseeded
legumes was also very broad. With the evidence for
very diverse habitats (marine and freshwater, open, dry
vegetation, a few weeds and crop-processing remains, and two
fragments of the pest Bruchus (pea beetle)), the plant remains
in this context have to be interpreted as deriving from animal
dung. Considering the high concentration of the remains (522
items of wild plants per litre of sediment) an interpretation as
architectural remains (e.g. from wall plastering) is
questionable.
Similar sample compositions are present in the later periods of
Troy (see below).
3.1.2.2 The Early Bronze Age contexts of Troy
In 1990 the spectacular find of a house outside the Troy II
fortification wall (D7) led Korfmann (1994) to the conclusion
of the existence of a Lower City, and with the gold finds from
the Upper City, of a stratified society. The archaeological
remains suggest that an elite was living on the citadel, and the
chronostratigraphical results, with the partial overlap of Troy I
and Troy II, point to the possibility that common people were
living outside the citadel continuing to practice Troy I
traditions.
Different features were sampled that all had low absolute
counts, but were relatively rich in species (Figure 5). The
striking common pattern of all the samples is a broad and
abundant spectrum in the Cyperaceae and Gramineae families.
The pit within the building near the entrance does not represent
a storage facility, or at least not in the final phase of the
settlement. Almost one half of the sample (BP24, n=234)
consisted of hulled wheat chaff remains and weeds, and the
other half of wild plants from water habitats (Fimbristylis cf.
bisumbellata, Chara sp., Salsola kali, Berula erecta,
Alopecurus geniculatus-type, etc.) and open vegetation. Only a
few grains or seeds from crops were present. The most
numerous grasses are the small-seeded Alopecurus
geniculatus-type, Eragrostis sp. and Phalaris
aquatica/paradoxa, that together constitute 43% of the whole
sample. Small-seeded legumes are also relatively common. In
its composition, the sample is rather similar to those from
layers older than Troy I. A likely interpretation of this pit is
that it was used to store dung cakes, ready to be used for fuel,
although it is very likely that the purpose of this pit changed
during the period of settlement.
Within the same room two pots were sampled for their contents
(BP21, n=67; BP22, n=46). Chaff remains from hulled wheats
were the largest component of both samples. The contents of
both jars derive from accumulated waste from the floor,
probably filled in during the collapse of the building.
South of a wall, within another room of the same house or
outside the building, two further contexts were sampled (BP10,
n=45; BP23, n=26). BP23 is poor in species and absolute
counts and resembles those samples from the other room
except for a higher abundance of bitter vetch. BP10 contains a
broad range of species with low absolute numbers and a
dominance of Gramineae and Cyperaceae species. Freshwater
and marine habitats and open vegetation are strongly
represented. No chaff remains were found, but there were a
few barley grains, and seeds from grape and fig. As with
previous samples, the evidence for very different ecological
habitats and a broad species spectrum is interpreted here
representing the use of dung as fuel.
Whatever the purpose of these rooms, nothing was stored here
in the final phase of the settlement. Dung appears to contribute
to the archaeobotanical samples from these contexts. As these
buildings border on the Troy II fortification wall, and are part
of the assumed Lower City, it has to be questioned whether
they were common dwellings. One might suggest that people
stored fuel or kept some of their animals here, or in close
vicinity to these houses, during the final phase.
North of the Megaron IIA a profile was sampled (for location
see Map 2).
All the samples from the 1.5 m sequence are dated to late Troy
I. The density of remains is relatively low, with 4 to 24 seeds
per litre of sediment.
Samples from this profile were characterised by high numbers
of hulled wheat chaff, with only slightly more chaff from
emmer than from einkorn, a broad species spectrum of the wild
plants and a broad spectrum and abundance of grass species,
namely Alopecurus spp., Phalaris spp. and Eragrostis sp..
Small-seeded legumes such as Trifolium sp., oogonia of the
submerged algae Chara sp., and other water or moistureindicating
plants were also found frequently. In other words,
these samples were very similar to the samples from the
building of the Lower City.
Within the sequence, the water-indicating plants decrease
towards the surface, and are lacking in the lower middle part of
the profile. Species from maquis vegetation are only apparent
in the upper parts of the profile. Ficus carica is numerous in
the upper samples (BP05-14) and almost absent in the lower
horizons. The opposite is the case for bitter vetch. Grape is
never frequent or abundant. Weeds and plants from open
vegetation each reached proportions from 3% to more than
20% of each sample.
30

chapter 3: analysis
To summarise, the sample compositions from the Lower City
do not significantly contrast from the profile of the Upper City.
On the contrary, with a strong frequency and abundance of
members of the Cyperaceae and Gramineae in the samples
from both areas, a general environmental pattern might be
indicated, which points to open vegetation with grazing ground
and arable fields close to the Scamander river, but also on the
Low Plateau. A peculiarity amongst the freshwater plants was
the high ubiquity and abundance of Chara sp. in the samples
from the citadel. Plants from marine habitats are only sparsely
recorded, which might indicate that agricultural activities were
conducted somewhat further from the coast, perhaps irrigated
by fresh water from the river. The main crop in both Troy I and
II was emmer, but einkorn was more abundant than in any of
the later periods.
Crop legumes seem not to have played an important role as
sources of protein, except for bitter vetch. The presence of the
remains of dung support the argument that enough livestock
was available to meet the settlement’s protein needs.
As will be demonstrated later (chapter 4), the grasses are not
correlated with the cereals or other crops and must have been
brought into the settlement differently. These results are
confirmed by other samples from the Upper City that are all
rich in Gramineae, Leguminosae and Cyperaceae. In the later
phases of Troy I fig was frequently utilised as a source of
carbohydrates. Overall, the interpretation suggested is of a
subsistence economy particularly dependent on livestock and
cereal cultivation, with a slight increase in the use of fruit trees
over time.
As discussed in chapter 2, contamination of the samples by
modern Characeae was excluded, not least because the
variability in colour of the chalky oogonia from white to
reddish and grey suggested their exposure to heat. As the algae
are submerged, they are not part of the modern flora in the
vicinity of the excavation. Apart from their presence in the
trenches E3 and E4, they were also found in other trenches on
the top of the hill and in the large Late Bronze Age ditch
around the Lower City. An explanation of how these plants
came to be on top of the hill is required.
The Characeae are generally assumed to belong to an
ecological group indicating oligotrophic water conditions.
They only tolerate about two-thirds of the salinity of seawater.
This implies the existence, close to the hilltop, of a body of
stagnant or slow-moving fresh water (e.g. from the nearby
springs) in which the Characeae could have grown.
In trench E4 a canal dating to early Troy II was excavated that
might have been a water supply for the people staying in or
working at the megara (compare Map 2 for position). There are
several wells on the hill, which indicate that people always
made efforts to have water supplies nearby. Possibly this canal
was connected to one of the wells. The sediment within this
canal was sandy and stratified, typical of the sedimentation
regime in slow flowing waters. One sample was taken from a
darker layer, rich in charcoal and located between two sandy
layers (BP01, n=52). With about four seeds per litre of
sediment, the density was low. Beside the typical composition
of Early Bronze Age samples (emmer and einkorn chaff with
slight dominance of emmer, and a broad spectrum of grass
species), one third of the sample consisted of oogonia from
Chara sp.. For the other Troy IIa samples, the high abundance
of Chara sp. was also very typical. The most probable
suggestion for the presence of Chara sp. in these contexts is
that during Troy IIa the canal was provided with water from a
more or less oligotrophic water source where Characeae grew.
Probably lumps of whole plants were swept into the canal from
time to time, where they disturbed the water flow, requiring
people near the megara to ‛dredge’ them out.
3.1.2.3 Burnt layers from Middle Bronze Age
Troy
The architectural remains of Troy IV are described as tworoom
structures with joined separation walls (‛Anatolian
settlement scheme’ according to Korfmann (1994 and 1995)).
Most of the samples came from primary contexts. Six burnt
layers were evident in trench D8, some of them up to 2 m
thick. The whole inventory (pottery) of a room was excavated.
Several contents of pottery were sampled, but only a few
contained large numbers of seeds (e.g. D8BP35, D8BP41).
The effect of the fire partially melted the mudbricks, but there
were also layers with remains which must have received less
heat or oxygen because the preservation of botanical remains
was generally good. In early Troy IV, dome-shaped ovens
appear for the first time. They are very often placed in the
entrance area of buildings, and according to Korfmann (1993)
are related to new customs in cooking. Also of economic
interest are the archaeozoological results, which indicate
abundant wild fauna and domesticated pig. Korfmann (1995)
suggests that the finds indicate either troubled times and a
certain poverty caused by robbery alongside the conflagration
or totally differing customs from a different population.
The entrance of a Troy IV building is pictured in figure 6. In
contrast to the Troy II buildings, the remains from Troy IV are
from the Upper City. All the samples are very different in their
composition.
The dome-shaped oven was sampled (BP26, n=1046), and the
species spectrum was relatively broad. Besides a high
proportion of emmer chaff and weeds (amongst them mainly
Lolium spp.) oogonia of Chara sp. formed the largest
component. Other water plants, such as Eleocharis
uniglumis/palustris or Salsola kali were also present, but only
in small numbers. Small-seeded legumes and grasses are also
numerous, as were Cyperaceae. The chaff and the seeds
probably come from fuel, possibly in the form of dung cakes.
Around the oven a larger part of the floor was sampled (BP50,
n=401). This sample was composed of different types of crop
remains, of which emmer chaff was the most common. The
largest component of the sample as a whole consisted of
typical weeds (mainly Chenopodium album and Polygonum
spp.). Almost all the other eco-groups were represented in this
sample (e.g. marine habitats, freshwater habitats). The remains
probably accumulated over time from various sources. Another
possibility is the storage of dung cakes beside the oven, ready
to be burnt.
A pot with barley stored in it was found in front of the oven
(BP35, n=1725). This material was probably a partially cleaned
product. Only a few rachis remains were present. The most
31

chapter 3: analysis
abundant weed was Eragrostis minor, followed by Lolium
spp.. Assuming the wild plants represent the weedy
companions of barley, this cereal might have been grown
under minimally moist conditions, probably on the Low
Plateau.
Two samples with large proportions of emmer chaff were
taken from the front of the left part of the entrance (BP27,
n=207; BP31, n=5389). In BP27 a broad spectrum of crops
was present, but all in small numbers. The weeds were
dominated by Lolium spp.. In all, the composition is
homogeneously weedy, suggesting crop-processing byproducts.
BP31 has a very similar composition to BP27, except
for an overwhelming number of Chara oogonia. The most
probable explanation for this abundance of algae is that people
threw lumps of algae on the heap of crop-processing byproducts
in front of the building, where it was used either as
fuel or for animal feed. The presence of a Troy IX well directly
above these contexts raises the question of whether the rather
fragile oogonia from Troy IX could have been transported by
ants to contaminate the Troy IV layers.
Further from the entrance to the building, a small vessel was
found containing a mixture of Linum usitatissimum and
Camelina sativa (BP41, n=731), possibly derived from a
mixed crop. Pure flax was always found in large amounts,
compared to the small quantity of the flax-gold-of-pleasure
mixture. Like linseed, this mixture may have been used as a
foodstuff. As a species of the Brassicaceae, gold-of-pleasure
has an acrid taste. Both plants are used for oil production. The
most abundant weed in flax-gold-of-pleasure deposits was
Fumaria officinalis, with a growing height of up to 40 cm.
High growing (>50 cm) and low growing weeds (

chapter 3: analysis
emmer. Heliotropium europaeum, Trifolium sp. and Eleocharis
uniglumis/palustris are amongst the most abundant wild plants.
Hulled wheat chaff and grain form the majority of sample
BP13. Barley and lentil are also represented, and Heliotropium
and Eleocharis are again amongst the most abundant wild
plants.
The sample from a floor horizon (BP14, n=280) was
dominated by the crop legume bitter vetch. Lathyrus
sativus/cicera occurred as a constant weed find in bitter vetch
samples. A few other weeds and emmer and einkorn grain
were found.
The lowest sample (BP18) was the poorest in remains and was
composed mainly of emmer chaff, Trifolium sp. and Phalaris
spp. It was probably part of a deposit of crop-processing byproducts.
During the Middle Bronze Age, all the traditional
Mediterranean crops were cultivated at Troy, except for chick
pea, olive and millet. This period therefore has the broadest
range of crops of all the periods under study. Possible
explanations for this are given in chapter 5.
3.1.2.4 Late Bronze Age buildings and ditches
around the Lower City of Troy
Beside the well-known ditch with its gateway leading directly
into the Lower City of Troy VI (Figure 8), a similar Troy VI
ditch, c. 80-100 m south of the former ditch, was recently
discovered. It encircles an even larger area, and is also thought
to have been part of the system of defences. These ditches were
dug into the bedrock and would have been considerable
barriers, e.g. in times of war. During peacetime, the area
between the two ditches might have been used for grazing
livestock, stabling for the horses, for threshing-floors or a
market place (Korfmann 1996).
The Troy VI ditch was excavated at a point 400 m south of the
Troy VI fortification wall. Accumulation horizons within the
3 m wide ditch were sampled. The analysis of a representative
sample was published in 1994 (Jablonka, König and Riehl
1994). In the following years, further samples from this ditch
have broadened the range of possible functions and the
conditions of deposition.
The sample BP03 from trench A29 was taken from an
accumulation of carbonised material, while BP05 from trench
y29 came from a sandy deposit in the gate area, which
contained large numbers of animal bones and ceramic sherds
(Figure 8).
In general, the samples from deposits, described as ‛burnt
layers’ had the best preserved and most abundant remains,
whereas in samples from sandy layers the remains were sparse
and badly preserved, which points to the higher ‛input’ of
remains in ‛burnt sediment’, and the mechanical destruction of
remains in sandy sediment.
BP03 (n=655) had a species composition similar to the samples
mentioned above, with a dominant broad spectrum of
waterplants and species characteristic of open vegetation. The
only crop remains were from grape, fig and grain legumes.
Although the excavators doubt that the ditch was filled with
water, conditions in the ditch must have been moist for at least
part of the year. Amongst the moisture-indicating plants are
Alisma cf. gramineum, Typha latifolia, Eleocharis
uniglumis/palustris, Cyperus longus, and Scirpus maritimus.
Most of these plants do not need to be continuously
submerged, and are able to survive on seasonally flooded
ground. It seems unlikely that these plants where thrown into
the ditch by the inhabitants together with the fruit remains. It is
suggested therefore, that water collected in parts of the ditch,
where the bedrock was less permeable. These were optimal
areas for the development of the moisture-loving plants. From
time to time they might have been uprooted and burned by the
inhabitants. The weeds (mainly Chenopodietea members)
might have been deposited in the same way as the seeds of
grape and fig. Other wild plants, which were formerly often
found in animal dung contexts, were also very abundant. It is
not difficult to imagine that various kinds of waste material
ended up in this ditch and were accumulated and re-deposited
with the seasonal flow of water.
Other deposits were poorer in remains. Sample BP05 (n= 84),
from a sandy layer from the end of the ditch (close to the gate;
trench y29), contained no water plants, but did include remains
from cereal processing and other crops. The spectrum
corresponds to those of other Late Bronze Age samples.
This sample, and also others from the second, outer ditch
(g28BP01), where remains from cereal-processing were also
found, support the suggestion that the space between the two
ditches was used for threshing. Unlike samples from the inner
ditch, the outer ditch samples contain Chara oogonia in
abundance. In contrast to the water plants from the inner ditch,
these algae need to be continuously submerged in order to
survive. Either there was more water in the outer ditch, or these
remains have come from elsewhere in the settlement.
In 1991 an area directly adjoining the Troy VI fortification
wall was excavated (Easton and Weninger 1993, Korfmann
1992a, 1992b). An apsidal house with a storage structure was
situated above the remains of an oven. The apsidal house is
already part of the Lower City. The seriation of the pottery
embraces a period of 300 years from c. 1700 to 1400 BC
(Easton and Weninger 1993). Nine archaeobotanical samples
were taken from this area; five are discussed below.
The main components of the samples from this trench were
barley, emmer, bitter vetch and water plants. The two samples
with the most water plants (BP01, n=261; BP02, n=91) are
stratigraphically the most recent from this building.
The main portion in BP01 is the mineralised form of
Eleocharis uniglumis/palustris. Other remains like emmer
grain and chaff are only sparsely recorded. The interpretation
of the mineralised seeds is difficult, but with a maximum
growing height of 70 cm, the sedge might have been used for
building purposes. In this case, the way they became
mineralised is unknown. Another explanation may be that
sedges were eaten by animals and the seeds are derived from
dung, but, as the relationship between animal digestion and the
mineralisation of plant remains is unknown, this idea is not
favoured here.
BP02 is similar in composition with fewer mineralised
Eleocharis seeds and more weeds. The remains from these two
samples are generally very similar to those from the ditch, and
probably reflect, with the ubiquitous grape and fig seeds, a
33

chapter 3: analysis
range of species typical of this subperiod.
BP05 (n=149) covers the whole southern area of the apsidal
house and contains predominantly emmer grain and chaff and
sparse amounts of other crops (barley, horse bean, bitter
vetch). There were only a few weeds amongst the remains. It
appears that a partially cleaned emmer supply was brought into
the house.
BP07 (n=581) is a find from outside the apsidal house
composed exclusively of barley and bitter vetch. That no other
remains were found with these two crops was possibly due to
soil processing, because the sample was wet-sieved in 1991
(see chapter 2). The question of whether the location, outside
the building, has something to do with the original purpose of
this mixture (i.e. whether it is a later mixture of crops
originally stored separately or a deliberately mixed product) is
unresolved.
The barley storage within a ‛silo’ (BP08, n=5180) contains
Lolium spp. as a main component. This storage was probably
cleaned, and the presence of Lolium spp. is due to the
similarity in shape and the resulting difficulties of separating
this weed from barley grain.
On the whole, the apsidal house does not appear to have been a
separate building, but was more likely part of a complex. It
may have been the storage area of this complex, and it was
probably not in use anymore at the time of the collapse.
Domestic architecture was excavated in the trenches z7 and
A7, 20 m southeast of the Troy VI wall. Burnt layers and finds
of spear heads and other weapons imply a state of war at the
end of Troy VIIa. The house in question was still inhabited
during VIIb1. Several rooms were sampled, partially with a
sampling method designed to recognise spatial patterning (see
chapter 2) (Figure 9).
Only a few samples representative of the trenches are
discussed here.
In the southern room, the eastern section, with its upper burnt
layer, was sampled in three different locations. The
composition of each sample was almost identical, so that at
least half of the room did not show different activity areas. As
representative sample A7BP11 (n=436) is presented. The main
component is clover (Trifolium sp.). The spectrum of the
remaining species is relatively broad, but they are only present
in very small numbers. Mainly grasses, but also some weeds,
are re-presented. There are not many ways to interpret such
material. Either fodder, consisting mainly of clover, or dung
was stored there, or the room was used as a building in which
animals were housed. It appears that fodder remains are
represented, and the feed must have been very concentrated
and unba-lanced, not coinciding with normal food selection by
animals. Probably in this case food selection was conducted by
humans. If dung remains are represented, the abundance of
Trifolium seeds might be partially due to preservation of the
tough seed testa, and the original composition might have been
more diverse, coinciding better with the natural food selection
of animals during grazing. Another very similar sample from
this room was taken at the southern edge (z/A7BP01, n=115).
Beside Trifolium sp. as the main component, Chenopodium
spp. are very abundant.
The samples mentioned from the upper burnt layer were
separated by a loam floor from a lower burnt layer. Two other
samples were taken: one from the lower burnt layer (A7BP13,
n=104) and one from the loam layer above (A7BP12, n=144).
Both samples still contain Trifolium sp. in the main, but far less
abundantly than in the upper burnt layer. In the loam sample,
half of the seeds are of Trifolium sp., compared to 27% in the
burnt layer below. Generally the spectrum of the remaining
species is similar, but in contrast to the samples from the upper
burnt layer, moisture-indicating plants are present. On the
whole, the function of this room is strongly suggested to be
related to animal feed or dung remains. No other usage, such as
crop storage, is indicated by the plant remains. Further North
in the same flight of houses two other samples support the
interpretation of buildings in which animals were housed in
this area (not illustrated). Z6/7BP05 (n=574) and BP06
(n=288) both had a very broad species spectrum, and were
dominated by Trifolium sp.. Another sample (BP03, n=1785)
next to these two contained mainly barley (87%). Wheats and
Trifolium sp. were also relatively abundant in this sample.
The most likely interpretation of this row is that of buildings in
which animals were housed, where animal feed or dung was
likely to be deposited.
The neighbouring northern room differs in sample composition
from the southern room. The eastern corner of this room
produced several very similar samples. The representative
sample (A7BP06, n=473) contains mainly barley grain. Other
cereal remains are also present, of which emmer chaff is the
most common. Remains from various habitats include grasses,
moisture-indicating plants and weeds. At this stage it is
uncertain whether these samples represent only residues from
crop-processing, or whether, as was suggested for the southern
room, they also include plant remains derived from dung.
Another sample (Z7BP02, n=57) from this room consists
largely of weeds, but might not be representative due to the
small seed numbers. Altogether, the high incidence of weeds in
this room questions its interpretation as a storeroom for cereals
for human consumption. It seems more likely that remains
from animal feed or crop-processing by-products are
represented.
An example of the heterogeneity of areas that are assumed to
belong to the same archaeological context is a series of
samples from a floor southwest of the building discussed above
(z8BP15, 16, 20). The three samples were taken from a burnt
layer. The main component of BP20 (n=21270) is bitter vetch
(72%), alongside a very broad spectrum of different crops,
Triticum dicoccum being the most abundant. Many different
weed species are present. Amongst the most abundant
moisture-indicating plants are Scirpus maritimus and Cyperus
longus. The directly neighbouring sample (BP16, n=1935)
contains much less bitter vetch (18%), which is replaced by
chickpea (67%). The species spectrum is also very broad, and
Scirpus maritimus constitutes almost 8% of this sample. The
last sample in this series consists of 96% chickpeas (BP15,
n=9029). Again, cereal remains, weeds, and small seeded
legumes were also abundant. Originally the grain legumes
were stored separately, but with the collapse of the buildings in
this area, they were partially mixed. The range and abundance
of wild species suggest either that crop-processing of the grain
legumes was incomplete, or that the wild plants have a
34

chapter 3: analysis
different origin and were mixed with the crops during the
collapse of the buildings.
A Troy VIIb2 house with two building phases was sampled in
trench E8. The older building was destroyed by fire.
Protogeometric pottery was amongst the finds in the younger
building.
The few samples presented in figure 10 have a generally high
incidence of moisture-indicating plants, and amongst the crops,
an abundance of bitter vetch, followed by hulled wheats and
barley. An accumulation of floor deposits over 120 cm in depth
is represented by the samples BP05 (n=126), BP10 (n=188),
BP15 (n=463), and BP16 (n=317). The uppermost, grey, ashy
layer (BP05) contained a relatively broad species spectrum,
dominated by emmer chaff, grasses and Scirpus maritimus.
The sample from the floor layer immediately below it (BP10)
had a smaller range of species. The dominant crop was bitter
vetch, followed by emmer chaff. The most abundant wild
plants were Eragrostis sp., Scirpus maritimus and Chara sp..
Below this level, a floor which differed in colour and contained
mudbrick (BP15) had an even higher proportion of bitter vetch.
The most abundant wild species was Juncus sp., and smallseeded
grasses and legumes were also found. Almost half of
the lowest sample of this sequence (BP16) consisted of
moisture-indicating plants; the main crop was again bitter
vetch. From the bottom to top of these layers, bitter vetch was
the main component, except for the uppermost layer, which
was dominated by hulled wheat chaff.
Abundant weeds in these contexts suggest that the crops were
probably not cleaned when brought into the house. The
moisture-indicating plants were either weeds or used for
roofing material.
Adjacent to the sampled sequence of floors, two other samples
were taken, one corresponding to the uppermost layer (BP05),
the other to one of the middle layers (BP15). Between these
areas there is a certain heterogeneity, insofar as the uppermost
sample (BP12, n=105) has a smaller proportion of hulled
wheats and a greater abundance of barley than BP05, although
the incidence of bitter vetch is similar. The spectrum of the
wild plants is also the same. The sample in the lower layer
(BP11, n=171) differs even more from the neighbouring
sample (BP15) in its high content of barley. It is interesting
that among the moisture-indicating plants the ratio of Juncus
sp. to Scirpus maritimus is 4:1 and corresponds to the one in
the neighbouring sample (BP15). This could indicate that the
waterplants represent a uniform background, independent of
the crops that vary within this area, and supports the suggestion
that the moisture-indicating plants were part of the roof and
were deposited with the collapse of the building.
Two samples from an oven (BP04, n=101; BP13, n=210) had a
similar mixed composition of hulled wheat chaff, barley, bitter
vetch and moisture-indicating plants, i.e. they did not differ
from the general sample composition of this room. This demonstrates
the effects of the conflagration. Typha latifolia as
an additional waterplant, which surely can be excluded not
least by its growing height from having been part of the
harvest, underlines the suggestion that this plant was used as
building or furniture material. As a further comparison of the
differences in species composition between rooms, sample
BP02 (n= 67) is presented. Einkorn chaff is the main
component of this sample. Scirpus maritimus is also present,
but nothing can be said about its function.
Another house, south of the one in trench E8, and separated by
a path was located in trench E9. Amongst the finds from this
building was ‛knobbed ware’, associated with protogeometric
ceramics.
The most abundant species were again the moisture-indicating
plants, and amongst the crops bitter vetch, the hulled wheats,
and barley. Outside the house was a well, which may have
been a source of Characeae in these samples.
In the western part of the house successive layers were
sampled (BP07, n=235; BP09, n=55; BP12, n=162; BP16,
n=189) that all differed in their composition. Of the crops, in
the upper layer (BP07), Triticum aestivum/durum grain was
most abundant; in the next layer down (BP09), lentil was the
most common; in the next (BP12), bitter vetch was the main
crop, whereas the bottom layer (BP16) was not clearly
dominated by any of the crops. The proportion of moistureindicating
plants was between 7 and 16%, and the incidence of
species varied. In BP07 Juncus sp. was the most abundant
moisture-indicating plant; other abundant wild plants and
weeds were Eragrostis sp., Chenopodiaceae and
Polygonaceae. In BP09, Triticum aestivum/durum grain is still
abundant, but outnumbered by lentil, and the main moistureindicating
plant is Scirpus maritimus. In BP12, the most
abundant crop, bitter vetch, is accompanied by relatively high
numbers of barley grain. Grasses and numerous weeds are
characteristic of this sample. Juncus sp. is the only moistureindicating
plant. The species spectrum of the lowest sample
(BP16) was very broad. Almost all of the crops were equally
represented. Small-seeded legumes were numerous and
amongst the moisture-indicating plants Chara sp. was most
abundant. In all, the very broad range of crops and weeds
indicates that the room was not used to store specific crops. As
in the northern room, interpretation of the moisture-indicating
plants is problematic.
The central area of the room, with three neighbouring samples
(BP11, n=143; BP14, n=96; BP15, n=699) differing in their
composition, provides another example of the heterogeneity of
samples from the same location. BP11 and BP15 contain large
numbers of Chara sp., whereas in BP14 bitter vetch is the most
abundant species. In this sample the species spectrum is
relatively broad, but the species are recorded only in small
numbers, and it is similar to the samples from the western part
of the building. Apart from Chara sp., BP11 has more
Eragrostis sp., einkorn chaff and bitter vetch. BP15 has a
relatively broad range of species, particularly of moistureindicating
plants. Among these, Juncus sp., Scirpus maritimus,
and Aeluropus litoralis are very abundant. The last, a coastal
grass, indicates that it might have been transported into the city
either with the harvest or via animal dung because Aeluropus is
not suitable for roofing. Finally, what could identify this
sample as containing remains from excrement are raspberry,
grape and fig seeds. Small-seeded legumes, a main component
of animal feed, are also very abundant.
Three samples from the entrance area also differed in their
composition (BP13, n=94; BP17, n=402; BP20, n=100). BP13
35

chapter 3: analysis
was dominated by barley grain. Many other crops were also
present and the water plant group was dominated by Chara sp..
BP17, south of BP13, had a very broad species spectrum and
was dominated by moisture-indicating plants, namely Chara
sp. and Juncus sp., and by bitter vetch. Acorns were also
relatively abundant, as were coastal plants, Cyperaceae and
small-seeded legumes. It is very likely that remains from
animal feed are also represented in this mixture. In BP20 the
dominant species are Chara sp., hulled wheat chaff and fig
seeds, probably the remains of a dung cake. On the other side
of the wall, two samples were taken successively BP18
(n=136) on top, and BP19 (n=61) below. The uppermost
sample (BP18) is dominated by Juncus sp., followed by Chara
sp.. Small seeded grasses are also very abundant, and amongst
the crops bitter vetch, followed by fig and barley have the
highest counts. The sample below (BP19) consists mainly of
bitter vetch and large-seeded grasses.
In summary, some of the samples from this house indicate the
presence of animals, which were either housed or fed there.
Alternatively, the room only functioned as a storeroom for
animal feed. The nearby well would have provided water for
the animals (probably horses) and might also be the source of
the numerous Characeae.
3.1.2.5 Post-Bronze Age Troy-Some samples
from the Sanctuary
As mentioned previously, the Post-Bronze Age plant remains
were not part of this research. Only a brief summary of this
material is given here, therefore, to contrast the Late Bronze
Age and the Post-Bronze Age contexts.
The focus of the Post-Bronze Age excavations was on the
reconstruction of the religious history of the Greek and the
Roman settlement. The Sanctuary (trenches A8/9 and z6/7)
was founded c.700 BC, and continued in use through the
Archaic and Classical periods. It was completely rebuilt in the
early Hellenistic period, and after its destruction by Fimbrian it
was raised again on the debris of the former constructions
(Rose 1993). It is assumed that ‛sacred festivals’ took place
near the Archaic altars, a suggestion supported by other
architectural structures, such as the twenty-eight stone paved
circles in A7, found and dated to Archaic period by Blegen
(Blegen et al. 1958, Thompson 1963, Rose 1995a).
Altogether, 20 samples were taken, with five from Archaic
horizons, three from Classical, eight from Hellenistic, and only
four from Roman contexts. Unfortunately, samples from the
earlier excavation campaigns were derived from less than 20
litres of sediment, and therefore did not contain a
representative number of seeds. There is a preservational
difference between Classical and Archaic samples, so that the
younger layers contain fewer remains. Brownish loose
sediment was generally rich in remains, while the yellowish,
rather hard chalky sediment, typical of Post-Bronze Age
contexts contained fewer seeds.
The contents of some of the samples from the classical and
archaic periods of the Lower Sanctuary are pictured in figure
11.
The dominance of the eco-group open vegetation, which
includes small-seeded grasses, small-seeded legumes, and
Compositae is striking. Crops make up only a small proportion
of these samples.
The archaic sample BP13 (n=662) contains a very broad
species spectrum, dominated again by small-seeded grasses
(Aeluropus litoralis, Alopecurus spp., Eragrostis spp.,
Hordeum spp., Lolium spp., Phalaris spp. and Phleum spp.),
small-seeded legumes and Malva sp.. The main crop was
naked wheat, either the tetraploid or the hexaploid variety.
Rachis remains were not present.
In general, the most ubiquitous species in the samples from
trench A8/9 was Triticum aestivum/durum. This dominance is
greater in the Archaic samples than in the samples from the
Classical period. Barley is weakly represented in the samples
from A8/9, but very abundant in the Archaic samples from
z6/7. In the Archaic samples of trench z6/7 Triticum dicoccum
chaff occurred in larger amounts. Bitter vetch was ubiquitous.
Other crops such as Lens culinaris, Panicum miliaceum and
Vitis vinifera occur, but in negligible amounts, whereas fig
seems to have been relatively common. Especially in the
samples of the Archaic period, garden pea and horse bean
might have played a considerable role in people’s diet.
Moisture-indicating plants are much less in evidence than in
the Bronze Age periods, which might be interpreted as a sign
that agriculture predominantly took place on the Low Plateau,
and only to lesser extent near the coast or on the banks of the
river Scamander.
The abundance of Chenopodietea weeds (more than 40% in
almost all of the samples) is striking, whereas those of the
Secalietea are only present in small numbers, which could be
an evidence for very intensive agricultural soil management
(see chapter 5). Malva sp. (Mallow) was the most abundant
wild plant. Although never as abundant, Plantago sp.
(Plantain) is one of the most ubiquitous wild plants in the
samples. Another indicator of escalating deforestation from the
end of the Late Bronze Age are the small-seeded legumes, that
occur in high numbers and in every sample.
The species spectra continue in almost the same proportions in
the Roman samples.
In all, the samples in the Sanctuary are either remains from
animal dung that could have been used to ignite some kind of
‛sacred fires’ on the altars, or derive from burned animal
carcasses. The occasional finds of grain concentrations might
also be interpreted as some kind of offerings.
Although the number of statistically meaningful samples was
too small to be representative, a very low species diversity
(only 7 species of the 16 crops cultivated earlier are recorded)
could support a presumed specialisation. At the same time the
increase in Chenopodietea species would indicate
intensification of agricultural techniques. The preliminary
results, however, are not conclusive, and further sampling and
analysis of Post-Bronze Age contexts is required.
3.1.2.6 Contents of pottery
Whole vessels were found in both domestic contexts and in
graves. Only in a few cases were the remains found in these
vessels thought to be the original contents. What was striking
about the remains in the closed pots was that they were rarely
36

chapter 3: analysis
from cleaned crops and still contained some weeds. Amongst
these plants Scirpus maritimus, thought to belong to the
moisture-indicating vegetation, was also present, which
underlines its function as a weed.
In D20 two graves of the Troy V period were excavated in
1993. The child grave contained a so-called ‛duck-askos’, a
small, spherical vase with a very narrow opening, a type which
is quite common at Aegean and Anatolian sites. A mixture of
einkorn, emmer and lentil was inside the askos, apparently a
gift to the child.
Preservation conditions in the area of trenches H17 and I17
were poor, and almost no archaeobotanical remains came from
the Post-Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age samples of the
so-called ‛negative architecture’ cut into the limestone
bedrock. The only sample rich in remains from these contexts
was that of a Hellenistic pot. It was filled with barley, together
with a range of weeds, mainly Chenopodietea species.
3.2 Statistics
This chapter documents the statistical evaluation of the data.
Beside the plots from correspondence analysis from the
Kumtepe and Troy data, some descriptive diagrams are also
presented, in order to demonstrate interrelations between
samples and species in the different periods.
As described in chapter 2, one of the advantages of
correspondence analysis is, that samples and taxa can be
plotted on the same set of axes, which is presented here only
rarely, due to better visibility of patterns. The basis for
interpreting the material were assumptions like, species which
occur together tend to be grouped together in the plots, or
samples which are close to each other on the plots tend to be of
similar composition.
3.2.1 Kumtepe and Troy
The analysis of the whole data set shows the separation of
some Middle Bronze Age crop samples from the bulk of the
samples (Graph 1). These are storage samples of garden pea
and flax, separated from the other samples along the first and
second axes.
The enlargement of the dense cluster shows the ‛cloud-like’
distribution of the samples from some periods: Kumtepe B,
Early Bronze Age Troy and Troy VIIb.
When plotted on axes I and III (Graph 2), the separation of the
Troy VIIa samples from the bulk of the samples on the third
axis, due to the abundance of chick peas in the Troy VIIa
samples, becomes visible.
After elimination of the Middle Bronze Age samples that
caused the patterns in Graph 1 (D8-02, 07, 09, 15, 25 with
large amounts of pea, and D8-23, 24, 34, 37, 41 with
predominantly flax), and of the Troy VIIa samples (Z8-13, 15,
16, 17, 18 with chick pea), rough concentrations are visible for
samples from Kumtepe, Early Bronze Age, Troy VIIb and
Post-Bronze Age, whereas samples from Troy VIIa, Middle
Bronze Age and also Troy VI seem to spread over the whole
diagram (Graph 3).
Some of the Post-Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age samples
are separated on the first axis from the bulk of the samples, and
contain large amounts of those species thought to relate to
animal dung (Trifolium sp., Medicago sp., Carex divulsa-type,
Festuca sp., Poa trivialis-type). Another group of samples
(closer to the origin of the diagram) are Post-Bronze Age and
Late Bronze Age samples containing olive, pea and associated
weeds.
After elimination of all species occuring less than 10% ubiquity
in the sample set the pattern remains similar to that in
graph 3. Many of the Post-Bronze Age samples and a few Late
Bronze Age samples are separated on the first axis from the
bulk of the samples, as in graph 3, due to the wild species
thought to belong to dung remains. Some few samples from
Middle Bronze Age, Troy VI and VIIb are separated on the
second axis from the bulk of the samples, due to the large
amounts of barley grain they contain.
When the same data are plotted on axes I and III, samples from
the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Troy VI and Troy VIIb, are
separated from the bulk of the samples on the third axis due to
their high contents of Chara sp. (and Salsola kali).
High proportions of Triticum aestivum/durum grain also are
responsible for the separation of mainly Post-Bronze Age
samples (but also some Late Bronze Age samples) along the
second axis from the bulk of the samples (Graph 4). Plotted on
axes I-III the separation of the Troy VIIb samples from the rest
is obvious, mainly due to the abundance of legumes (Vicia
ervilia).
Due to the obvious similarities between Early Bronze Age
Troy and Kumtepe A and B samples in all the graphs, it was
decided to plot the samples from those three periods alone to
clarify any patterns. A sample from Kumtepe A (F28-20) was
separated from the remaining samples due to large amounts of
lentil, bitter vetch and Lathyrus sativus/cicera. An Early
Bronze Age Troy sample (D5-08) was dominated by species
associated with dung (Trifolium sp., Medicago sp., Carex
divulsa-type, Festuca sp., Poa trivialis-type). After the
elimination of these two samples a different pattern is visible
(Graph 5).
Chara sp. and chaff from hulled wheats, which were abundant
in the Early Bronze Age upper city of Troy, are responsible for
the pattern in the first and second quadrants. The species in the
fourth quadrant are grains from barley, emmer and einkorn and
associated weeds. Mainly Kumtepe B samples separate along
this second axis, because almost no grains were found in Early
Bronze Age Troy samples.
As mentioned in chapter 2, species diversity is often
interpreted in economic terms, i.e. specialisation is the
reduction of diversity (Pearsall 1989, Costin 1991).
Archaeologists often link specialisation to intensification and
build models of the social structure and organisation of the
state, assuming that intensification of agricultural production
necessarily implies a power structure which controls the
surplus. This unbalanced point of view has developed because
of a false equation of specialisation and intensification. It is
important to note that intensification has different meanings.
Intensification may coincide with specialisation, in which case
it involves a reduction of diversity. It may, however, also mean
37

chapter 3: analysis
the introduction of new methods or implements to produce
surplus or the addition of new crops, which would result in
diversification. So diversification is not the opposite of
intensification. Diversification may be a strategy employed to
increase the economic surplus, or to reduce risk (Forbes 1976,
Gallant 1991). Measures of diversity are inconclusive with
regard to agricultural intensification, and it is necessary to
consider other information sources (cultural knowledge and
archaeozoological results).
Sample size, the state of preservation of the remains and
context formation processes (e.g. accumulation) are factors that
influence the sample diversity. It was decided, therefore, not to
use the integrated option in Canoco to calculate species
diversity, but instead to present presence and proportion charts
in order to demonstrate graphically the number and abundance
of crop species for each period.
The increase or decrease of numbers (presence) of species
categories in each eco-group shows the richness of the species
spectrum through the periods (Graph 6).
There are at least two trends visible. The diversity of crops,
weeds, species from open, relatively dry vegetation (including
maquis) and woodland is high at Kumtepe, decreases in Early
Bronze Age Troy, increases in the Middle Bronze Age and
Late Bronze Age, and decreases again during Post-Bronze Age
Troy. The second trend is visible for species from open
vegetation (without dry character) and freshwater habitats,
which increase in diversity from Kumtepe to Early Bronze Age
Troy, decrease in Middle Bronze Age Troy, increase in Late
Bronze Age and decrease in Post-Bronze Age Troy. The
increase in species from those habitats during the Early Bronze
Age reflects the increasing use of dung as fuel. The species
spectrum of the ‛grassland’ vegetation is almost stable
throughout all the periods, and shows only a slight decrease
during Middle Bronze Age Troy. For the species from marine
habitats there is continuous increase in the number of species
from Kumtepe until the Late Bronze Age, with a decrease
during Post-Bronze Age.
3.2.2 Kumtepe
3.2.2.1 General patterns of some crop species
The data set for Kumtepe consists of 30 samples and 72
species. Before the species and samples were classified,
correspondence analysis was used to detect groups of species
and samples.
The scatter plot of the species (Graph 7) shows that the crop
legumes lentil and bitter vetch, together with Lathyrus
sativus/cicera (which is a weed, as we will see later) are
separated from the other species on the first axis. Cistus sp.,
which is separated on the second axis, might indicate by its
position that it came into the settlement by a different route to
most of the other species; the same is likely for Ficus carica.
Axis III separates barley grain from the bulk of the species.
This separation could be chonological or ecological, i.e. it
might indicate that barley was either more common in one
phase than another or grown at a different location to the other
cereals. The separation between grain and chaff of emmer and
einkorn is striking (Graph 7, axes I-II areas and , on axes
III-IV areas and ). As we will see later, this is related to
the different abundances of grain and chaff categories in the
different phases of Kumtepe B, which further may be related to
different crop processing stages.
The association of particular species clearest on axes III and IV
(the reason for the continuing use of these two axes for the
Kumtepe data). Some of the groupings give information on the
origin of the crops, or on the weeds that accompanied them.
Barley grain is closely associated with Glaucium corniculatum,
Malva sp., and Lithospermum tenuiflorum, which might
indicate dry growing conditions for barley. Einkorn grain
groups together with typical weeds such as Lolium spp., but
also with Scirpus maritimus and Isoëtes duriei, which grow
under various ecological conditions. Ficus carica is closely
associated with Cladium mariscus and small-seeded grasses.
3.2.2.2 Types of classification of samples and
species
Sometimes the pattern becomes clearer when only a specific
group of plants is considered. Therefore it was decided to look
at crops and wild plants separately.
A scatter plot of the species grouped according to their
potential habitats was thought to make the relations between
the different crops and the corresponding wild plants clearer.
Except for the concentration of crops around the origin, there
seem to be no clear patterns. It will be shown that there is in
fact a recognisable eco-chronological grouping, when using the
species abundance for species classes (wild plants only) in
each sample (Graph 10).
Life form categories such as annual and perennial plants were
considered together with the species abundance of the wild
plants. The abundance of annuals in Kumtepe B2 underlines
the argument that field management might have been very
intensive, so that there was selective pressure against
perennials.
There was no clear pattern for the growing heights. The only
striking fact is that the Kumtepe B2 samples consist of mainly
low growing species (i.e. predominantly less than 25 cm and
only sometimes up to 60 cm).
Contrary to expectations, there was a clear grouping of the
subperiods of Kumtepe B. Graph 8 shows a more or less clear
separation of the Kumtepe A samples along the third axis. To
find out which groups of species characterise the sample
classes (i.e. the subperiods), species abundance for species
classes in each sample was plotted (Graph 10).
Graph 9 shows a classification of the samples according to
sample type and context (see appendix 3). This classification
shows more the similarities between phases than between
archaeologically defined contexts, e.g. the ‛shell pit samples’,
which belong to Kumtepe B2 are clearly separated from other
pit samples, belonging to Kumtepe B3, whereas the former
‛shell pit samples’ are closely related to samples from Kumtepe
B2 dating wall contexts. This means that chronology has a
stronger influence on the grouping of samples here than
functional aspects have.
38

chapter 3: analysis
3.2.2.3 Crops and weeds during the different
subperiods of Kumtepe
The species abundance for species classes (ecological habitats)
in each sample shows several patterns (Graph 10).
A relationship between the subperiods and the ecological
groups becomes visible. The samples from the Neolithic
Kumtepe A have an abundance of seeds of species from
freshwater habitats.
Looking in more detail at the centre of the graph (10, bottom),
we recognise that in the group of samples from Kumtepe B2
the weeds are predominant in terms of seed numbers. The
group of samples from Kumtepe B3 layers is dominated by
plants from open vegetation (which in fact might also be
weeds, but less typical weeds from modern phytosociological
standpoint) while the abundances of the typical weeds are
comparatively low.
This is equivalent to the seed abundance for life form classes,
i.e. abundance of typical weeds equates to abundance of
annuals. To summarise, it seems that a decrease in weed
abundance took place from Kumtepe B2 to Kumtepe B3.
To get an impression of the diversity of the weed group that
was most abundant in Kumtepe B2 samples and less abundant
in other periods or subperiods of Kumtepe, the number of
different species for species classes (ecological habitats) was
plotted in relation to the species abundance (Graph 11). Here
we find the opposite relationship between the Kumtepe B2 and
Kumtepe B3 samples, i.e. the Kumtepe B3 samples have a
comparatively broad species spectrum contributing to the weed
class.
To summarise, it seems that an increase in the number of
typical weed species took place from Kumtepe B2 to Kumtepe
B3, but at the same time their seeds decreased in their
abundance. In the subperiod Kumtepe B2 the specialised weed
flora should have been a problem for the prehistoric farmers,
more than in earlier or later periods.
As mentioned, many weed species were most abundant in
Kumtepe B2 (Graph 10), but many typical weeds (e.g.
Chenopodium album, Eragrostis minor, Fumaria sp.,
Heliotropium europaeum, Polycnemum majus, Valerianella
dentata) were also very abundant in subperiod B3. Kumtepe A
samples usually contained few species and seeds of weeds.
Lathyrus cicera/sativus was very likely the accompanying
weed of the two abundant crop legumes lentil and bitter vetch.
Fig was also numerous in remains during Kumtepe A, but also
in Kumtepe B3.
Kumtepe B2 samples, which were previously characterised as
containing a lot of weed seeds, contain frequently barley grain,
whereas the rachises of barley are most abundant in Kumtepe
B3. An almost complete lack of chaff remains in Kumtepe B2
is somewhat surprising for samples from waste pits. It is more
likely that food remains (shells, cooking residues) were deposited
here, rather than remains from cereal crop-processing.
The most abundant weeds within the small species spectrum of
B2 were the grasses, and amongst those Lolium persicum-type.
Barley was certainly still an important crop in Kumtepe B3,
where the rachises were most abundant.
The submerged algae Chara sp. appeared only in the two latest
subperiods. The purpose of bringing this plant into the
settlement might have been related to building, i.e. it might
have come in with loamy sediment from pools or similar
freshwater resources, for mudbrick production. It is also of
interest that in Kumtepe B3 other moisture-indicating plants
were more abundant than before (Cladium mariscus, Scirpus
maritimus, Carex spp.). Vitis vinifera appears already in
Kumtepe B2, but it is only really abundant in Kumtepe B3.
Grains and chaff of both hulled wheats (emmer and einkorn)
are most abundant in Kumtepe B3. It is noticeable that these
cereals are relatively scarce in the Kumtepe B2 samples, which
raises the question of whether they might have been
contaminants of barley.
To examine the proportions of crops and weeds, both in their
abundances and their presence during each subperiod,
percentage participation and presence were plotted.
The percentage participation plot of members of the crop group
in each sample shows that in Kumtepe A samples the numbers
of crop items are high, in Kumtepe B2 samples strikingly low
(Graph 12). The percentage participation of members of the
weed group (typical weeds in the modern sense) in each
sample shows a complementary picture. In Kumtepe B2
samples the counts of weeds are relatively high and during all
the other subperiods comparatively low.
3.2.2.4 Diversity
The presence of crop or weed members in different samples in
addition to percentage participation gives an impression of the
broadness of the species spectra (Graph 13).
No clear pattern is visible for the species presence of members
of the crop group, except that the species spectrum of crops is
low in Kumtepe A and B1.
In the case of the weeds, the patterns are also not very clear.
The species spectrum of typical weeds is relatively narrow in
Kumtepe A and B1 samples, medium in Kumtepe B2 and
broad in some samples of Kumtepe B3. The tendency
suggested earlier of a broadening of the weed species spectrum
over time is not reflected very clearly in the plots. Many
species known from modern weed floras first appear in the
later phases at Kumtepe.
Comparing presence and participation for Kumtepe B2, the
low abundances of the crops together with a variable species
spectrum are striking. At the same time the abundance of
weeds is high only in Kumtepe B2 samples, but with a
relatively narrow species spectrum. If the high abundance of
the few weed species in Kumtepe B2 is chronological and not
functional in nature, then weed infestation of fields must have
been severe. The number of samples, however, is too small to
be conclusive, and further sampling is strongly suggested.
The number of crop species slightly increases from Kumtepe A
to Kumtepe B (cereals). The weed flora, however, does not
show relative signs of specialisation during Kumtepe A (Graph
12 and Graph 13). This could be interpreted as evidence of a
different subsistence strategy during Kumtepe A, particularly
as seafood was an important means of subsistence. It seems
39

chapter 3: analysis
possible that arable farming was relatively unimportant, and
that therefore no specialised weed flora existed.
Looking at the comparatively large amounts of emmer and
einkorn during Kumtepe B3, one might think of a
specialisation in producing these crops. This is inconsistent
with the structure of the weed flora, however, because it was
demonstrated that the species spectrum of B3 weeds was
broad, but with mainly low counts. With the large number of
wild plant species appearing for the first time in Kumtepe B3
(i.e. Anchusa officinalis-type, Bromus hordaceus-type,
Chenopodium ficifolium, Geranium cf. dissectum, Lolium
remotum-type, Medicago orbicularis, Physalis alkekengi,
Plantago lanceolata-type, Polygonum convolvulus L., Rubus
spp., Sarcopoterium spinosum, Sherardia arvensis, Teucrium
cf. botrys, Verbena officinalis), this would result in a low
evenness.
Keeping these aspects in mind, there was surely an enrichment
from Kumtepe A to Kumtepe in both crops and weeds, but it is
not possible to decide whether some kind of specialisation took
place.
3.2.3 Early Bronze Age Troy
3.2.3.1 Patterns of crop and wild plant species
The data set for Early Bronze Age samples from Troy consists
of 19 samples and 69 species. The samples belonged to either
late Troy I or Troy II. There is no chronological patterning
visible in the diagrams. One sample (D5BP08) was from a
context older than Troy I.
The scatter plot of the species (Graph 15) shows three clear
groups of species. The abundant horticultural crops such as
grape and fig are separated from the other species along the
second axis.
The first axis separates most of the cereal remains () from a
group of wild plants (). The legumes lentil and bitter vetch,
with their accompanying weed Lathyrus sativus/cicera, which
all had only low counts, occur with the cereal group. Some
weeds (mainly grasses and oogonia of Chara sp.) are also
present in this group and are associated mainly with chaff and
grain from emmer and einkorn. Chaff and grain are also
separated into different sub-groups. This indicates the differing
origin of the samples from crop-processing waste and
accidentally burnt grain. Additionally to the grain of emmer
and einkorn, barley grains are also present. In contrast, the
chaff of barley belongs to the third group of species, within
one of the two sub-groups of . This third group of species
can be either interpreted as related to some kind of remains
from animal feed or as waste from early crop-processing
stages. The species represented here are, beside the barley
chaff, exclusively wild plants (weedy barley forms, Bromus
spp., Polygonum sp., Rumex sp. and Scirpus maritimus). The
other sub-group within consists of species probably
introduced through dung (primarily Carex divulsa, Medicago
sp., Trifolium sp., Poa trivialis-type, and Geranium dissectum
from the context older than Troy I).
The classification of species according to their potential
ecological habitats shows that only a small range of species
from woodland or maquis vegetation are represented. This may
mean that the people in Early Bronze Age Troy preferred to
graze their livestock, for example, near the coast and on river
banks, where the vegetation was open enough, or that further
inland the vegetation was already sufficiently open that
clearing of maquis or batha was not necessary.
Considering the frequent occurrence of wetland and coastal
plants, the former hypothesis has to be preferred.
When the samples were classified by period, there was no
separation between the Troy I and II samples, while one
sample older than Troy I was clearly separated from the other
samples on the first axis, due to its lack of crops. Similarly,
correspondence analysis did not find patterning among the
samples which could be interpreted in terms of context type.
3.2.3.2 Distribution and proportion of species
and groups of species
Considering the abundance of seeds of species from each of
the different eco-groups in the whole data set, some patterns
are recognisable. The most abundant species group in most of
the samples is the crop class. Those samples in which crops are
not the most abundant class are most abundant in either
‛grassland’-type vegetation or in freshwater plants (‛grassland’
is understood in this study always as a habitat created and
maintained by intensive grazing and not, as in temperate
Europe, a pasture maintained by farmers or pastoralists). The
samples dominated by crops come from a variety of contexts
(pits, ditches and fills). Those samples in which crops are not
predominant are assumed to consist of remains of animal feed
or dung. The main component of the ‛freshwater group’ is
Chara sp.. The proportion of freshwater plants in these
samples is comparable to those from Kumtepe A.
This pattern becomes clearer when looking at the results of
correspondence analysis of the wild plant data only (Graph
16). The group of samples dominated by Chara sp. is separated
on the first axis. These samples also contain the same
components as the other samples (i.e. hulled wheat chaff
remains). This type of sample composition must be interpreted
as an accumulation of crop-processing by-products and
submerged algae remains. How these algae came into the
settlement is part of a problem. One possibility is through the
past water supply, as explained before.
Those samples that are dominated by hulled wheat chaff are
situated to the left of the former group in graph 16. They
contain larger proportions of weeds and plants from open
vegetation, characterising them as remains from cropprocessing.
The separation of groups of samples within this
group according to the presence of plants from maquis-type
vegetation in contrast to freshwater plants cannot be explained
at the moment. The contexts are similar and the samples are all
dominated by emmer chaff, which possibly was the main crop
produced and consumed in this period. One possible
explanation would lie in the existence of fields in different
regions of the landscape, e.g. some closer to the river valley,
others neighbouring the maquis-type vegetation.
Cereal chaff, fig and grape account for over 80% of the plant
remains in nearly all the Early Bronze Age samples, with the
40

chapter 3: analysis
exception of the sample from the context older than Troy I
(Graph 17, 19a, 19b).
Correspondingly, the percentage participation of members of
the waterplant group (Graph 18 and 19d) is relatively low,
except for samples containing Chara sp. associated with the
cereal remains. Samples containing ‛horticultural’ remains
(olive, grape and fig) contain very few remains of waterplants,
and the same is true of the sample from the context older than
Troy I.
The percentage of plant remains in each sample belonging to
the weed group (Graph 20 and 19c) is relatively low, with
values between 10% and 20%.
3.2.3.3 Diversity
Looking at the species spectra within the three classes of
species (crops, weeds, waterplants), a relatively high variability
in occurrences (presence) is recognisable (Graph 21). The bulk
of the samples have between four and eight different crop
categories. The waterplants are very variably represented.
What is striking is the large number of weed species in the
sample from the context older than Troy I. This broad
spectrum is dominated in terms of abundance by the few
species that are not included in the weed group, the waterplant
group or the crop group, but which were categorised as
remains deriving from dung.
Although comparisons of diversity between different sites are
complicated by the taphonomic problems mentioned
previously, it has to be noted that there is the same number of
crop categories (8) during Early Bronze Age Troy as during
Kumtepe B, although with some different species.
The range of wild plants is broad, but none of those is
particularly abundant. The above-mentioned sample older than
Troy I has a very low evenness, which is due to the abundance
of some species deriving from open, habitats. In all, the weeds
tend to indicate little specialisation, or alternatively that cropprocessing
could have taken place at some distance from the
settlement.
3.2.4 Middle Bronze Age Troy
3.2.4.1 Associations of species and samples
The data set used for statistical analysis consisted of 27
samples and 71 species. Except for one (K8BP09), the samples
all belong to Troy IV horizons. Some of the samples were
almost pure crop deposits, which resulted on the whole in
totally different patterns compared to those from Early Bronze
Age Troy, where the bulk of samples consisted of cropprocessing
by-products and plant remains associated with
dung.
The scatter plot of the species (Graph 22) shows a clear pattern
created by the crop storage samples. The two species which
dominate variation within this data set are Pisum sativum and
Linum usitatissimum. While pea is restricted to a few samples
of similar composition, flax is frequent in various samples of
different species composition. Beside Camelina sativa, the
species most commonly found with flax is Fumaria officinalis
(Graph 19). In graph 22 the first axis separates the storage
finds of flax and Camelina sativa from all the other remains,
including garden pea, cereals, grape, fig, lentil and bitter vetch.
In some samples flax was accompanied in a ratio of up to 1:1
by gold-of-pleasure. Most of the samples in which these crops
occur represent cleaned stored products. Many of them come
from one Middle Bronze Age building, where the crops are
found in different areas, probably indicating the spatial
patterning of activities (Figures 6 and 7).
The statistical impact of the flax and pea samples resulted in a
dense concentration of all the other samples and species in one
part of the diagram (second quadrant). The upper part of this
concentration () consists of weeds and Quercus sp.. In
square barley grain, fig, grape, bitter vetch and various
weeds such as Chenopodium album, Lathyrus sativus/cicera,
and moisture-indicating plants occur. The species
accumulation contains einkorn grain, barley rachises, lentil
and a relatively large number of moisture-indicating plants:
Aeluropus litoralis, Juncus sp., Spergularia marina, Salsola
kali are more or less salt tolerant and seem to be associated
with the two types of cereal remains mentioned, suggesting
either cultivation under relatively moist and salty conditions or
that ruminants may have been grazed in similar environments,
depending on the context of the samples. Other waterplants,
possibly not related to crops (e.g. Typha latifolia) also occur in
this part of the diagram. Square includes most of the cereal
grain and chaff categories; the only wild plants in this group
are some waterplants such as Cladium mariscus and Chara sp.,
and Cistus sp. (a member of maquis-type vegetation).
In order to get a clearer picture of patterning within the data,
the two crops, which determined the patterns described above,
flax and garden pea, were eliminated (Graph 22, right). Hulled
wheat chaff is now separated from the other remains on the
first axis. The fourth axis separates emmer grain from the other
remains. As in the previous diagram, barley clearly has
different associations to the other cereals. The grain lies within
a group of Lolium spp., which might indicate that the
morphological similarities between these seeds make it
difficult to separate the weedy grass from the crop grain. The
rachises of barley are, as seen earlier, associated with smallseeded
grasses (Aeluropus litoralis, Eragrostis minor), some of
them moisture-indicating, and with Juncus sp.. It is not
possible to decide at this stage whether a crop-processing byproduct
or remains from animal feed are represented. The
hulled wheat chaff remains are only associated with a few wild
plants from a variety of habitats, which indicates an
accumulation of plants from various sources. Hulled wheat
grains are associated with various weeds from drier habitats
than those associated with barley rachises. Fig lies within a
group of Chenopodietea weeds (Chenopodium album,
Polygonum aviculare). Grape is associated with moistureindicating
plants (Eleocharis uniglumis/palustris, Carex
divulsa), which might well, although they cannot be considered
as weeds, indicate the natural habitat on the slopes of the river
Scamander, possibly browsed by animals whose dung was
used for fuel.
Comparing the patterns of the scatter plots with those from the
Early Bronze Age data, there is not such a distinct separation
of the horticultural crops and the cereals, although the Middle
Bronze Age samples were not apparently from more mixed
41

chapter 3: analysis
contexts. As the remains are at least in part derived from dung,
it is possible that livestock were also fed with figs or grape
draff. The livestock may also have browsed on figs in the wild.
In this case, the similar weed composition associated with the
cereals and fruits could indicate the same or at least
neighbouring habitats. As suggested earlier for flax and goldof-pleasure,
the practice of polycropping also has to be
considered in the case of cereals and horticultural crops,
although it is impossible to prove.
Considering the fruit trees generally, figs decrease in
abundance. Olive is not found at all in this period. It seems to
have been replaced by flax seed, which was present in
enormous amounts. Only grape cultivation seems to have
slightly increased, compared to the Early Bronze Age samples.
There are more moisture-indicating wild plants from coastal
habitats in the Middle Bronze Age samples than in the Early
Bronze Age samples (Graph 19d).
The scatter plot of the species, classified into eco-groups, did
not show any striking pattern, apart from the probable origin of
some species from the same habitat. By looking at the
changing composition of each eco-group over time, however,
(Graph 6), some statements about past human behaviour in the
different ecotopes can be made.
For example, the species Trifolium sp., Medicago sp. and
Carex divulsa are closely associated, as they were in the
samples from earlier periods at Troy. They are interpreted as
plant remains found in dung, and were probably species of the
same habitat (here grouped into open vegetation). In general,
the number of species from habitats associated with grazing (as
well as from freshwater and open, not too dry habitats)
declines from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age (Graph
6), whereas the number of species from coastal habitats
increases. The association of Aeluropus litoralis, Spergularia
marina, and Juncus sp. in the correspondence plots also
suggests that these species come from the same plant
community. With the increase in the number of crop species,
the number of typical weeds and the number of woodland
species, and, as will be shown later (chapter 4), with the
correlation of Aeluropus litoralis with emmer chaff, an
expansion of cultivation within the coastal area and clearing of
woodland for arable fields appear likely. This is a significant
change from the Early Bronze Age.
In terms of the richness of species for each eco-group, the
samples from Middle Bronze Age Troy are rather similar to
those from Kumtepe, except that there are even more species
from freshwater habitats in Middle Bronze Age samples.
As already mentioned, a large proportion of the samples were
from one Troy IV building and its surroundings. It was
assumed that there might be functional differences in terms of
the use of space within the living area. The samples were
classified according to their contextual origin: from an area
which was assumed to contain storage facilities or from two
other areas described as left and right entrance areas (compare
Figures 6 and 7). A few samples came from some distance
from the house and from other trenches. They were grouped
into the class ‛others’.
The sample classes were analysed using three data sets. The
first plot uses the full data (Graph 23, left). The second plot
excludes the crops Pisum sativum and Linum usitatissimum
(Graph 23, middle), and another was conducted with the
species data of wild plants only (Graph 23, right).
The plots show the concentration of flax mainly in the left part
of the entrance, while deposits of garden pea are mainly on the
right side of the entrance. A storage regime to keep different
crops in separate storage areas seems to be indicated. The
storage of flax implies large-scale cultivation of this crop.
Once flax and garden pea are eliminated from the data, further
patterning becomes apparent. The remaining samples from the
left part of the entrance are all rich in emmer chaff remains.
None of the other areas seem to be very homogeneous.
The wild plants show two groups of samples from the left part
of the entrance (Graph 23, right). The remaining locations in
relation to the wild plants are distributed quite randomly,
which could be either due to multiple deposition events or to
unspecified growing habitats.
3.2.4.2 Distribution and proportion of species
and groups of species
Crop remains are abundant, and there are a number of pure
crop samples. As a result, weeds are also abundant (Graph 24).
In the pea deposits, wild plants occurred just once, and these
are species of drier habitats of open vegetation. This might
indicate a cultivation of this crop on the Low Plateau, or at
least not in the direct vicinity of the coast or the river. The high
proportion of weeds in Linum deposits is due to high numbers
of Camelina sativa, which is categorised in these diagrams as a
tolerated weed, but is more probably an ‛accidental’ if not
intentionally cultivated crop. The ratios of gold-of-pleasure to
flax reach 1:1, and thereby at least indicate that Camelina
might not have been seen as a weed, but was also not
cultivated as a pure crop. These plants may have been grown
as a mixed crop.
Samples with a high proportion of seeds from the fresh water
group contain numerous Chara oogonia, and those with a high
proportion of seeds from the marine group contain many seeds
of Aeluropus litoralis (Graph 19d and 24). It is questionable,
whether this kind of sample composition only represents cropprocessing
by-products, which would indicate cultivation of
crops in a coastal area, or if remains from animal dung might
better account for the composition of these samples.
With Camelina sativa in the weed category, the species stands
out as the second main component in a group of flax samples
(Graph 25). The second axis separates the samples according
to the number of seeds they contain from either maquis-type or
freshwater-indicating vegetation. Amongst the samples with
abundant maquis-type remains are other, very heterogeneous
samples dominated by different eco-groups (including
freshwater, but particularly coastal habitats). In these samples
(D8-07, D8-45, D8-47, D8-48, D8-50) the wild plants were
associated with emmer chaff, which was relatively scarce.
Axes III-IV show the separation of these samples according to
the two eco-groups (maquis, with the main component Cistus
sp., and coastal habitats (Aeluropus litoralis)). This pattern
may indicate that emmer was cultivated near the delta, or that
crop-processing residues served as additional feed for the
animals, which grazed close to the delta.
42

chapter 3: analysis
In most of the samples, however, typical weeds seem to be the
dominant group amongst the wild plants.
To summarise the proportions of crops, weeds and waterplants,
most of the samples consisted mainly of crop species (up to
100% of plant remains in one of the flax samples and in some
of the pea deposits, Graph 18, 19b and 26) and the proportion
of plant remains from crop species is higher than in the Early
Bronze Age samples. The apparently high percentage of weeds
(up to 50%) in the two flax samples visible in the diagram, is
due to the classification of Camelina sativa as a weed. All the
other samples contained less than 30% weeds, amongst them
those abundantly associated with flax (Fumaria officinalis)
(Graph 19c). Waterplants generally were a minor component
of samples and only in three samples were more than 50% of
plant remains from waterplants.
3.2.4.3 Diversity
Only in three cases were pure single crops deposited (Graph
27). In general, more than three crop categories are presented
in each of the samples.
The waterplant group occurs mainly in samples dominated by
cereal chaff. This was also the case for the Early Bronze Age
samples.
Generally, samples contained not more than 10 typical weed
species, but more typical weeds species were present than in
the previous (Early Bronze Age) period Graph 6 and 19c).
During Middle Bronze Age 13 of the possible 16 crops were
cultivated, which is more than in any other period. One might
be tempted to speculate about why so many different food
plants were cultivated. Diversified cropping may occur in
wealthy as well as in poor societies, either to enrich the
everyday kitchen or as a form of protection against the risk of
crop failures.
Wild species from some habitats occur more frequently than in
the Early Bronze Age. These are the weeds, species from open,
relatively dry habitats, from woodland and coastal habitats.
The range of species from open, ‛grassland’-type vegetation,
maquis and freshwater vegetation is narrower than in the
previous period. Considering crops and weeds only, a lower
degree of specialisation is indicated.
3.2.5 Late Bronze Age Troy
3.2.5.1 General patterns of the crop species
With 64 samples and 82 species, the plots of the Late Bronze
Age samples from Troy were very ‛busy’, so that only rough
patterns were visible in graphs such as 28.
Looking at the sample classes (site classes; Graph 28) the first
axis separates some of the Troy VIIa samples, which were
dominated by chickpea, from the remaining samples. Amongst
other remains associated with chickpea were the weedy
Lathyrus sativus/cicera, Quercus sp. and Thymelaea sp..
Barley was separated from the other crops along the second
axis, which was also responsible for the grouping of hulled
wheat grain, emmer chaff, bitter vetch, grape and fig in the
third quadrant, and einkorn chaff, flax, horse bean, millet,
olive, lentil and Triticum aestivum/durum grain in the fourth
quadrant. Of the wild plants, those most associated with barley
are morphologically similar grasses such as weedy barley
types. Most of the waterplants were associated with grape, fig
and flax, which better reflects the processes of deposition than
the natural habitats of these species. As in the samples from
earlier periods, grape and fig are in most cases closely
associated. This could indicate similar consumption patterns,
or less probably cultivation in the same plantations, as is
recognised from Linear B tablets (Palmer 1995). As grape was
ubiquitous but never abundant, it is suggested that the grape
seeds in the samples are from grapes which, like figs, were
consumed as fruit, either fresh or dried.
Correspondence analysis of the same data after the exclusion
of Cicer arietinum shows the existence of three main groups
(Graph 29). Most of the Troy VIIb samples (group 1) are
separated from the other samples. They contain hulled wheat
chaff in abundance, some weeds and most of the waterindicating
plants. A small group of samples (group 2) from
different periods are separated on the third axis from the others
and contain mainly hulled wheat grain, barley grain and
rachises, bitter vetch, and some weeds. The remaining samples
and species are more or less regularly distributed within the
first quadrant and contain mainly grasses and the crops grape,
lentil and olive (group 3). An additional cereal, which is
cultivated in large amounts for the first time in Late Bronze
Age Troy, is Panicum miliaceum (Graph 14). Interestingly,
naked wheat almost disappears from the set of crops, after
having been already established in Middle Bronze Age. So
does flax, which occurs from now on only in small numbers,
and seems to be replaced again by olive. Fig also shows a
decrease. The traditional cereals display different patterns.
Barley grain increases, emmer increases in grain and decreases
in chaff remains, and for einkorn it is the opposite case. For the
latter crop there is a general decrease from the set of crops,
which continues in the Post-Bronze Age samples. Of the grain
legumes, garden pea disappears completely and chickpea
appears for the first time (Graph 14). The incidence of lentil
and grape is very similar to that in the Middle Bronze Age.
Considering the number of categories (Graph 6), one
recognises some tendencies in terms of increase and decrease
of species presence within different eco-groups. Altogether, the
Late Bronze Age samples contain a wider range of species than
samples from any previous period, partly because there was a
greater number of samples. An increase in the number of
species from Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age is found
in all eco-groups, except for plants from coastal habitats, which
are also no longer that strongly represented in absolute seed
counts as they were in Middle Bronze Age. Considering the
distinct differences in the composition of the various ecogroups
between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze
Age, the development in the Late Bronze Age seems to be just
a continuation of the processes already started in Middle
Bronze Age Troy.
43

chapter 3: analysis
3.2.5.2 Eco-groups and life form in sample
composition plots
Comparing the sample composition for the three different
periods separately, individual patterns become clearer (Graphs
30-32).
In the case of Troy VI material, crop-dominated samples group
together and separate from samples dominated by species
characteristic of moist or freshwater habitats (Graph 30). The
cereals and grain legumes are separated in this way from grape
and fig, which are associated with the freshwater plants. In this
case, identical deposition history (e.g. into a rubbish pit) is
suggested. The samples with the highest proportion of
freshwater plants are from the Lower City ditch and indicate
moist conditions in this area, or at least the accumulation of the
seeds of such plants which were possibly used in the city. As
chaff remains are only poorly represented in these samples and
the wild plants are overwhelmingly perennials, it is more likely
that a natural habitat is reflected rather than an accumulation of
crop-processing by-products. Typical weeds and plants
indicating open vegetation are also common in these samples.
Most of the wild plants in the crop-dominated samples are
annuals, as was the case in previous periods.
There are several striking patterns in the plots of the Troy VIIa
samples (Graph 31). The samples with ‛grassland’-type species
from open vegetation (i.e. no typical weeds, but small-seeded
grasses and legumes that were interpreted in earlier periods as
remains from ruminant dung) are separated from the samples
dominated by crops and weeds along the third axis. The weeds
are mainly annuals, indicating the intensity of cultivation
methods with these crops. The crops consist of large amounts
of emmer remains. Other cereal-and fruit-dominated samples
had fewer weeds, but in some cases higher proportions of
waterplants.
The composition of Troy VIIb samples was dominated either
by moisture-loving/freshwater plants, or by crops (Graph 32).
The perennials seem to have increased in abundance. This
might indicate an extension of arable fields into new areas
where perennial plants were still abundant. Considering other
results of this analysis, such as percentage occurrence of the
eco-groups, it seems most probable that new fields were
cultivated in the valley (see chapter 4).
Those samples with only a few crop remains (mainly einkorn
and barley grain, fig and grape) and large proportions of
freshwater-indicating plants, had generally low proportions of
typical weeds and, within this category, relatively few annuals.
The samples are probably accumulations of crop processing
by-products and remains from other sources, e.g. animal dung.
On the whole, there seems to be a shift in dominant eco-groups
through the course of the Late Bronze Age. While in Troy VI
and VIIb moisture-and freshwater-indicating plants are very
abundant, Troy VIIa is dominated by species characteristics of
open vegetation. In Troy VI and VIIa the range of potential
weeds, with an overwhelming proportion of annuals, indicates
that cultivation practices were intensive and that the same
fields were cultivated for long periods. In Troy VIIb the
extension of arable fields into areas on the Low Plateau, which
were probably not cultivated previously, is indicated by
increased abundances of perennials.
3.2.5.3 Distribution of species during the
different phases
The periods Troy VI, Troy VIIa and Troy VIIb were anaylsed
separately, with almost equal numbers of samples from each of
these periods.
In Troy VI samples, emmer and einkorn are far outnumbered
by barley grain (Graph 14). High numbers of emmer grain and
chaff never occur together (i.e. the sample is rich either in
grain or in chaff), indicating the different types of contexts
(storage and crop-processing by-product). In Troy VIIa, emmer
and einkorn increase sharply compared to barley remains
(Graph 14). In numerical terms, emmer chaff dominates all the
other cereal categories during this period. During Troy VIIb
barley is more abundant again.
The other crops show similar patterns in the course of the Late
Bronze Age. Panicum miliaceum, which appears in Troy VI
for the first time, is a cereal of minor absolute abundance, but
of high relative find density at least during Troy VI (Graph
14). It is fairly ubiquitous, which suggests it was one of the
basic components of arable farming. Bitter vetch is a very
abundant grain legume in all three phases. It is accompanied
already in Troy VI by chickpea, which appears for the first
time. Both legumes greatly increase in abundance in Troy VIIa
and decrease again in Troy VIIb, so that chickpea disappears
almost completely, while bitter vetch still occurs in numbers
suggesting cultivation of this legume. Only a few lentils are
recorded in Troy VI and VIIa, but lentils are more abundant
and ubiquitous in Troy VIIb. Lentil is a characteristic
companion of wheat and barley in modern Mediterranean
agriculture (Zohary and Hopf 1993) and it might well have
been a weed during Troy VI and VIIa, given the small number
of seeds recovered.
Only a few seeds of the oil-producing crops olive and flax
occur in Late Bronze Age samples, which does not mean that
the demand for fat was met by animal fats alone. As mentioned
earlier, olive oil production in traditional Mediterranean
agriculture often takes place close to the plantations (Hepper
1992), which may explain the lack of finds of olive pips in the
settlement. The problem of the archaeological evidence for and
interpretation of olive is further discussed in chapter 5.
Compared to the cereal remains, the number of grape and fig
seeds might except for Troy VI indicate that the subsistence
economy did not rely as much on fruits as it did in earlier
periods. Acorns occur in larger numbers in Troy VIIa samples
and it is possible that they were used as food.
Moisture-or water-indicating plants are still abundant, as in all
the previous periods, due to Troy’s position close to the coast
and Scamander river. Chara sp. is most ubiquitous in Troy
VIIb. While this species occurs in Troy VI in large numbers
independently of the crops, it is closely associated with einkorn
remains in Troy VIIb. In the latter case, the depositional
trajectory of einkorn remains and the algae may have been
similar. The same is true of plants such as Scirpus maritimus
and Juncus sp.. Juncus sp. and Scirpus maritimus are not
associated contextually in Troy VI, i.e. they must derive from
different habitats, but were found in the same contexts in Troy
VIIb. Typha latifolia occurred in large numbers only in Troy
44

chapter 3: analysis
VI and came mainly from contexts of the Lower City ditch. It
was associated there with fig and grape seeds. From the
ubiquity of Typha it has to be concluded that it might not have
been of intense use in building activity and due to its local
restriction to the area of the Lower City ditch, it is most
probable that it was growing there, indicating eutrophic waters
that accumulated in the ditch during winter rains. But
preservational restrictions have also to be considered.
Small-seeded legumes (Trifolium sp.) were most abundant in
Troy VIIa and, like Scirpus maritimus, decreased in Troy VIIb.
They were not associated with the cereals, which suggests that
Trifolium and the cereals belonged to different habitats.
To summarise, the subsistence economy in Troy VI
concentrated on barley. Some crops, such as Panicum
miliaceum and Cicer arietinum, appear for the first time, but in
small numbers.
Bitter vetch and chickpea are very abundant in Troy VIIa.
Emmer and einkorn increased relative to barley remains.
Lolium spp. were common and abundant weeds of this crop
combination (particularly with einkorn, as they were already in
Middle Bronze Age Troy). Beside arable farming, livestock or
at least the use of its dung must have played a role of
increasing importance. Small-seeded legumes (Trifolium sp.)
are most abundant in Troy VIIa, like many of the small-seeded
grasses (e.g. Phalaris spp.). They were not associated with the
crops, suggesting a common origin in burnt dung.
Barley seems to be an important crop in Troy VIIb. Panicum
miliaceum is at its most ubiquitous.
During the whole Late Bronze Age, oil and wine production is
not obvious within the settlement (whereas grape seeds are in
fact very ubiquitous). It is questionable that the demand for fat
was only met by animal fats, and that people should have
rejected grape cultivation since it was already practised in the
region from Early Bronze Age period. More likely oil and vine
were produced in the plantations and vineyards. The
subsistence economy does not seem to have relied heavily on
fruits, however.
In Troy VI some of the samples were almost pure crop
samples, but in general the percentage of plant remains
belonging to crops was very variable, ranging from over 20%
to more than 90% (Graph 33). Apart from a few samples
without crops, the situation was similar in the Troy VIIa
samples (Graph 34). In Troy VIIb the percentage participation
of the crops was less variable, and fluctuated mainly between
40% and 70% (Graph 35).
The incidence of waterplants varies between phases. While in
Troy VI samples the percentage of seeds from waterplants is
very variable, but can be very high (Graph 33), it is very low in
Troy VIIa (Graph 34). Although some of the waterplants were
very abundant in Troy VIIa, the percentage of plant remains
from members of this group is low because the much higher
abundance of the crops, which might indicate that moist areas
were not used as intensively as appears to be the case from the
few samples with high counts. In Troy VIIb the share of plant
remains from waterplants is higher again because some
samples are poor in members of other ecological groups
(Graph 35).
There are a few samples in Troy VI and VIIa in which more
than 40% of plant remains are seeds of typical weeds, while in
Troy VIIb the percentages are much lower (below 29%; Graph
35). Contextual differences do not account for this pattern. It is
more likely that there were fewer typical weeds in the harvest.
Probably this is related to barley cultivation in Troy VIIb,
which is associated with a relative abundance of perennials. It
seems that with the cultivation of crops on new fields or land
not intensively cultivated before, the weed flora might have
reached a lower developmental stage, i.e. more perennial wild
plants than annual weeds were growing amongst the crops
(Graph 32).
3.2.5.4 Diversity
The relatively low number of weed species indicates that the
relatively high percentages of weeds in Troy VI and VIIa is
due to the occurrence of a few species in large numbers in a
sample. This is also an indicator of the difficulty of controlling
the weed flora in Troy VI and VIIa (Graphs 36-38).
There are only slight differences in the diversity in crops for
the phases of the Late Bronze Age. During Troy VIIb, 12 of
the 16 possible crops were cultivated, which almost reaches the
number of Middle Bronze Age crops (13). The earlier phases
of the Late Bronze Age had only a slightly narrower range of
cultivated crops (10 during Troy VI, 11 during Troy VIIa). The
range of species in every eco-group was broader in the
combined Late Bronze Age samples than in either the Early or
the Middle Bronze Age (Graph 6).
3.2.6 Summary
Correspondence analysis showed a complex patterning of
samples and species. These patterns were either of
chronological nature, or of functional nature (storage finds,
dung remains), and often appeared to be a combination of both.
Considering the data set as a whole, the abundant crops of the
Middle Bronze Age storage finds Pisum sativum and Linum
usitatissimum and their associated weeds stand out from the
remaining samples. The same is the case for Cicer arietinum
storage finds of the Late Bronze Age samples.
Barley is always separated from other cereals, probably
indicating human dietary preferences and different growing
habitats to those of the wheats. Plant remains such as Trifolium
sp., Medicago sp., Carex divulsa, Poa trivialis-type, and
Geranium dissectum, apparently derived from the burnt dung
of grazing ruminants were common in all the periods.
Kumtepe shows a clear agricultural and ecological
development through its subperiods. Typical weed species (in
terms of the modern weed flora) increase from Kumtepe A to
Kumtepe B3. The enrichment of the weed flora with stresstolerating,
highly competitive species was interpreted as an
establishment of agricultural practices at the transition from
Neolithic to Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Kumtepe. The
development of Kumtepe B (B1, B2 and B3) was considered in
detail. The increase in the number of typical weed species from
Kumtepe B2 to Kumtepe B3 is accompanied by a decrease in
the number of seeds of these species. It seems that in the
45

chapter 3: analysis
subperiod Kumtepe B2 the weedy vegetation was highly
developed towards competition with the crops. Field weeds
might have occurred in masses during this subperiod,
especially those difficult to separate during crop-processing
(Lolium spp.). Compared to the other subperiods, the
abundance of annuals in Kumtepe B2 underlines the argument
that intensification of field management might have followed
the general establishment of agricultural practices.
Agriculture was dominated by crop legumes during the
Neolithic settlement, while the subsistence economy also relied
heavily on seafood. Lentil and bitter vetch, together with the
weedy Lathyrus sativus/cicera, are most abundant in Kumtepe
A samples. During Kumtepe B, specialisation in cereal
cultivation very probably took place. There is a clear shift to
barley as a main crop with the transition to Kumtepe B2. It
surely was still important during Kumtepe B3, although emmer
and einkorn were most abundant.
Fig was mainly consumed during Kumtepe A, but was also
important in Kumtepe B3. Vitis vinifera appears already in
Kumtepe B2, but is really abundant only during Kumtepe B3.
In the Early Bronze Age samples from Troy, the horticultural
crops (grape, fig and sparse remains of olive), and weeds
indicating predominantly drier conditions stand out from the
remains of animal feed, and from the cereals, which are
associated with weeds (mainly grasses) and oogonia of Chara
sp..
The crop legumes (bitter vetch and lentil) are not abundant.
The cereal-dominated samples are composed mainly of emmer
chaff. Emmer was possibly the main crop produced during this
period. The different ecological ranges of weedy components
in these samples might plausibly be explained by the location
of fields in different regions of the landscape, e.g. some closer
to the river valley, others neighbouring the maquis-type
vegetation. Generally, the maquis-type vegetation is sparsely
represented, and one assumes that the inhabitants of Early
Bronze Age Troy preferred to use areas near the coast and river
banks, where the vegetation was already open. Species
diversity is relatively low and might indicate a certain degree
of specialisation, which would correspond to the
archaeologically evident existence of a stratified society.
At least two crops are cultivated on a large-scale during Middle
Bronze Age Troy: flax and garden pea, one providing fat, the
other protein and carbohydrates. Olive was no longer
cultivated. Another fruit tree, fig, rich in carbohydrates, also
decreases from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age. Only
grape cultivation seems to have slightly increased, compared to
the Early Bronze Age samples.
The associated weed flora indicates that cultivation of pea took
place under drier conditions on the Low Plateau. Linum deposits
were partially associated with large numbers of Camelina
sativa, which may indicate a kind of mixed cropping. The
weeds growing with flax probably indicate a low-growing
variety of flax, which implies that this crop might have been
used exclusively for seed and oil, and not for linen production.
The increase in the number of crop species coincides with an
increase in the number of species of the typical weeds and
woodland vegetation. This seems to indicate an expansion of
the area under cultivation into the coastal area, and clearing of
woodland for arable fields. A high diversity of crop plants,
compared to all the other periods, suggests a lower degree of
specialisation than in the previous period. It was suggested that
the increased proportion of archaeozoological remains from
wild species in this period indicates a reduced role for
livestock in the subsistence economy. This may be reflected in
the broader range of field crops, which reduced the risk of crop
failure, and took the place of livestock as a risk-buffer.
Considering ecological habitats, there is a decrease in the
number of species from ‛grassland’-type vegetation, open
vegetation and freshwater habitats, whereas those from coastal
habitats increase. Salt tolerant, moisture-indicating weeds that
are associated with chaff remains of einkorn and barley, derive
from either cultivation under relatively moist and salty
conditions, or from feed, which was consumed by ruminants
grazing in different kinds of habitats. In general, it seems that
people exploited the delta region and the maquis-covered Low
Plateau rather than the slopes near the river.
The Late Bronze Age samples were represented by three
phases, Troy VI, Troy VIIa and Troy VIIb. The crops that
appear for the first time are Cicer arietinum and Panicum
miliaceum. Naked wheat and garden pea almost disappear from
the set of crops, despite having been well-established during
Middle Bronze Age.
In Troy VI, the subsistence economy relied on barley, but
einkorn and emmer are also abundant. Common millet appears
and remains a staple cereal.
In Troy VIIa, emmer and einkorn sharply increase relative to
barley remains. Lolium spp. was a main weed of the hulled
wheats (particularly of einkorn). Chickpea was probably an
important source of additional protein in the human diet.
Beside arable farming, livestock or at least the use of its dung
must have played a role of increasing importance, which is not
yet supported by the archaeozoological results. Small-seeded
legumes (Trifolium sp.) are most abundant in Troy VIIa, like
many of the grasses, and are not correlated with the crops,
which suggests that they might have been brought into the
settlement in animal dung.
In Troy VIIb barley cultivation increases relatively again.
Grape and fig are in most cases closely associated, which
implies a similar depositional history. Although grape is not
abundant, its ubiquity qualifies it as a basic crop. Wine and oil
production might have taken place in the plantations, away
from the settlement.
An increase in species from Middle Bronze Age to Late
Bronze Age takes place in all eco-groups except for coastal
habitats. A shift in dominant eco-groups is also recognisable
through the three phases of the Late Bronze Age. While in
Troy VI and VIIb moisture-and freshwater-indicating plants
are very abundant, Troy VIIa is dominated by members of
open vegetation. Moist areas were used less intensively in Troy
VIIa.
In Troy VIIb, those samples with only few crop remains and a
large proportion of freshwater-indicating plants had generally
low proportions of typical weeds, and within this category very
low abundances of annuals. The crops that were associated
with the waterplant-dominated samples were einkorn and
barley grain.
46

chapter 3: analysis
In Troy VI and VIIa, the life form of potential weeds, with an
overwhelming proportion of annuals, indicate that cultivation
practices were intensive and that the same fields were probably
cultivated for long periods. In Troy VIIb, the extension of
arable fields into the previously uncultivated valley, is
indicated by the relatively high abundances of perennials and
moisture-loving plants.
47

chapter 4: ecology
4 Comparative ecology of the
archaeobotanical remains from Troy
and Kumtepe
4.1 The ecological interpretation of
archaeobotanical data
Methodological problems in deducing ecological information
from charred plant remains raise the question of how far the
analysis of macroremains is able to contribute to landscape
reconstruction at all. There is already a lot of fundamental
literature on this subject (e.g. Jacomet, Brombacher, and Dick
1989, Behre and Jacomet 1991). Aspects of the different
approaches to the classification of wild plant species are briefly
sketched in chapter 2.
Taphonomy, selectivity and questionable uniformity in the
origin of archaeobotanical remains inevitably result in an
incomplete representation of past species composition. Some
archaeobotanists are convinced that only uncarbonised
archaeobotanical material is suitable for reliable reconstruction
(Behre and Jacomet 1991), which might be further restricted to
material from ‛non-cultural layers’ because uncarbonised seeds
(waterlogged preservation) could still derive from weed floras
preserved with the crop-processing residues that escaped
burning.
Modern phytosociology, with its specifically quantitative
approach, is hardly applicable to archaeobotanical data (see
Küster 1991, van der Veen 1992). Plant species usually have a
broad spectrum of potential habitats and only a few are reliable
indicators of their environment (Jones 1992). The ecological
attributes of some species and plant communities have been
shown to have changed over time, therefore modern indicator
species may lead in the wrong direction. Hillman (1991)
suggests that many plants which were ancient weeds are found
today in other plant communities, and that by using modern
principles of association the archaeobotanist would group the
species into the wrong classes. Pollen analysis reveals that
plant communities were differently structured in the past, and
one generally has to proceed from a dynamic perspective of the
formation and restructuring of plant communities (Lang 1962).
In temperate Europe it is assumed that modern principles of
association were already established in the Bronze Age, so that
for the present case a static perspective may be acceptable. The
ancient vegetation of Turkey has been far less studied than that
of central Europe, so only little is known about how present
day associations compare to those of the past.
In this study, the potential habitats of the plant species will be
oriented according to topographical units (valley, Low Plateau;
see Map 1) and the expected vegetation units to be found
within these (the pastures and maquis of the Low Plateau used
for livestock grazing, the crop fields both on the Low Plateau
and in the valley, the moister pastures in the valley).
The results from palaeogeomorphology and soil science allow
a projection of the observations in the modern, semi-natural
environment onto the reconstructed prehistoric localities.
Using the eco-groups of the archaeobotanical species, potential
habitats can be located in the past landscape, with respect to
the coastlines and the degree of openness of the vegetation.
Pollen analysis from ancient soils in the hinterland has
identified a broad spectrum of genera and is still in progress
(Pustovoytov and Pakhomov, in prep.). It will be possible to
complement the following plant macrofossil results in terms of
an environmental reconstruction of the more distant
surroundings of Troy. For the grouping of the species into the
different habitats see appendix 4.
4.2 Interrelations between ecology and
economy
In the living world it is impossible to separate economy from
ecology, and this is particularly the case for a highly degraded
landscape such as the Mediterranean. About 35% of the land
(i.e. forest, maquis and phrygana) within the Mediterranean
zone of Turkey is assumed to be free from economic interest
(Houérou 1981), but is nevertheless used for grazing livestock.
The aim of this chapter is to consider the natural and
anthropogenically modified habitats of the Bronze Age Troad.
Plant communities of disturbed landscapes largely reflect the
agricultural activities of the inhabitants, and are discussed in
this study under various aspects. The species were grouped
according to autecological data, which means that some
possible weeds (i.e. wild species not accepted as weeds
according to modern weed classification, but which, due to
their broad ecological tolerances, might have grown amongst
the crops) were placed in the group of moisture-indicating
plants or in the category of open vegetation, indicating the
most probable growing conditions.
The weed species belong to a plant group with specific
characteristics that can cope with the regular destruction of the
vegetation unit they are growing within (competitor-stress
tolerator scheme according to Grime (1990)). They either
develop their seeds the harvest, or they use their subterranean
vegetation organs to sprout again after the harvest. It is obvious
that these abilities create a situation in which the reproductive
organs of the plants rarely disappear totally from a crop field
(those of the seed-producing annuals in particular). During the
following growing season many of the weeds will be found
again within the new crop. In crop rotation we should therefore
expect to find some representatives of the weed community
characteristic of the former crop within the weed community of
the present crop. In Hanf (1990b), the factors that are
responsible for the composition of the weed flora are divided
into two factor groups: the ‛unspecified factor group’, which
can be understood as the general conditions in creation of the
flora, such as climate and soil conditions, and the ‛specific
factors’, such as soil treatment, crop planting and harvesting
methods, the use of fertiliser and especially the cultivation of
specific crops.
The practical agronomist knows that specific weeds appear
with specific crop plants. Long experience in the development
of the best growing conditions for the crop since the Neolithic
period resulted in a specific sequence of procedures for each
crop. The weed flora apparent from the archaeobotanical
samples might indirectly indicate the procedures and
conditions under which the crops were grown (e.g. the
intensity of soil management from the number of nitrophilous
47

chapter 4: ecology
species). Life form (annual/perennial), which gives clues about
the soil management, and the species’ behaviour in terms of
specific soil characteristics such as nitrogen level, are
important factors to consider in archaeobotanical species
composition (for details see Jacomet, Brombacher and Dick
1989).
Some of the species were not correlated with any of the crops
or their waste products. It is doubtful, therefore, that they were
crop weeds at all. The species from Kumtepe which were not
correlated with the crops include Chara sp., Isoëtes duriei,
Juncus sp., and Lithospermum tenuiflorum. At Troy a number
of species were hardly correlated with any of the crops (e.g.
Scirpus maritimus was only correlated with Triticum spp.,
which might indicate the specific growing conditions of
wheats). Other species weakly correlated with crops were
probably species from either dung or fodder remains (Trifolium
sp., Carex divulsa, Phalaris sp., Rumex conglomeratus-type,
and also Quercus sp.). Other genera, such as Astragalus,
Juncus, Malva etc., which are usually avoided by the animals
(Houérou 1981), were amongst the species that were not
correlated with the crops. How seeds of these species entered
the site is difficult to guess.
4.3 Geomorphology, soil science and their
contribution to landscape reconstruction
in the Troad
From geomorphological research, the landscape development
near the Troian coast is well-known (Kayan 1991 and 1996,
Kraft, Kayan and Erol 1980 and 1982). During the Bronze Age
the formation of the delta was the dominant geological process,
i.e. the coastline shifted towards the sea, due to the
accumulation of sediment in the river valley. Even when the
sea level rose during Troy VII-VIII, the coastline moved
towards the sea because the alluvial progradation of the delta
was more effective than the slow rise of the sea level. The
ground-water level was high and plant communities adapted to
marshy habitats were dominant on the flood plain. The
Pinarbaşi springs might also have contributed to the general
marshiness and malaria was probably a problem in the region.
Drainage of the marshland did not occur earlier than in the last
centuries (pers. com. I. Kayan).
As evident from other Aegean sites, a seaward move of the
coastline in late Holocene is usually coupled with extensive
soil erosion (e.g. Dhimini, Lerna, see Zangger 1991). From the
sediments in the Skamander valley, nothing definite can be
said about the rate of anthropogenically-caused inland erosion.
The progradation of the delta by sedimentation, however,
seems to have begun by the Early Bronze Age (compare Maps
3-5). Strong erosion of the slopes is suggested from at least the
Late Bronze Age (Korfmann 1992a, 1992b). The accumulated
sediment in the valley provided fertile ground for luxuriant
plant cover (either grazing ground or arable farming), and was
surely used during all the periods.
Soil erosion is discussed comprehensively in reconstructions of
the development of Mediterranean landscape (see particularly
various articles in Bottema, Entjes-Nieborg and van Zeist
(1990)). The focus has been on the problem of separating
natural from human-induced landscape destabilisation and its
chronological adjustment. Vita-Finzi (1969) was one of the
first researchers to study stream deposition. He related two
major aggradation phases to climatic factors. Conflicting data
and contrary points of view soon emerged. Finally the
‛younger fill’ was demonstrated to derive from complex processes
of anthropogenic rather than of climatic origin
(Wagstaff 1981). Van Andel and Zangger (1990) demonstrate
for the southern Argolid that no soil erosion took place during
and after the Mycenaean period due to protective measures
such as terracing, although no securely-dated terrace walls of
this period are known. They also suggest that the soil quality
had little influence on land use until recently, and that the
coarser deposits of alluvial fans were not exploited widely until
the Late Bronze Age. On the Argive plain, by contrast, severe
soil erosion took place in the Early Bronze Age and the Late
Bronze Age. One of the main conclusions of modern
investigations of erosional processes in the landscape is that a
generalisation of erosional phases is impossible, but that local
conditions are dominant in the stabilisation and destabilisation
of the landscape (van Andel and Zangger 1990).
The causes of erosion in the later Holocene are generally
thought to relate more to intensive settlement, deforestation
and agriculture (Brückner 1990, Goldberg and Bar-Yosef
1990). Zangger (1992) argues, using evidence of past ocean
temperatures derived from marine cores, that in some areas of
the Greek mainland (e.g. Thessaly) widespread soil erosion
began within only a thousand years of the introduction of
agriculture and was therefore humanly-induced. In other areas
it appears much later (e.g. southern Argolid). Van Andel,
Zangger, and Demitrack (1990) found in their regional studies
in Greece that periods of landscape stability lasted much longer
than the episodes of soil erosion and stream aggradation.
The investigation of the soil around the sites Troy and
Kumtepe already has contributed a great deal to the
understanding of stability and dynamics in the landscape
evolution of the region (Pustovoytov 1995, Pustovoytov in
prep.).
Patches of preserved prehistoric soil and buried soils have
provided evidence of periods of soil genesis in early Holocene
and partial erosion already in prehistoric times. These results
agreed with landscape reconstructions suggested by
archaeozoological research (Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan
1992). They indicated a coexistence of different ecotopes, such
as more or less closed woodland (oak) and open vegetation,
and the reduction of areas with woodland at least from Middle
Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age. It has been shown that areas
1.5 km south of Troy were already eroded in Late Bronze Age
to Archaic period. It is suggested that erosion was mainly due
to anthropogenic factors.
Erosion, at least during the Late Bronze Age, is supported by
the archaeobotanical remains. During Troy VIIb there is an
increase in perennials and moisture-tolerating species that
suggest the cultivation of new arable land in the valley.
Together with the other results (few indicators of open
vegetation, a shift to barley and the generally accepted
depopulation of the centres) it is suggested that earlier fields on
the Low Plateau had been eroded and had lost their fertility, so
48

chapter 4: ecology
that new fields had to be laid out in the valley where fertile
alluvium had accumulated.
Soil science is the basis not only for the recognition of
dynamic landscape processes (e.g. soil erosion), but also for
the location and reconstruction of the past vegetation. The
continuous development of soil profiles preserves information
about past vegetation cover. The differentiation of soils in the
study area reveals the probable composition of past vegetation
(e.g. the podzols on the High Plateau that indicate coniferous
forest). The distribution and boundaries of soil types reflect the
past vegetation cover of the landscape: palaeogeographic
information in situ (Pustovoytov 1995).
The autecological characteristics of the archaeobotanical
remains provide information on the potential habitats that these
species are likely to have occupied. Based on palaeogeographic
knowledge (coastlines, past vegetation units, etc.), a projection
of the prehistoric species onto potential habitats, obtained by
soil mapping, becomes more realistic. A consideration of the
economic potential of the prehistoric landscape is closely
related to this reconstruction.
4.4 Aspects of Eastern Mediterranean
vegetation and their appearence in the
Troad
The interpretation of prehistoric plant remains from an
actualistic standpoint requires prior consideration of the
characteristics of the Mediterranean flora. Initially, a general
description of typical vegetation patterns in the eastern
Mediterranean will be given, with an emphasis on the factors
which determine these patterns. The following sections
represent a description of the main modern floristic elements,
observed in the spring and summer seasons between 1993 and
1995 in the Troad, which will lead to the final conclusions on
ecological information provided by the archaeobotanical
remains. A model of the landscape changes caused by the
interaction between natural processes and human economic
behaviour is given in chapter 5.
As already mentioned in chapter 1, knowledge of vegetation in
the Troad is somewhat unbalanced, in that flora lists and
distribution maps of modern vegetation are sparse and have
never been integrated. Vegetation history is mainly deduced
indirectly from pollen analysis in Mediterranean Greece,
whereas Turkish botanists only began systematic
phytosociological work during the last decades. Ecological
research only began very recently, so that human influence in
relation to the formation of maquis vegetation is still a domain
of palynologists and the subject of controversial discussions.
Autecological studies in the region were described in the mideighties
to be at an embryonic stage (Öztürk and Seçmen
1986).
Phytosociological studies started with the work of H. Birand in
1957 and were continued by R. Çetik from 1963. Neither
approach resulted in the definition of phytosociological units.
Particularly from the 1970s, phytosociological studies, based
on the classical Braun-Blanquet method, were conducted in
Turkey on well defined vegetation units such as forests (e.g.
Quézel 1978, Akman 1986), steppe (Akman et al. 1991), and
particularly the Mediterranean maquis and phrygana vegetation
(Quézel 1981a and 1981b). Regional studies of vegetation
composition are numerous and it is therefore possible to
incorporate all the observations made in Troy and
neighbouring areas. For example, the vegetation on the nearby
islands (Gökçeada and Bozcaada) has the same features as
observed in the Troad. Seçmen and Leblebici (1978) mentions
the same plants in salty and sandy habitats on Gökçeada
(Carex divulsa, Scirpus maritimus, Juncus spp., Polypogon
maritimus, Aeluropus litoralis, Erodium cicutarium, Trifolium
spp., etc., without typical halophytes) as found in this kind of
habitat around Troy. Information on grouping of vegetation is
also available from ancient literary sources, but because the
subdivisions are not reliable, inference from modern
distribution has to be conducted (Meiggs 1982).
Akman (1986) subdivides the Mediterranean woodland into the
classes Quercetea ilicis and Quercetea pubescentis, of which
the former is strongly represented in the vicinity of Troy today.
Characteristic species are Quercus coccifera, Quercus ilex,
Olea europaea var. oleaster, and various conifers. Quercus
coccifera (prickly oak) is one of the most typical species of the
maquis vegetation of the Troad.
Because of the central position of maquis in discussions of
vegetation change, the characteristic Mediterranean
sclerophyllous and perennial scrubland vegetation is described
in detail in the following paragraphs.
‛Matorral’, as used by Quézel (1981a), is a generic term for
maquis and phrygana. These communities constitute the stage
preceding the establishment or re-establishment of forest
ecosystems or may represent degraded forest. The following
terminology is used in the text:
− maquis (open woodland, consisting of shrubs and trees
more than 1 m in height, with the dominant species
Quercus coccifera)
− phrygana (synonym of garrigue, describes open vegetation,
consisting of sclerophyllous shrubs up to 1 m in height,
with the dominant species Cistus spp.)
− batha (chamaephytic shrubs, up to 50 cm in height, with
the predominating species Sarcopoterium spinosum)
The Mediterranean scrublands (open matorral, maquis and
phrygana) are divided into two phytosociological classes, a
western and an eastern class. The eastern Mediterranean class,
with its less-developed maquis and phrygana vegetation,
belongs to the Cisto-Micromerietea class (Quézel 1981b).
Altitude is an important factor in the location of these habitats.
Maquis and phrygana vegetation is mainly found at lower
altitudes, i.e. the thermo-mediterranean and eu-mediterranean
zones, nearly always situated between grasslands and forests.
In general, the ecological factors limiting the formation of
maquis and phrygana vegetation are low winter temperatures,
rainfall of less than 200 mm precipitation per year, and the
nature and thickness of the substrates.
Different forest climax groupings may derive from the same
type of maquis and phrygana vegetation, e.g. in the eastern
Mediterranean, certain Sarcopoterium spinosum phrygana can
develop either towards Pinus brutia forest or, on sandstone, to
Pinus pinea forest. This gives a clue to the relative species
poverty of maquis and phrygana formations (c. 200 species in
49

chapter 4: ecology
eastern Mediterranean). This poverty “contrasts with the
considerable richness in the same regions of grasslands,
...which generally represent stages in the regression of maquis
and garrigue” (Quézel 1981a, p. 109). The grasses represent a
problem for modern phytosociology, just as they do for the
archaeobotanical interpretation, as they form part of the
maquis, but also occur in other ecological habitats. The grass
genera that are common in modern maquis communities are
not represented in the archaeobotanical material. The
archaeobotanical grasses derive mainly from pastures in the
moist valley or from slopes probably near the river side.
The eastern Mediterranean is the domain of the Labiatae, and
arborescent elements are more common than in the West.
Quézel (1981a) points out the problems of mapping the
vegetation (e.g. the difficulty of separating the strict forest
groupings from those which belong to maquis or phrygana
landscapes). He distinguishes several structural types, but a
phytosociological interpretation still remains difficult because
it is impossible to distinguish different groups for different
substrates, as seems to be possible in the western
Mediterranean.
Phrygana, in contrast to the western Mediterranean, is an
important element in the eastern Mediterranean. These low,
thorny formations are composed mainly of hemispherical
shrubs. The character species of the order Sarcopoterietalia
spinosi, which was first defined by Zohary (1962), is very
common on the Low Plateau a few kilometres east of Troy,
near the little village of Çiplak.
4.4.1 Grazing and browsing
Mediterranean pastures include five main categories:
productive forests, maquis and phrygana, dry grassland,
meadows and halophytic steppes.
The flora of these pastures is generally characterised by three
aspects: the presence of evergreen trees and shrubs (e.g.
Quercus coccifera), low shrubs with persistent aromatic foliage
(e.g. Cistus spp., Teucrium ssp., Sarcopoterium spinosum, etc.)
and numerous geophytes. The pastures are all affected by
overgrazing, which is often indicated (particularly within
meadows on coastal slopes) by the presence of geophytes such
as Asphodelus ramosus and Ornithogalum sp., which were
observed in masses near Beşiktepe in April 1993. One of the
main reasons for overgrazing is a climatic one. The mild
winters cannot protect the surface against livestock grazing
during this season and, together with the popular attitude that
animals should look after their nutritional needs themselves,
this means that grazing interferes with the regeneration of
Mediterranean vegetation (Houérou 1981). Although sheep
seem to be the dominant domestic animal today, goats are best
adapted to the Mediterranean environment (woody forage).
The reproduction rate of goats is more than three times higher
than that of sheep. Amongst the species browsed preferentially
are Quercus coccifera and Olea europaea, while amongst the
species ignored by livestock, we find gymnosperms and
several species of the Lamiaceae, Apiaceae, Asteraceae,
Fabaceae, Brassicaceae, almost all Liliaceae and the
Euphorbiaceae. Typical grasses and legumes grazed in these
pastures are Bromus spp., Eragrostis spp., Lolium perenne,
Lolium multiflorum, Lolium rigidum, Phalaris arundinacea,
Medicago spp., Trifolium spp., Hedysarum coronarium, Vicia
hirsuta, etc..
Besides the ‛maquis pasture’, meadows in the moister
Scamander valley must have been comparatively important for
grazing animals, based on evidence of palaeohydrology and the
archaeobotanical plant remains.
Although grazing is assumed to be a considerable contributor
to soil erosion in Mediterranean landscapes, little research has
been carried out on the impact of domestic animals on
vegetation in prehistory. Archaeozoologists generally presume
that grazing herds modified the landscape, and they prefer to
explain why goat and sheep are such extraordinarily successful
foragers using ethology, but have difficulties evaluating the
concrete dimension of impact through ethnographic
observations (e.g. Clason and Clutton-Brock 1982). This is
understandable considering the advanced state of modification
of the Mediterranean landscape.
4.4.2 Fire
The effect of natural and anthropogenic fire forms, along with
grazing, an important aspect of the physiognomy of
Mediterranean vegetation. The greatest damage in semi-arid
and subhumid zones is caused in coniferous forest (Pinus
halepensis) and in maquis vegetation rich in essential oils and
resins (Cistaceae) which “burst into flames like hydrocarbons”
(Houérou 1981). The effects of fire depend on the type of
vegetation that is burnt and the frequency of fires within a
specific period of time. While grassland recovers quickly from
fires, the development of woodland might be suppressed by
fires recurring every 10 years. Grazing of burnt woods will
suppress the development of woodland even without repeated
burning. Pyrophytes (plants whose propagation, multiplication
or reproduction is stimulated by fire) dominate Mediterranean
vegetation today and are assumed to be one reason why little is
known about the potential climax vegetation less affected by
fire (Houérou 1981). There are passive and active pyrophytes.
The latter are stimulated by fire either in vegetative growth,
like Quercus coccifera, or in their seed dispersal, like the
Cistaceae. Quercus coccifera forms a kind of pyrostable
pseudoclimax (Trabaud 1970), but disappears when fires
become too frequent. It is then replaced by sparse grassland
with Brachypodium ramosum (an abundant grass 1 km south
of Troy), as is the case in some areas of the Low Plateau.
Besides Quercus coccifera, there are other species within the
maquis with softer leaves that are preferred by grazing animals.
The Quercus coccifera pseudoclimax involves several
successional stages. The most degraded stage of the oak
successional series is a plant cover consisting of Quercus
coccifera with Fabaceae and Cistaceae, as between the fields
on Paşatepe. Other plants mentioned as successors of firedestroyed
Pinus brutia woods on the island Gökçeada include
the small-seeded legumes (Astragalus hamosus, Medicago
spp., Onobrychis caput-galli, Trigonella monspeliaca) and
grasses (e.g. Lolium rigidum) (Seçmen and Leblebici 1978).
4.4.3 Settlement activity
50

chapter 4: ecology
Today crop fields take up most land in the Troad. Not only
does the direct field surface replace the original vegetation, but
also the closer surroundings are modified by human activity.
A study on disturbed modern vegetation was conducted by
Kehl (1986) in a rural area located in the eumediterranean belt
near Antalya. He worked out a disturbance gradient, i.e. the
gradient of human impact on the vegetation, decreasing from
the centre of a settlement to the range land. Kehl (1986)
emphasises the characteristics of maquis vegetation, such as its
resilience to human impact and its ability to re-establish itself,
regenerate and spread quickly after protective measures have
been taken. Releves along a transect from the edge of the
settlement to a distance of about 1200 m, where a disturbed
Pinus brutia-forest was located, were conducted. An increase
in para-meters of disturbance close to the settlement was noted.
Amongst these were grazing pressure, clearing, desiccation of
the topsoil, trampling stress and erosion. Near the settlement a
mosaic of bushes and cushion-shaped thickets in completely
open vegetation were characteristic, similar to the area near
Tevfikiye, some hundreds of metres east of Troy (‛trift’
according to Kehl (1986), described as pseudo-steppe). “The
poly-to euhemerobic sites of buildings and cultivated fields
were mainly occupied by ruderal and segetal communities,
very poor in species and reaching the ‛trift’ as well as the
disturbed macchie remnants with dense shrub patches.” (Kehl
1986, p. 612)
This illustrates again the ‛transition character’ of the flora as
part of the general ‛continuous variation’ (terminology
according to Rackham (1983), see also below) in
Mediterranean vegetation, which requires a totally different
approach to European phytosociology.
4.5 Studies on past vegetation with emphasis
on human influence
The problem of measuring the contribution of human interference
to the development of maquis vegetation is closely
related to the problem of the role of Mediterranean shrublands
in successional series, i.e. whether certain maquis types are in
fact climax communities. In the arid and semi-arid zones,
woodland elements left to regenerate do not become true
forests, and it is obvious that maquis must represent the climax
stage of the vegetation. In contrast, in the humid and subhumid
Mediterranean zones, where true forests may
theoretically develop, maquis is considered as a secondary
landscape of essentially anthropogenic origin (by grazing or
fire).
This view was questioned recently, because of the existence of
high-growing maquis communities which would render the
establishment of typical forest species impossible. Their soils
are also highly developed and practically identical to those of
the climax forests of the same regions (Quézel 1981a and
1981b). In this context, it is interesting that in Turkish there is
no specific term for ‛maquis’; maquis and woodland are both
translated as ‛orman’. As Hütteroth (1982) points out, the
difference between maquis and other woodland might not have
seemed significant enough to develop a different terminology.
He suggests a degradation hypothesis, however, because the
scrub species of the maquis are also found as trees under more
favourable conditions. A solid argument for degradation is the
lack of endemic species in the maquis, which is thought to
indicate that the impoverished coastal Mediterranean
vegetation is of relatively recent origin (Davis 1965-1988).
According to Pons and Quézel (1985), there is still not much
known about anthropogenic influence in prehistory, because of
the inadequate location of pollen sites. Bottema and Woldring
(1990) note that archaeological and palynological information
are rarely available for the same location, although proof of
habitation is usually an unambiguous sign of human impact. In
contrast to the Greek mainland, the Turkish Troad seems never
to have been of any interest to palynologists. Most of the
pollen sites in Turkey lie east of the 30th meridian (see
Bottema, Woldring and Aytug 1986, fig. 1). Only a somewhat
problematic pollen analysis is available from samples of
archaeological layers at Troy. Gennett and Gifford (1982)
found a very high incidence of Pinus pollen. The general
pattern was an increase in arboreal pollen until the end of the
Early Bronze Age. In Troy VI there seemed to be a slight
decrease and in Troy VII an increase, again to be replaced by a
sharp decrease in ar-boreal pollen in Troy IX. The species
contributing the most arboreal pollen is Pinus, but in Early
Bronze Age and from Troy VII onwards Quercus is also
represented. It is not possible to distinguish between pollen
from a shrubby form such as Quercus coccifera or from tall
trees (e.g. Q. aegilops), but it seems reasonable to assume,
based on the macroremains, which contain beside of acorns a
considerable proportion of species from open vegetation, that
prickly oak (the maquis component) is represented here.
As sketched briefly in chapter 1, the climate of the Late Glacial
seems to have been unsuitable for a dense tree growth (at least
until 11000 BP), and steppe or forest steppe prevailed (van
Zeist and Bottema 1982). Typical Mediterranean taxa are not
recorded in pollen diagrams from the Mediterranean coast of
Turkey, which might be a research gap, because the existence
of either Mediterranean-type forest or maquis is known in
other areas of the Mediterranean. For the second part of the
Postglacial (from 7000 BP onwards), pollen diagrams from
sites in southern Turkey (Beyşehir by Bottema, Woldring and
Aytug 1986), north-western Turkey (Ilipinar (Iznik region) by
Bottema and Woldring 1995) and southern Greece (Osmanaga
lagoon by Wright 1985) are all dominated by conifers (mainly
Pinus sp.) until early agricultural phases. This is followed by a
decrease of Pinus pollen percentages accompanying human
settlement from about 3500 BP, marked by the appearance of
fruit and deciduous trees such as Olea, Vitis and Quercus, and
the opening of the vegetation with indicators such as Plantago
lanceolata-type and Sarcopoterium spinosum. Their pollen can
be found in considerable quantity; Sarcopoterium spinosum
percentages from Beyşehir measure four times higher than the
modern values (Bottema, Woldring and Aytug 1986, p. 323).
Naturally, regional climatic differences lead to regional
differences in the chronology of changes in the composition of
arboreal pollen.
Palynological evidence for demographic events in different
regions of prehistoric Greece was presented by Bottema
(1982). With a selection of pollen diagrams of species
indicating human influence, he demonstrated that the periods
of strongest intensity of human influence on the vegetation
51

chapter 4: ecology
vary considerably from region to region, depending on
historical invasions and other migrations and on the nature of
settlement (whether people invaded fertile lowlands or if they
spread with large flocks over the landscape). This work was
enlarged to consider the role of primary and secondary
anthropogenic indicators in other regions of the Near East
(Bottema and Woldring 1990). According to the authors, the
first solid evidence of human activity supported by indicative
pollen types can be demonstrated at about 4000 BP, which
would fall into the Middle Bronze Age period in Troy.
Rackham (1983) points out that earlier knowledge of the
Mediterranean vegetation and the degradation of the forests
was mainly influenced by a cultural construction of the
environment. The supposition of most authors, for example,
that magnificent wild wood disappeared mainly since Classical
times, originated in western Europe and appears in the writings
of the eighteenth century traveller Sonnini. Rackham describes
the situation of speculation as caused by “western schoolboys
and artists being educated in Classical literature” and having
transferred the setting to the landscape of their own countries.
Instead he suggests that the change in vegetation structure
began in prehistory and was completed by Classical times; the
only changes after these periods took place from the beginning
of the 18th century, with the drainage of vast malarious areas.
His regional research in Boeotia suggests that the original
vegetation was patchy and consisted of wild wood and steppe.
Recent arguments that in some regions around the
Mediterranean, maquis vegetation is the climax vegetation (e.g.
Corsica) are supported by Rackham’s (1983, p. 344) statement,
“when browsing stops the vegetation does not necessarily
revert to the same state as if there had never been any
browsing”.
Rackham suggests that the original vegetation of wild wood
and steppe was converted partly to farmland and partly to a
mosaic of maquis, phrygana and steppe. The composition of
the maquis changed by browsing, so that the most browsingsensitive
species became extinct while there was an increase in
browsing-resistant species (e.g. Quercus coccifera and the
spiny shrubs). When browsing ceases, the mosaic structure of
maquis, phrygana and steppe persists: the “maquis becomes
woodland but the garrigue disappears into steppe” (Rackham
1983, p. 325).
4.6 Modern vegetation in the vicinity of Troy
Apart from a few older plant lists (Ascherson, von Heldreich
and Kurtz 1881), the vegetation of the Troad was never the
focus of detailed vegetation surveys. As in most of the
Mediterranean regions close to the coast, where tourism and
agriculture dominate the landscape, there are not many ‛natural
habitats’ left around Troy. Most of the valley is covered with
cereal fields (mainly naked wheats), pulses, tomatoes and
cotton. On the Low Plateau, mainly fruit trees such as olive
and almond are cultivated. Agriculture on the High Plateau is
very limited. Areas without arable fields are grazed by
domestic animals (mainly sheep and goat). Most farmers keep
a few goats, and larger herds are tended by shepherds.
As mentioned earlier, the effects of human influence are hard
to separate from those of climatic change, but man’s increasing
influence on the Mediterranean vegetation from Neolithic
times onwards is apparent in the light of the increase in the
global human population (disregarding regional and
chronological differences of the cycles of population increase
here).
From the accumulation horizons in the Skamander valley, it
seems that the inhabitants of Troy probably never experienced
a shortage of water. Troy’s intermediate topographical position
between the moist delta region and the drier hinterland on the
Low Plateau is reflected in the composition of the
archaeobotanical remains.
Most of the prehistoric plant remains are species still found
today in the Troad. Most of the modern plant communities
seem to have existed already in Early Bronze Age Troy,
although with their component species in different proportions.
In terms of comparisons of the flora represented by the
archaeobotanical remains with the modern flora in the study
area, it is important to note that “of the Mediterranean floras
only between 1 and 5% of the total number of contemporary
species will be found in archaeological remains”, and that this
“contrasts with the temperate European floras which are
represented by as much as 10 to 50% of the species” (Kislev
1986, p. 308). As one of the reasons for this disparity, Kislev
(1986) suggests limited opportunities for preservation in areas
which are too moist for the preservation of desiccated material,
and at the same time too dry for the existence of waterlogged
material. Additionally, he emphasises the importance of
increasing research in Mediterranean countries and expanding
sampling strategies to include areas further away from the
settlement such as sediment traps in marshland, rivers and
wells.
In order to provide a basis for comparisons of the prehistoric
species, modern ecological habitats are sketched in the
following paragraphs, as observed in April 1993 and the
following summers until 1995, with emphasis on those
vegetation units that are closer to Troy.
4.6.1 The pine woods of the High Plateau
In general, the plains were cleared for agriculture, and relicts
of woods were only present in the more impassable hilly
regions of the High Plateau.
The vegetation of the High Plateau was not investigated in
detail. The main components were more or less open Pinus
woods (P. halepensis and brutia), sometimes with large
amounts of Juniperus oxycedrus. One of the characteristics of
the Aleppo pine is its extreme drought-resistance.
4.6.2 Maquis, phrygana and steppe on the
Low Plateau
The Low Plateau, on which Troy is situated, is characterised by
patches of dark green Quercus coccifera shrubs, lighter greenbrown
small thorny cushions, dominated by Sarcopoterium
spinosum, and yellow areas of grass vegetation, combined with
other low-growing plants such as medicks and various other
52

chapter 4: ecology
small-seeded legumes. Several different types of maquis could
be observed in the Troad.
The semi-arid to subhumid bioclimate supports the persistence
of maquis and phrygana vegetation. Phrygana is the main
surface-covering vegetation unit beside the cereal fields and
olive and almond plantations. It consists in large proportions of
Sarcopoterium spinosum.
Other plants which normally accompany these species were not
found in the archaeobotanical material (except Thymelaea sp.),
possibly suggesting either a different ground cover in
prehistoric times or a selective collection of these two species
in the past. The sclerophyllous Quercus coccifera dominates
the maquis vegetation of the study area. This species is able to
form small trees of 3-5 m in height, but repeated fires and
browsing by domestic animals (particularly goat) keep them as
shrubs, which are common in most of the habitats in the Troad.
Tree-cutting and forest fires during the dry season may also
have done lasting damage to the maquis vegetation.
As already mentioned, the vegetation around Troy shows many
parallels to Rackham’s descriptions of Boeotia (Rackham
1983). In the Troad (near Beşik Bay), plants whose
‛theoretical’ habitats are very different are often found growing
together (e.g. Erica spp. with Phragmites australis). This
phenomenon is described by Rackham as a ‛continuous
variation’, in contrast to ‛discrete variation’, in which sharplydefined
plant communities each occupy a definite area, as in
the case of temperate European plant communities. However,
Rackham attempts to find parallels to the phytosociological
associations described by Zohary and Orshan (1965) in Crete.
The following terminology is used in accordance with
Rackham (1983).
Only two types of maquis could be found in the study area.
‛Pure oak macchia’ was abundant on the Lower Plateau in the
vicinity of Troy (e.g. Pasatepe, between Tevfikiye and Çiplak),
mainly on the edge of cultivated areas. No other trees were
found growing with the browsed prickly oak on the calcareous
bedrock. The maquis regionally appeared to be dense and tall,
with a high incidence of climbing Asparagus acutifolius. ‛Oak-
Olive Series’ were found near Taştepe in a zone of hills
leading to the higher plateau. This type of maquis was also
dominated by prickly oak, but with a high incidence of wild
olive. Wild pear was also abundant. Intensive browsing
exposed the bare surface of podzol-type soils (pers. com. K.
Pustovoytov). In areas that were protected against browsing
with fences of spiny bushes, big oak trees with a thick
underscrub and large quantities of thyme appeared. Another
frequent tree around Troy and on fields is the valonia oak
(Quercus macrolepis, syn. Quercus aegilops). The acorn-cups
were used as a source of tannin and the acorns were eaten by
people at least from Classical times.
Traditional vegetation science assumes a direct chain in
degradation from maquis to garrigue/phrygana, and with
further impoverishment of the substrates to communities
dominated by therophytes and geophytes. In reality, the system
seems to be much more complicated. Rackham (1983)
observed in Boeotia that the ‛degree of browsing’ and the
ground coverage by maquis are independent variables, i.e.
maquis would not necessarily disappear with an intensification
of browsing. Unfortunately he did not explain how the ‛degree
of browsing’ was measured. It is difficult, however, to measure
the relationship between the goat browsing activity (e.g. by the
amount of biomass consumed) and the transition from maquis
to phrygana vegetation.
4.6.3 The moisture-dependent flora of the
Scamander valley and the delta region
The semi-natural vegetation within the seasonally flooded area
along the Scamander river and its delta is characterised by
Cyperaceae, Gramineae and Juncaceae. Phragmites australis is
quite common on the banks of small streams. The vegetation
close to the water is also grazed by domestic animals.
Patches of meadows are found in depressions with a high water
table, in seepage areas, or on the edge of marshy places.
Meadows only occupy a very small area in the Mediterranean
zone (1-2%). In the delta zone of the Scamander river, which
today is grazed mainly by sheep, many plants are found that
are also recorded archaeobotanically. In general, the vegetation
is determined by the water supply, which explains the abovementioned
‛continuous variation’. The composition of the
hydrophytic/mesophytic vegetation is often uneven, with
communities dominated by only a few species (facies), such as
the small-seeded grasses and Cyperaceae.
A brackish delta region of the Scamander River was located
directly below the cities of Middle Bronze Age and Late
Bronze Age Troy (compare Maps 3-5).
A locality observed during April 1993 a few kilometres North
of Yenikumkale was remarkably poor in species, with a
tendency to ‛facies’ formation. Almost 50% of the vegetation
consisted of two halophytes, Arthrocnemum fruticosum and
Halimione portulacoides. Amongst other common species
were Salsola kali closer to the coast, and Scirpus maritimus,
Cyperus longus and Phragmites australis further away from
the coast on the riverside.
4.6.4 Other ‛pastures’
Beside the drier vegetation in the maquis on the Low Plateau
and the vegetation in the moist Scamander valley, other
localities with ‛grassland’-type vegetation were grazed by the
herds.
‛Grassland’ vegetation is usually considered to be typically
temperate European (see Körber-Grohne 1990). This is due to
a regional difference in husbandry. Livestock keeping, when
adapted to Mediterranean vegetation (grazing of maquis and
steppe-type plant communities), does not require large-scale
feed production or care of the pastures (see Halstead 1987a,
1987b). Similar ecological units European ‛grasslands’ exist in
the Mediterranean, despite the difference in husbandry
practices.
A ruderal slope was situated near the ancient harbour town
Alexandria Troad of the 4th cent. BC, ca. 23 km south of
Yeniköy.
The coastal slope, with sandy-loamy soils and limestone
pebbles, was covered with herbs, whereas dunes in the valley
were dominated by open, cushion formations of Astragalus
spp., Astracantha sp. and Acantholimon sp.. The slope
53

chapter 4: ecology
vegetation was dominated by Asphodeline lutea. Nitrophilous,
ruderal species were also abundant, their growth promoted by
the dung of grazing sheep. Additionally, weeds such as
Hypecoum procumbens and Lathyrus cicera were found,
probably due to the cereal fields on the plateau at the top of the
slope.
Considering the palaeogeography of Troy, it is probable that
similar grazing habitats were located on the slope directly
below the prehistoric city of Troy.
On the margins of the village of Kalafat, ca. 200 m north of the
river, sand dunes that were deposited as fluviatile alluvium
during the Roman period were examined for their flora. The
terrace-type hills were heavily overgrazed and, as a result, the
slopes were heavily eroded. Adjacent to the slopes, horse bean
was cultivated. In the transition area between pasture and crop
field different weed species (particularly Fumaria spp.) were
abundant. The other species, on the basis of autecology,
belonged mainly to the group of dryness indicators and
psammophytes (Sarcopoterium spinosum, Hippocrepis
unisiliquosa and other small-seeded legumes, Poa spp.).
Beşik Bay is a prehistoric harbour site close to Troy (for an
archaeological discussion see Korfmann 1986, Kayan 1996).
On the coast itself large heaps of Posidonia oceanica leaves
had accumulated. Further inland, a belt of Juncus sp. followed,
changing into a Juncus-Asphodelus belt. Arable fields bordered
these floristic units, and on the neighbouring slope cushions of
spiny shrubs were abundant. Within this heavily overgrazed
area, two geophytes, Asphodelus sp. and Ornithogalum sp.,
were dominant.
Belts of Juncus might already have been present on the slope
in prehistoric Troy, and could have been easily collected as
raw material for building purposes.
4.6.5 Plantations and arable fields
Almond and olive are the two main fruit trees under cultivation
in the vicinity of Troy. While almond is not recorded in the
archaeobotanical material, olive always appears among the
crops at Troy, except in the Middle Bronze Age. While almond
orchards were relatively rich in species, those with olive trees
were poor, and the trees were often protected with insecticides
and herbicides. These meadows were sporadically used for
grazing, however. Amongst the species observed under the
olive trees were Geranium dissectum, Erodium circutarium,
Papaver dubium, Fumaria sp., Ranunculus spp. and Sherardia
arvensis, which were nearly all represented in the prehistoric
material. In marginal regions and in transitional areas to
maquis or phrygana, shrubby formations (Sarcopoterium
spinosum) were a common component.
Only few vineyards were observed, near some small villages
close to the High Plateau. Amongst the weeds growing with
the grapes, several Lamiaceae were found (Salvia and
Ziziphora), as well as Trifolium spp., Scorpiurus muricatus,
Echium sp., Galium aparine, Fumaria sp., Papaver rhoeas,
Convolvulus arvensis, Anthemis cotula, Silene vulgaris,
Anagallis arvensis, Heliotropium europaeum, Medicago
orbicularis, Hymenocarpus circinatus and Erodium
circutarium, etc.. All these species are also recorded in the
archaeobotanical material.
The area was dominated by large-scale monocrop cultivation.
Only one relatively large field (c. 250 m²) with a broad
spectrum of vegetables (mainly cabbage) was found, probably
cultivated to sustain a single household. The field did not seem
to be cultivated anymore, and it was almost overgrown by
weeds (25-45%). It lay within a well-watered area with a
heavy, sandy to loamy soil, and was surrounded by meadows
used for grazing.
In previous years the cultivation of Brassica oleracea convar.
capitata var. capitata f. rubra, Brassica oleracea convar.
capitata var. capitata f. alba and Eruca sativa (syn. Eruca
vesicaria, garden rocket) evidently took place. Garden rocket
is an old crop and mainly used for salad. It was obviously
‛polycropped’ with Allium porrum. Further crops were
Spinacia oleracea, Apium graveolens, and different herbal
plants. It is doubtful whether Valerianella locusta and Sinapis
arvensis were cultivated intentionally.
The whole weed group was dominated by members of the
Chenopodietea. Other abundant weeds were Anthemis spp.,
Fumaria officinalis and Stellaria media.
4.7 The archaeobotanical species spectrum of
Troy and Kumtepe and its ecological
information
4.7.1 Potential habitats
For the ecological evaluation, the archaeobotanical species
were classified into groups of species with similar
autecological behaviour. Data on potential habitats were taken
mainly from Davis (1965-1988). Five principal ‛eco-groups’
were formed, i.e. crops, weeds, open vegetation (including
grassland-type, and dry habitats), water habitats (including
freshwater and coastal habitats), and more or less open woods
(including less open woodland and maquis-type vegetation)
(see appendix 4). Many of the species occur in modern
vegetation either in one or more of the eco-groups. The
category ‛open vegetation’ therefore contains many species
that might have originally been weeds or were growing in
maquis (particularly the grasses). On the other hand, it has to
be borne in mind that many of the species in the different ecogroups
(e.g. the moisture-indicating plants in the freshwater
category) might have been grown and harvested in the past
together with the crops, i.e. they may in fact represent weeds.
The category ‛weeds’ only contains those species that are
mentioned in modern literature as typical crop companions.
‛Vegetation near freshwater’ comprises those plants that are
characteristic of reedbeds or periodically submerged habitats,
on riversides, near ditches or irrigation channels, but also
plants with somewhat variable habitats that are mainly found
under wet conditions. Only a small group of salt-tolerant
species, found primarily near the sea coast were grouped under
the category ‛coastal vegetation’. Members of the shrubby
vegetation that grow today mainly in maquis or phrygana
vegetation were quite rare, and most of the plants that were
summarised in the category ‛open vegetation’ could also have
54

chapter 4: ecology
grown in maquis vegetation. ‛Woodland’ was understood as a
somewhat moist habitat found close to rivers. Today these
latter habitats are very rare, but theyare well-known from early
literature (Virchow 1879). The category of ‛open, dry
vegetation’ contains those species typically found on dry, poor
soils. ‛Grassland’-type vegetation comprises species growing
mainly on not too dry soils and that are preferentially grazed
by sheep and goats. Species of such habitats are found mainly
on slopes near the sea coast (e.g. Alexandria Troas or Beşik
Bay), but some of them are found also in crop fields.
4.7.2 Maquis on the Low Plateau
The existence of patches of maquis heavily grazed by goats has
to be assumed already in Early Bronze Age Troy. This
vegetation is dominated today by Quercus coccifera and small
amounts of other oak species, and Sarcopoterium spinosum.
Remains of both species are present in the archaeobotanical
material. Sarcopoterium spinosum is very abundant in
Kumtepe B and indicates that the vegetation at this time was
already relatively open (see chapter 3). Abundant acorn in
Troy VII suggests a probable use either for animal feed or for
human nutrition. Further components of maquis recorded in the
material are: Cistus spp., Paliurus spina-christi, Thymelaea sp.,
Teucrium flavum, Origanum vulgare, grasses and legumes (e.g.
Bromus spp., Eragrostis spp., Lolium rigidum, Lolium
perenne, Lolium multiflorum, Phalaris arundinacea, Medicago
spp., Trifolium spp., etc.), and also Juncus spp..
Some of the plants growing in maquis that are ignored by
livestock must have been actively collected and brought into
the settlement by prehistoric people, such as Sarcopoterium
spinosum for fuel. Its spiny cushions are neither likely to have
been tolerated in cereal fields, nor are they browsed by
animals. Other species that occur within ‛maquis pastures’ and
that are ignored by livestock are Carthamus sp., Centaurea sp.,
Onopordon sp., Silybum marianum, Juncus sp., Echium sp.,
Astragalus sp., etc., some of which might even have been used
by prehistoric people. In this case, Juncus sp., which was not
correlated with the crops and was presumably ignored by the
animals, might have been collected and used for matting or for
other creative purposes.
In general, the comparatively high percentage occurrence
(Graph 39) of members of the maquis vegetation in Late
Bronze Age Troy is equated with active collection of shrubby
plants for fuel, probably alongside increasing deforestation.
Grasses and other herbs of the former maquis communities
came into the settlement in different ways, i.e. with the crop
harvest grown in the new fields or with dung from grazing
animals, and the process of re-establishment of the woods was
hindered by intensive grazing and arable farming. In addition
to anthropo-zoogenic influences, small-scale climatic factors
such as summer drought should also be considered as causes of
deforestation (Sallares 1991).
4.7.3 Moisture-dependent plant communities
in the valley
Many of the meso- and hydrophytic plants might have grown
in meadows (particularly the more moisture-dependent grasses
such as Phalaris arundinacea, Phleum pratense, Poa trivialis),
or with the crops. Scirpus maritimus, for example, appears to
have grown with the cereals during some periods.
Some species that according to autecology are not necessarily
moisture-indicating plants should nevertheless be considered
potential valley species. The typical dung-derived composition
of samples from the early horizons at Troy comprises the
species Trifolium spp., Medicago spp., Carex divulsa,
Geranium dissectum and diverse small-seeded grasses, which
were all observed during first excursions (ca. 1879) in the
Troad by Calvert (Ascherson, von Heldreich and Kurtz 1881).
Seçmen and Leblebici (1978) mention the same plants in salty
and sandy habitats on Gökçeada.
Freshwater indicators are very common in Early Bronze Age
Troy and are correlated with dung-derived remains and
submerged algae from water supplies within the settlement.
The frequency of moisture-indicating species decreases
steadily through the Bronze Age periods at Troy. Coastal
habitats are most frequently represented in Middle Bronze Age
Troy, probably due to differences in agricultural practices.
4.7.4 The prehistoric grass species and their
significance in landscape reconstruction
The abundance and range of wild grasses from different
ecological habitats raises the question of the origin and mode
of deposition of remains of this plant family at Troy and
Kumtepe. The main problem is whether or not it is possible to
assess the use or function of the grasses, i.e. whether they are
derived from crop processing by-products or from dung, and to
obtain information from this major plant family on the use of
land during the whole settlement era.
A correlation analysis revealed the relationships between the
wild grass species and the crops, and through this information
provided indications of the possible origin, structure and
topographical position of habitats.
Using geomorphological data, the species were grouped into
two ecological groups according to their potential
topographical locations. Those species with more or less
hydrophytic behaviour were assumed to have potential habitats
in the valley. The others were thought most probably to have
habitats at a greater distance from the coast, e.g. on the Low
Plateau.
The different species were most abundant in different periods.
The most abundant grasses in each period were:
• Kumtepe: Bromus sp., Lolium sp., probably cereal weeds or
belonging to open vegetation
• Early Bronze Age Troy: Poa trivialis, very likely grown in
moisture-indicating habitats of the valley
• Middle Bronze Age Troy: Aeluropus littoralis, a typical
small grass of coastal areas, and Eragrostis cf. minor with
high ecological variability
• Late Bronze Age Troy: Lolium persicum, Phalaris sp.,
probably cereal weeds of relatively dry habitats
Those species not correlated with crops, and not likely, from
their autecology, to represent weeds, were considered to have
to come from either maquis-type or ‛grassland’-type
vegetation.
55

chapter 4: ecology
Correlation coefficients were calculated using SPSS. The
voluminous data required an additional publication (Riehl in
prep.), therefore, correlations are only presented here in a
qualitative form.
1. Kumtepe:
Bromus sp. and Lolium rigidum were correlated with each
other. Both species were also correlated with chaff and grain of
hulled wheats and barley. Bromus-and Lolium-grains surely
represent weeds of these cereals. Their correlation with cereal
grains highlights the problem of separating the
morphologically similar grass seeds from the cereal grains
during crop processing. The interpretation that the cereal fields
were definitely at some distance from the coast (i.e. at higher
elevation) is supported by the low percentage occurrence of
species from coastal habitats (compare Graph 39).
2. Early Bronze Age Troy:
Most of the wild grass species were correlated neither with
each other, nor with the cereals. On the other hand, correlations
with other species were found, e.g. Poa trivialis was correlated
with small-seeded legumes such as Trifolium sp. and Medicago
sp.. This kind of species combination is apparent in several
samples, which usually do not include cereal remains. This
combination of species must have been deposited within the
settlement through other means. As correspondence analysis
demonstrated in chapter 3, where the remains, together with
Carex divulsa-type and Geranium dissectum, were derived
from animal dung, representing pasture dominated by smallseeded
legumes and grasses.
Beside its use as fuel, dung might also have been used for
building purposes. In this case, the overwhelming sampling of
architectural units in Early Bronze Age Troy might also be
responsible for the high representation of dung-derived
remains. Seeds enclosed in mudbrick or daub may have been
carbonised when buildings were destroyed by fire. From the
prevalent context type, it has to be assumed that many of the
moisture-indicating plants came into the settlement in dung.
Considering the position of the ancient coastlines (see Maps 1
and 3-5) the delta region was at least 2 km from Troy.
Cultivation of cereals probably took place mainly on the Low
Plateau.
3. Middle Bronze Age Troy:
Eragrostis cf. minor and Aeluropus cf. litoralis were correlated
with several species, but not with each other. Eragrostis was
correlated mainly with barley grain, whereas Aeluropus was
correlated with emmer chaff. The interpretation of Eragrostis
is unclear. The association of this very light, small-seeded
species with barley grain seems unlikely to represent the
effects of crop processing. The position of the coastline implies
that there was moist land in the valley less than 1 km from
Troy, and the cultivation of emmer in the valley close to the
coast seems likely, as indicated by the correlation of emmer
and the moisture-dependent and salt-tolerant Aeluropus. Barley
was probably also cultivated in the valley, further from the
coast.
4. Late Bronze Age Troy:
Phalaris sp. and Lolium persicum were correlated with all the
cereals. Darnel was probably the main cereal weed in this
period. Many crops that were already established in the Middle
Bronze Age disappear to make way for a diet composed largely
of emmer, barley and probably bitter vetch. A concentration on
cereals is strongly suggested by the considerable increase in
abundance of Lolium spp.. In Troy VIIa, the period with
probably the largest population during the whole Bronze Age,
large quantities of chickpea suggest that this crop might have
been cultivated as a source of protein. In Troy VI and VIIb,
crop legumes are less common, which suggests that hunting
might have been a subsistence activity during these periods,
rather than a pastime, as suggested for Troy VI (Uerpmann,
Köhler and Stephan 1992).
For Troy VIIa the autecology of the species suggest relatively
dry growing conditions (see chapter 3). With the suggested
clearing of areas (maquis or steppe), as indicated by
correspondence analysis for Troy VIIa, a preferred location of
crop fields becomes evident on the Low Plateau, at least within
a 1-2 km radius of Troy (see large uneroded patches beyond
the 2kkm radius on Map 5). The high percentage occurrence of
freshwater plants in Troy VIIb, associated with cereals,
suggests additional cultivation in the valley, probably using the
fertile alluvium, in a period when soil erosion already affected
considerable areas of the Low Plateau.
4.7.5 The main aspects of landscape development
as evident from the
archaeobotanical remains
Many of the wild species did not belong to the weed category.
On the basis of sample composition, correlation and
correspondence analysis, many of these species were,
nevertheless, probably weeds.
In addition to some medicinal plants and the tenacious wetland
plants that were definitely used for roofing, matting, basketry,
etc. (Phragmites australis, Juncus spp., Typha latifolia), it was
obvious that many of the woody, spiny plants (e.g. Paliurus
spina-christi) that were not browsed were used for fuel. All
these plants were collected by the inhabitants from their
original habitats. The location of some species could be
designated, e.g. the Typha latifolia remains all belong to the
Lower City ditch (see chapter 3). By contrast, Juncus spp.
grew in the valley. With the emphasis on cultivating specific
areas (Low Plateau during Kumtepe and Early Bronze Age
Troy and Troy VI and VIIa, valley during Middle Bronze Age
Troy and Troy VIIb, see Maps 3-5) the landscape was
distinctly modified during the different periods.
Weed ecology, as a means of demonstrating anthropogenic
influence on the landscape by the intensity of agriculture,
revealed that the weed flora was probably well adapted to the
crops at least from Kumtepe B (see chapter 3). The weed flora
was diverse in Kumtepe A because no intensive arable farming
was practised, whereas intensification of field management is
indicated in Kumtepe B2, with a high abundance of annuals.
With Kumtepe B3 specialisation possibly developed further. In
general, Kumtepe B people probably cultivated their crops
further from the sea-shore, on freshly cleared woodland or
maquis. The associated grasses indicate mainly drier habitats.
56

chapter 4: ecology
During Kumtepe A the quantity of plants from moist habitats
was higher than in Kumtepe B (mainly Juncus sp., probably
for construction purposes).
The evolution of the landscape during the Early Bronze Age is
not as clear from the plant remains. The Early Bronze Age
fields were mainly, but not exclusively, on the Low Plateau,
because the delta was over 2 km from Troy. The already open
patches on the Low Plateau and in the river valleys were
probably used for grazing.
The general pattern from pollen analysis in Troy indicates an
increase in arboreal pollen (with a large proportion of oak) up
until the end of the Early Bronze Age (Gennett and Gifford
1982). This does not contradict the relative openness of the
vegetation deduced from plant macrofossils. Because trees and
shrubs of oak produce the same pollen, pollen analysis is not
able to distinguish maquis from woodland. There might have
been a shift from more closed to more open woodland or
maquis. The pollen record may therefore indicate an increase
in maquis-type vegetation in the landscape. This applies
especially to prickly oak, which can produce abundant pollen
(Rackham 1983). The suggestion that the landscape was
already very open during the early settlement also lies within
the probabilities of landscape development in other Aegean
regions, where deciduous oak forests disappear during
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Zangger 1992).
Middle Bronze Age Troians used the nearby delta more
intensively than the inhabitants of previous or following
periods, both for crop cultivation and for livestock grazing.
Their small-scale, intensive cultivation with the probable aim
of risk-buffering was very well adapted to the ecological
constraints of the dry climates their presumed ancestors were
used to in central Anatolia (see chapters 1 and 3).
The increase in the number of crop species is accompanied by
an increase in typical weeds and woodland vegetation. An
expansion of the cultivation area into the coastal area and
clearing of woodland for transformation into arable fields is
indicated. The higher presence of species from maquis-type
vegetation indicates the resettlement of this zone after it was
abandoned in the Early Bronze Age. The Middle Bronze Age
populations cleared some areas in the re-established, more or
less open maquis woods.
Changing use of the landscape is also indicated by a decrease
in the number of ‛grassland’-type species from the Early
Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age. This is also the case for
species from freshwater habitats.
The periods falling into Late Bronze Age (Troy VI, VIIa, VIIb)
are all very different in their ecological and economic aspects
(see chapter 3). An increase in species from Middle Bronze
Age to Late Bronze Age is demonstrated in all eco-groups (see
Graph 6).
The ecological situation in the settlement itself changed with
the construction of the Lower City ditches. The more or less
permanent moisture in the direct settlement area (as indicated
by finds of Alisma cf. gramineum, Typha latifolia, Eleocharis
uniglumis/palustris, Cyperus longus, and Scirpus maritimus)
could have been a good reason for keeping some of the
domestic animals (cattle and horses) in the City, most likely at
least from Troy VIIa. Life and production seem to have been
more concentrated on the Low Plateau in Troy VIIa. Although
it is probable that livestock were fed with crop legumes from
time to time during Late Bronze Age Troy, grazing must have
still made up a large proportion of the animal diet. The same
areas as in the earlier periods were used for grazing. Livestock,
or at least the use of its dung, would have become increasingly
important during Troy VIIa. It is hard to tell whether the dung
was used due to a scarcity of wood, because most dung-derived
plant remains were found in buildings thought to have been
used to house domestic animals.
A shift in dominant eco-groups is recognisable through the
three periods of the Late Bronze Age. While in Troy VI and
VIIb moisture and freshwater-indicating plants are very
abundant, Troy VIIa is dominated by members of the
‛grassland’-type vegetation. In Troy VIIb the inhabitants
shifted their fields into the fertile valley, as evidenced by an
increase in the number of perennials and the associations of
einkorn and barley with moisture-indicating plants.
In general one has to assume that, beginning with Kumtepe B,
the people cleared the landscape for fuel and building material,
which resulted in a more degraded vegetation with phrygana
elements such as Sarcopoterium spinosum, Cistus spp., etc.,
which were also used for fuel. The demand for fuel for various
uses (metal production, domestic fires) remained a daily
concern which was probably satisfied by alternatives such as
burning dung. The production of dung cakes is not obviously
evident, but it appears very likely from some concentrated
contexts in layers older than Troy I and from Middle Bronze
Age houses, where fuel was probably stored beside the hearths.
The composition of samples containing plant remains derived
from dung allows a designation of their origin. The early dungderived
remains (Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age)
came mainly from grazing on coastal slopes and in the valley.
Plants from open, not too dry vegetation, namely Trifolium sp.,
Medicago sp., Carex divulsa, and Poa trivialis type, typify
samples interpreted as dung-derived in the early periods of
Troy, and were ecologically grouped into ‛grassland’ type
habitats. Later (at least from Troy VI), the additional feeding of
animals with crops (bitter vetch and barley) becomes likely.
The dung components from the earlier periods can be observed
to decrease slightly and fuel needs might have been met to a
small extent by increased cutting of maquis and an enlargement
of the agricultural area into the hinterland. The aspect of the
production of fodder crops may also lead to speculations about
social implications. Whereas people seem to have lived during
Middle Bronze Age Troy within an economic system not
necessarily co-ordinated by an elite, a probable centralisation
of agriculture during Late Bronze Age could have made it
possible to afford the time-consuming production of animal
feed (under the premise that bitter vetch was partially
cultivated to be fed to animals).
However, the openness of the vegetation and the increase of
maquis and phrygana vegetation over time is also plausible
from soil science and geomorphology. Erosion also seems
likely from the archaeobotanical remains at least during Late
Bronze Age, with a probable increase in the area of fields into
the valley.
57

chapter 5: economy
5 Economic aspects of the Bronze Age
Troad
“Economics, deriving etymologically like Ecology from the
Greek ’oikos’, a household, is the study of how humans put
together distribution methods for any commodity, which is in
limited supply.” (Simmons 1993, p.7)
Much has been written on Aegean agriculture, but with an
emphasis on the Classical period (e.g. Isager and Skydsgaard
1992). An early contribution to the study of Bronze Age food
is that of Vickery (1936). At this early stage of Aegean
archaeobotany it was not possible to interpret the remains in
terms of agricultural development or its ecological
consequences. Socio – political dimensions of agriculture were
even more a matter of speculation than they are today. Halstead
(1992) has integrated different information sources (Linear B
archives and bioarchaeology) to construct a well – rounded
picture of the relation between non – palatial agriculture and
palatial economy as evident from the archives (see below).
Major contributions to understanding the distinct operations in
cereal processing were made by Hillman (1984b) for Turkey
and by Jones (1984a) for Greece. A rare comparative
description of the development of early agriculture in Europe
and the Near East is provided by Hubbard (1980).
5.1 Some environmental constraints on
Mediterranean agriculture
Precipitation and relief are the most important features in the
natural environment of the Mediterranean that influence
traditional farming (Grigg 1974). The main part of the
population live in the Mediterranean coastal lowlands that are
characterised by mild, moist winters and hot summers. Rainfall
peaks during winter promote plant growth more effectively
than summer rainfall, but “dry farming (cropping systems that
rely on precipitation in dry lands or during dry seasons) is risky
because precipitation is not only near the lower limit for
cultivation but also unreliable” (Henry 1989, p.116).
Agriculture in dry summer lands shares some features with that
of dry lands and shares others with that of humid temperate
regions. “The resemblance of field systems in the
Mediterranean basin to those of humid temperate Europe is
particularly strong,....” (Henry 1989, p.116).
Decrue farming (planting just above receding floodwaters) is
not very useful in the winter rainfall area of the Mediterranean
basin. Cereals nevertheless have to mature mainly under hot
conditions. In coastal areas the groundwater table is high and
easily accessible to crop roots. Salinisation often accompanies
this kind of agriculture.
Where rainfall is barely enough for dry farming, cereals
dominate the crop mix and legumes virtually disappear. In the
Mediterranean, the precipitation is sufficient for the cultivation
of fruit trees too.
For most of the periods at Troy agriculture was practised both
in depressions of the Low Plateau, and in the valley. Moisture
– indicating plants that occurred as weeds suggest cultivation
mainly in the valley during Troy VIIb. During the Middle
Bronze Age Troy, salt – tolerant species indicate the vicinity of
fields to the delta (see chapters 3 and 4). During the Kumtepe
periods, crops must have been cultivated mainly at some
distance from the sea – shore, as they were during Troy VI and
VIIa, on the Low Plateau. Any kind of irrigation with cropping
on the Low Plateau is not evident.
On the Greek mainland, the heavily broken relief leads to
considerable diversity of topography, and therefore to different
features in the management of the landscape. The climatic
factor favouring grassland in the Mediterranean is summer
aridity. The shape of the landscape favours a transhumant
economy. Livestock can be wintered in the lowlands and then
migrate into the mountains during the summer heat. This
seasonal transhumance in some Mediterranean regions, where
bare fallowing (cereal/pulse rotation began to replace bare
fallowing only recently) keeps the grazing potential low, and
forces farmers with their livestock to switch over into other
regions, is the most fundamental distinction between traditional
Mediterranean and temperate European farming (Halstead
1987b). Historically, summer – winter transhumance is often
taken for granted as an inevitable consequence of
environmental constraints. Twice – yearly movement permits
the maintenance of larger populations (of both livestock and
people) and is therefore an important aspect in considering the
economy of past populations.
The herding of livestock on a large scale in the past has,
however, rarely been demonstrated. Halstead (1987b) assumes
that the ecological niche occupied by traditional transhumant
pastoralists is not a natural feature of the Mediterranean
landscape, and developed much later. Mountain pasture might
have been very limited in extent even in later prehistory.
The more or less even relief of the Low Plateau on which Troy
is situated, borders the High Plateau with its more mountainous
vegetation more than 6 km from the site. Considering the
availability of moist pastures in both river valleys (Scamander
and Simois) it is questionable whether it was ever necessary to
practice transhumance. Only for Early Bronze Age Troy the
situation is somewhat unclear, and it is possible that herding
was such an important economic factor that it determined
settlement behaviour, at least for a part of the population.
Considering the shape of the landscape of the Troad, livestock
management could have been well practised as a profession
(i.e. migration of shepherds). An estimate of the size of flocks
might indicate the biomass and the grazing area needed to
sustain the livestock. Furthermore, the characterisation of other
sites in the Troad as temporary or permanent sites will provide
more information on the economic function of herding within
the whole landscape (see chapter 1).
5.2 Crop husbandry before harvest – fallow
and manure
Autecological examination of the weed flora reveals a good
deal about aspects of cultivation such as soil management or
soil characteristics that are intrinsic to ecology. Life form,
classification into potential habitats, growing height, etc.
inform about the circumstances under which the weed flora
developed and can offer insights into prehistoric agricultural
techniques. These aspects were studied using correspondence
analysis (chapter 3) and are discussed below.
The evidence of fallowing at an archaeological site influences
the evaluation of prehistoric yields, or more generally of the
58

chapter 5: economy
productivity of the past society. Also of economic importance
is the duration of the fallow, i.e. the regeneration time for the
soil. The introduction of fallowing might be deduced from an
increase in perennials, because typical field weeds are mainly
annuals. It is difficult to assess whether new fields were
opened on previously cultivated and partially regenerated
ground or if natural habitats, which had never been cultivated
before, were used for this purpose, as it is the case in Troy
VIIb.
Boserup’s (1970) well – known model of various types of
fallowing, differentiated mainly by their duration of up to ten
years, was developed for temperate Europe, and does not work
well in the Mediterranean area. “Long fallow systems serve
little if any function and are indeed rare...” (Henry 1989,
p.135).
Although fields running wild were observed between 1993 and
1995 (see chapter 4), a systematic fallow is not practiced in the
Troad today and is also not evident for prehistoric Kumtepe
and Troy.
The abundance of perennials in Troy VIIb might have been
seen as evidence for a recultivation of fields on the Low
Plateau after fallow, but as the crops are more closely
associated with moisture – and water – indicating plants than in
Troy VIIa, it is more plausible that new fields were opened on
the fertile alluvium in the Scamander river valley.
Soils of sufficient quality are common on the alluvial plains of
dry summer lands, though the total area is not great. The
supply of animal manure is comparatively short in contrast to
the more humid sections of Europe (Henry 1989). Evidence for
manuring in prehistory seems only to be obtainable with
comprehensive studies of sherd scatters around settlements,
where the prehistoric fields might have been located (see
Wilkinson 1990). The presence of nitrophilous plants in the
archaeobotanical remains, while it may be due to manuring, is
also an indicator of increased mechanical processing of the soil
(cf. van der Veen 1992).
The archaeobotanical remains from Kumtepe and Troy cannot
prove that the fields were deliberately manured, although
grazing animals surely manured the soils indirectly. The finds
of dung remains within the settlements (particularly Troy),
often in connection with ovens, and the evident scarcity in
wood from early periods already demonstrate a use of a major
part of dung for fuel.
5.3 Crop – processing after harvest
Ethnographic studies made a major contribution to the
understanding of the structure of prehistoric agricultural
production and the taphonomy of archaeobotanical samples.
The following paragraphs are mainly based on observations of
the nature of traditional agriculture that were conducted in
Greece or in Anatolia by two archaeobotanists (Hillman 1984a,
1984b and 1985), Jones (1983a, 1983b and 1984a).
Hillman (1981) approaches agricultural techniques through
consideration of traditional crop – processing methods and
their products and by – products. Differences in labour input
become very obvious with the processing of hulled and free –
threshing cereals. Similarly Jones (1984a) differentiates crop –
processing stages by discriminant analysis, which identifies the
samples as distinct waste products (or products).
The basic sequence of crop processing consists of the
following stages.
Harvesting
It was earlier suggested that the harvesting height can be
deduced from the growing heights of the dominant weed
species. Since Hillman (1981, p.151) pointed out that primitive
cereals (e.g. Anatolian emmer) have very variable growing
heights this approach became questionable. Furthermore, the
weed seed composition of storage samples proved to be more
directly related to threshing than to reaping technique, and
several weed species may have been sieved out already. After
the harvest a drying process of the sheaves follows, either in
the field or in the settlement.
Threshing
The implements that can be used for threshing are diverse.
Threshing sledges, trampling of hooves or wooden beaters and
flails have been documented as ways of releasing the grain
from the straw and chaff. Sometimes a second threshing has to
follow after the first winnowing, e.g. to remove awns. The
abundant by – product provides good animal feed. This is
probably one of the reasons why it is rarely found near fire
places.
After threshing the hulled wheats can be stored in their
spikelets to protect them from pests, particularly in areas with
moist summers (Hillman 1984a). This kind of storage was also
evident for emmer at Troy and Kumtepe (see below).
Winnowing
For separating straw, light chaff and light weed seeds from the
grain, the crop is thrown e.g. with a big fork outdoors into the
wind. The heavy remains (grains, heavy or big weed seeds) fall
straight to the ground, the light remains fall somewhat further
downwind in another heap. If the crop was threshed a second
time, a second winnowing would follow.
Coarse sieving
The crop is sieved with large meshes. The grain passes through
the sieve, whereas all the larger parts (unthreshed ears, heads
of weeds, heavy culm nodes) stay in the sieve.
Fine sieving and storage
A narrow meshed sieve is used to remove small weed seeds
from the grain. The cleaned grain remains in the sieve. In
traditional agriculture the by – product is used for chicken feed
or directly thrown into the fire, but in general all the by –
products may be used for animal fodder. Most of the crop –
processing by – products from Troy and Kumtepe are fine
sieving by – products (see below).
Before food processing the crop is handsorted to remove final
impurities (e.g. weedy grass seeds).
Hillman’s method makes use of the different ratios that belong
to certain processes. Each processing stage creates different
proportions of caryopses, chaff and weeds (Hillman 1984a and
1984b).
The ratio of the number of glume bases to glume wheat grains
59

chapter 5: economy
indicates whether the crop was cleaned or if a probable fine –
sieving residue is represented.
While emmer spikelets contain two grains making a ratio of
spikelet forks : grains of 1:2=0.5, einkorn spikelets usually
contain one grain (if not two – grained, which occurs often in
the Troy samples) making a ratio of 1:1=1. If the ratio is
considerably higher than 0.5 for emmer or 1 for einkorn (more
glume bases than grains) the sample is likely to represent a by
– product. A ratio of less than 0.5 for emmer and 1 for einkorn
(more grains than glume bases) might indicate a cleaned
product.
Similarly, the ratio of the number of barley rachis internodes to
barley grains makes a ratio of 1:3=0.3 (three grains per rachis
in six – row barley).
A ratio of ca. 0.3 could represent a sample with complete ears.
A ratio of much more than 0.3 (more rachis internodes than
grains) indicates a by – product. A ratio of less than 0.3
suggests the presence of barley grains from later crop –
processing stages.
The ratio of the number of weeds to the number of grains also
indicates whether the crop is cleaned or if a by – product is
represented. The higher the number, the more likely a by –
product is represented.
If a site contains a very broad species spectrum and dung
remains as in Troy, it is very difficult to classify the wild
species according to potential habitats, and the ratio can
become very unreliable.
The ratios of glumes (rachises) to grains are visible within the
calculation of the sample compositions and show a clear
dominance of by – products for the whole data set (compare
the different pie charts in ch. 3.2). The proportions of chaff and
grain were used as the basis for classifying the samples either
as crop storage or as crop – processing by – products.
A statistical method (discriminant analysis) to detect crop –
processing stages, was worked out by Jones (1987b), and is
based on ethnographic research in Greece (Kolofana). Products
and by – products from traditional crop – processing were
analysed for the characteristics of weed seeds that best
distinguished between the known groups of products from
those processing stages, which are the most likely to come into
contact with fire, and thus be preserved (winnowing by –
products, coarse sieve by – products, fine sieve by – products,
fine sieve products (Jones 1984a)).
The characteristics that best distinguish between the known
groups and are relevant to crop – processing are combinations
of three morphological characters of the weed seeds (see also
chapter 2). The characters are seed size, ’headedness’
(tendency of seeds to remain in heads with the crop –
processing, rather than loose), and ’aerodynamic / lightness’.
The combinations of these three characters in one weed species
lead to six categories to be assigned to the seeds of the
different weed species (see appendix 4).
The application of the new variables to the whole set of species
leads to the allocation of the samples to the four crop –
processing stages. Because of the high ’fidelity’ according to
which products and by – products have similar compositions
independent of the site, it is possible to use this method to
identify the crop – processing stage in archaeological sites
where the exact methods of crop – processing are unknown.
The species of the samples from Troy were assigned the same
way to categories of weed taxa (see appendix 4). The analysis
was run and plotted to Jones’ Kolofana data with SPSS (see
Graph 44).
5.4 Crop husbandry at Bronze Age Troy and
Neolithic/Chalcolithic Kumtepe
With the interpretation of the data from the different periods it
was difficult to decide whether differences in crop composition
were caused by changing economy in time, or if they were
caused by varying taphonomy. In general the difficulty of this
decission falls with the increasing number of samples. For
Bronze Age Troy and Kumtepe B the sample set is considered
to be comprehensive enough for chronologically related
statements.
The following paragraphs contain descriptions of the
agricultural differences throughout the periods.
5.4.1 Barley cultivation
The first increase of barley to a dominant crop appears in
Kumtepe B2, with a shift from lentil and bitter vetch in
Kumtepe A to cereals in Kumtepe B. During Early Bronze Age
absolute numbers of barley are very low and increase strongly
during Middle Bronze Age Troy, also in ubiquity. Barley was
an important crop in the subsistence economy of Troy VI. Late
Bronze Age storage finds of mixed barley and bitter vetch are
abundant and from the situations in context (amongst dung
remains in the assumed stables) it seems that these finds are
purposive mixtures for animal feed that would only have been
suitable for ruminants such as cattle because of the toxins in
uncooked bitter vetch seeds. Another explanation would be
that of maslins for possible human consumption. However, it is
not possible to decide whether these mixtures were produced
deliberately by humans or if they appear just accidentally.
During the periods of Late Bronze Age Troy there is a shift in
the preferred cereals for cultivation. From the abundance of
grains, barley is the main crop in Troy VI and VIIb, whereas in
Troy VIIa emmer and einkorn are the relatively preferred
cereals (see chapter 3). This might demonstrate the influence of
the elite in Troy VIIa, specialised in emmer and einkorn
appropriation, and its break – down at the end of Troy VIIa.
With the probable start of small – scale cultivation in the fertile
valley in Troy VIIb, barley might again have been the better
candidate for these growing conditions. The more salt –
tolerant barley (better germination under such conditions)
should have brought probably better yields than the wheats on
the somewhat salty ground in the delta valley (Behre 1990)
(compare Map 5). Hulled barley grains had their highest seed
numbers in the Middle and Late Bronze Age samples (Troy VI
and VIIb), their ubiquity was very high during Troy VII
(Graph 40). Rachis internodes are ubiquent and abundant in the
samples from Kumtepe and Middle Bronze Age Troy, which
indicate the presence of early crop – processing stages.
Considering the debate over the recognition of ’consumer’ and
’producer sites’, i.e. that in ’consumer sites’ rachis remains
would not be well represented because they are by – products
of early crop – processing stages, and the ’producers’ had
60

chapter 5: economy
therefore already cleaned them out, one could interpret the
presence of early crop – processing stages further that
Kumtepe settlers and Middle Bronze Age Troians produced
their own barley, whereas in Late Bronze Age Troy the low
representation of rachis remains might indicate that mainly late
crop – processing stages are represented corresponding with
the presence of storage facilities. This would support the
hypothesis of a co – ordinated economic system with the
appropriation of cleaned barley crop from the surrounding
producing farming villages.
Recalling the taphonomy of Early Bronze Age Troy contexts,
the low absolute numbers are confirmative, whereas relatively
high ubiquity in grains suggests a certain importance of this
crop.
5.4.2 Free – threshing wheats
Mulholland and Rapp applied a combined method of
morphology and statistics to identify phytoliths from Triticum
durum (!) and suggested from their concentrations in the
earliest horizons that this tetraploid wheat was cultivated since
early Troy I (Mulholland, Rapp and Gifford 1982). According
to these authors harvesting methods must have included up –
rooting, because phytoliths of the roots were also found.
Furthermore, from the archaeological context, it was suggested
that the wheat culms were mixed into the clay plaster coating
the walls.
An early presence of naked wheat is evident for many Near
Eastern and Mediterranean sites (Zohary and Hopf 1993). Only
a few grains of the category Triticum aestivum / durum were
found amongst the Early Bronze Age macrofossils, which does
not support the suggestion of an intensive cultivation. In Troy
IV Triticum aestivum / durum rachis remains are very
abundant, suggesting the cultivation and local processing of
free – threshing wheat. Definite rachis remains were not found.
In Late Bronze Age Troy the percentage occurrence of
Triticum aestivum / durum grains increases, but by comparing
the absolute counts, its importance as a crop seems to be
negligible. Only in Post – Bronze Age Troy does the increase
of rachis remains from this category indicate a more intensive,
but still far from dominant cultivation of this crop.
All in all, free – threshing wheat was probably never cultivated
on a large scale and even during periods, where the crop is
abundantly recorded (Middle Bronze Age), people have
concentrated on the cultivation of other crops.
5.4.3 Hulled wheats
Emmer and einkorn were the main crops during Kumtepe B3.
In the Lower and in the Upper City of Troy II, storage of semi
– cleaned emmer grain is likely, considering the existence of
storage pits and the crop – processing by – products (i.e. high
abundance of the chaff remains and few weed remains).
During this period einkorn was in its abundance only slightly
behind emmer cultivation. From the Middle Bronze Age,
emmer and einkorn start to decrease in percentage occurrence,
but still remained the most important crops in the Troad until
the end of the Bronze Age (particularly during Troy VIIa).
Being aware of the problems of early identifications (see
chapter 1), a comparison is difficult to make between the
average indices from Early Bronze Age emmer found by
Wittmack, Schiemann and Shay and those of Late Bronze Age
emmer from the recent excavations in Troy (Table 3). The
variability of seed shapes is great.
The averages of Late Bronze Age emmer lie somewhere in
between Wittmack’s and Schiemann’s measurements of Early
Bronze Age grains and resemble the Late Bronze Age emmer
grains from Kastanas (Kroll 1983). However, the meaning of
these measurements only seems to raise doubt about the value
of measurements and comparisons of different sites based on
such measurements. The only thing the measurements tell us
about is the variability of emmer at Troy, although the
measurements might not be representative for the whole site.
Cultivated einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and wild einkorn
(traditionally named Triticum boeoticum, today often Triticum
monococcum subsp. boeoticum) are morphologically very
similar, although the kernels of the cultivated forms tend to be
wider. Boeoticum wheats are distributed over a wide ecological
range, so that several major eco – geographical, but also
morphological types are differentiated (Zohary and Hopf
1993). Hopf (1962a) describes the type Triticum aegilopoides,
which prevails in the north and north – west part of its range
(Aegean, Balkans, Crimea), and the two – grained type
Triticum thaoudar, which is common in the summer – dry
southern areas. Additionally there is a wide range of variation
in spikelet morphology in many Anatolian populations of wild
einkorn (Zohary and Hopf 1993).
Because the morphological characteristics in the prehistoric
finds are usually reduced to the shape of the grains and the
spikelet forks, the designation to a specific type (one – and two
– grained varieties of wild and cultivated einkorn) becomes
very difficult, taking into account the changes in morphology
by combustion, the considerable intraspecific variability, and
the existence of intermediate forms.
In Troy both types, the one – grained and the two – grained
exist. Seeds from one – grained einkorn are dominant
throughout all the periods, but in Early Bronze Age Troy the
two – grained has almost the same percentage occurrence as
the one – grained einkorn. It is not possible to determine
however, whether one – and two – grained seeds are from the
ear of one single species (e.g. as in wild einkorn) or if they
derive from differing varieties.
5.4.4 Pulses
Crop legumes were of variable significance in all the periods.
Whereas in Kumtepe A lentil and bitter vetch constitute the
main crops, they almost disappear in Kumtepe B. Also in Early
Bronze Age Troy they were not amongst the abundant crops.
From Middle Bronze Age Troy onwards they are frequent
again, with different species.
Lathyrus sativus/cicera always occurred as a weed and
accompanied bitter vetch storages or lentil finds in small
numbers.
The ubiquities of the different crop legumes in the different
periods are presented in Graph 41. As previously mentioned, in
Kumtepe samples (mainly A) Vicia ervilia had the highest
ubiquity, followed by Lens culinaris. Vicia ervilia remains the
most ubiquitous legume over all the periods. In Middle Bronze
Age Troy Pisum sativum has its main ubiquity. In Troy VIIa
Cicer arietinum appears ubiquitous and abundant, whereas in
Troy VIIb Lens culinaris and bitter vetch are of higher
61

chapter 5: economy
ubiquity again (see also chapter 3). In Post – Bronze Age Troy
the ubiquities are similar to those of Late Bronze Age, but
slightly lower and with an absence of Cicer arietinum and a
new appearance of Pisum sativum. Horse bean, which always
occurred infrequently, increases slightly in ubiquity during
Post – Bronze Age Troy.
Apart from the shift in preference for one or the other legume
crops, a chronological change in seed morphology could also
be observed. A general pattern of size difference between the
crop legumes from Kumtepe and from Troy was observed
during the analyses and is exemplified with some
measurements of Vicia ervilia.
The proportions are constant, but length and width of the seeds
from Kumtepe and Late Bronze Age Troy show a more or less
neat separation between the generally smaller Kumtepe seeds
and the larger Troy seeds. At Kastanas Kroll (1983) found a
seed size reduction in bitter vetch in the course of time. The
smaller Late Bronze Age seeds from Kastanas are similar to
the Kumtepe seeds, while the larger seeds from Early Bronze
Age Kastanas are very similar to Late Bronze Age Troy seeds
of bitter vetch. A better correspondence in size is with the Late
Bronze Age finds from Tiryns (Kroll 1984).
At Troy the increased seed size of bitter vetch might be related
to different agricultural techniques. Most of the bitter vetch in
Late Bronze Age Troy belongs to Troy VIIa, the period with
probable elite organisation of the economy. Agriculture was
very likely large – scale, which is indicated for example by the
high abundance of Secalietea members in the weed flora.
Intensification of agricultural methods, would make an
increase in seed size intelligible.
The economic use of Vicia ervilia in prehistoric times is not
clear (Zohary and Hopf 1993). The plant was cultivated
already in Aceramic Neolithic Near East, where it has its
primary centre (Zeven and de Wet 1982, van Zeist 1988). At
least since Roman times the crop was grown mainly for fodder
and was only used for human nutrition in extreme cases of
famine (Ladizinsky 1989). For hay production, it is cut before
maturity and air dried, i.e. the seeds are unlikely to be collected
other than for reasons of establishing the crop in the next year
(Ladizinsky 1980). The toxins within the raw fruit
(hydrocyanic acidic glycoside) can be degraded by cooking.
These toxins are harmful for man, horses and pigs, but are
tolerated by ruminants, such as cows and sheep, and by
poultry.
It seems probable that bitter vetch with the strongest ubiquity
of all legumes during all the periods, could have been used as
animal feed, not least during Late Bronze Age Troy. During
this period, the legume is often found mixed with barley and is
ubiquitous in the presumed stables or byres (see chapter 3). At
Neolithic Kumtepe A it might have been harvested as a mixed
crop with lentil. Deliberate crop mixtures (maslins, Halstead
and Jones 1995) are common in traditional Mediterranean
agriculture and function as a risk – buffer. In good years they
may be used as fodder, while in bad years they serve as human
food.
5.4.5 Fruit cultivation – with emphasis on olive
It has been suggested that the olive was collected from the wild
long before it was cultivated. Generally, Neolithic finds are
assumed to derive from the wild, definite signs for cultivation
with larger seed numbers are apparent from Chalcolithic
Palestine. Outside Palestine early finds are rare, but from
Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age olive cultivation is
well – established in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf
1993). Olive cultivation is often discussed within the
framework of stratified societies, as an object of specialisation
and as a trade product. Socio – political implications of the
development of horticulture are seen in the necessity of
permanent fields in turn related to residential stability. The
initial heavy investments of labour and capital – an olive tree
has to grow 15 – 20 years before it gives the full yield, and
produces in alternate years only – make horticulture
incompatible with short – term proprietorship.
Renfrew’s model (C. Renfrew 1972) that the rise of Mycenean
civilisation was only possible because of the establishment of
the ’polycultural triad’ of wheat, vine and olive in the Early
Bronze Age, has been recently discussed again in relation to
the intensity of early olive cultivation. He suggested that in the
Early Bronze Age Levant and in Greece there must have been
an increased economic interdependence between various
regions resulting from the topographical situation of the plains
and the valleys being better suited for grain – cultivation, while
the foothills and highlands were optimal for horticulture,
leading to an emerging stratified society. The notion is
generally accepted that with the emergence of an elite, the base
for commercial production of commodities like olive oil and
vine was warranted.
However the general scarcity of olive finds amongst the
archaeobotanical remains of Bronze Age (particularly Early
Bronze Age) sites raised doubts about early olive cultivation
(e.g. Runnels and Hansen 1986, Hamilakis 1996). The question
surrounding the beginnings of olive cultivation is also
discussed comprehensively, for example by Amouretti (1992),
Melena (1983), Barton (1990), Brothwell (1969), Forbes
(1992), Kiliç (1995) and Neef (1990).
The difference in seed length between wild Olea europaea var.
oleaster, with shorter seeds, and the cultivated Olea europaea,
is often used to distinguish one from the other, but according to
Runnels and Hansen (1986) the overlap is too extreme to rely
on this kind of separation. The authors suggest that because
wild and domesticated olive are probably indistinguishable by
their kernels, the few recorded finds of olive in Aegean Early
Bronze Age (more extensive olive records occur only on Crete)
do not prove intensive olive cultivation at this time, which may
not have started until the Late Bronze Age or even later.
Because charcoal also cannot reveal whether domesticated or
wild olive is represented, palynological evidence was called
upon to do so. Runnels and Hansen (1986) note that even
though it is possible to distinguish between the pollen of the
wild and the cultivated olive, most pollen identifications only
go as far as the genus level. In contrast, others claim that it is
not possible to distinguish between pollen of wild and
cultivated olive at all (Pons and Quézel 1985).
Olive pollen in general increases quite late and suggests that
for most areas of Greece, olive cultivation was not practised
62

chapter 5: economy
intensively until the end of the Bronze Age or even the
beginning of the Archaic period. Some early increases in
pollen from Crete, which were identified as the domesticated
type, were dated from 3900 bc and imply that olive cultivation
started here much earlier than elsewhere in the Aegean
(Gennett and Gifford 1982).
Remains of olive oil in pottery might indicate its industrial use
as an edible grease, for lighting purposes and for soap
production (Levey 1954), but the extension of olive oil
production, i.e. the quantity, can only be indicated by finds of
equipment involved with olive oil production (e.g. presses, vats
or simple pits in the bedrock as common in Palestine). Press
beds which might have been used for pressing olives were
found at different Late Minoan sites, whereas no Bronze Age
presses are known from the Greek mainland (Runnels and
Hansen 1986).
In the Late Bronze Age written evidence provides another
source of information. Intensive olive oil production in Linear
B texts on Knossos shows how important this economic factor
was in some of the Aegean regions (Warren 1985). There are
already letters for olive in Linear A texts. In the Linear B
tablets there are two syllabograms (TI and A) which probably
refer to distinct types or qualities of olives. In antiquity
different kinds of olives and olive oil were already known
(Wittenburg 1980). It has been discussed whether ’A’ stands
for the wild olive and ’TI’ for the domesticated form
(Chadwick 1976). Estimations about the amount of the olive
oil produced and the raw material used to do so were made by
Chadwick (1976) and Melena (1983). They assume that the
amount of oil produced was only small and that the names in
the tablets used for olive and the olive oil refer more frequently
to wild olives than to domesticated ones. The wild olive might
therefore have been exploited as much as the domesticated and
used for the same purposes as the domesticated olive. With the
Linear B tablets one has to be aware of the fact that they
neglect the use of the olive in daily life (i.e. consumption and
use by ordinary people) because of their origin in the
economical – industrial background. But often the only
archaeobotanical remains are the pips consumed in the
settlement. The Mediterranean habit of erecting oil presses
directly in the field might also have been common in
prehistory. In this case it would not be surprising if no remains
of olive oil production are found on – site, except those for
consumption of the whole fruit.
The contexts in Bronze Age Troy suggest a comparable
situation. In Kumtepe the olive is not recorded. The olive
remains from Early Bronze Age Troy are the earliest in the
region. During Middle Bronze Age, olive was not cultivated
and probably substituted by flax. In Late Bronze Age Troy
olive does not reach the counts of Early Bronze Age Troy, and
ubiquity is only slightly higher. Only in Post – Bronze Age
Troy does the fruit become more numerous and ubiquitous.
The archaeobotanical records in Troy show no evidence of a
large – scale olive oil production in any of the periods. This
lack of evidence in Troy fits well into the general picture of the
Aegean.
Although there were many sherds with ’residues’, the
necessary chemical analysis for oil remnants could not be
conducted. For Archaic and Classical Troy (800 BC – 300 AD)
levels there is evidence from ceramic types that olive oil was
stored (pers. com. B. Tekkök – Bιçken).
Considering the human body’s essential requirement for fatty
acids, one might ask which other plants might have been used
for the enrichment of diet with plant oils given the low
presence of olive. As already mentioned, in Middle Bronze
Age Troy olive was not cultivated, but Linum usitatissimum
instead, presumably on a large scale. Apart from this other oil
providing plants such as the seeds of Onopordum acanthium
are hardly represented and could never have played a major
role in oil production.
The stratified societies of Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze
Age Troy make an economic system of crop – supplying farm
villages in the surroundings of Troy probable (compare Maps 4
and 5). Considering the broad spectrum of crops one cannot
conclude from the scarcity of olive in Late Bronze Age Troy
that olive oil was not produced. It might have been produced in
plantations around the supplying villages and brought to Troy
in some of the numerous storage vessels.
This model is also supported by the ecological preconditions
for olive growth in the Troad. Olive is grown in the Troad
today, and the luvisols in the region are a sufficient substrate
for olive cultivation (pers. com. K. Pustovoytov). The
cultivated ground in the Troad is covered mainly by young
trees, which gives the impression of a relatively young olive
cultivation.
Considering the general picture of fruit tree cultivation in the
Troad, grape cultivation differs only slightly from that of olive
(see catalogue for Vitis vinifera). Looking at the percentage
occurrence of the crops (Graph 45), grape appears with high
percentage occurrence throughout all the periods, but
especially in Post – Bronze Age. This might seem surprising
considering the low absolute counts of grape seeds, but it is not
so, when one thinks about the possible circumstances of wine
production that are similar to those of olive oil production. The
missing abundance of grape seeds in the settlement does not
necessarily mean that wine was not produced. The percentage
occurrence is comparable to the main subsistence crops emmer,
einkorn and barley. A considerable part of the grape harvest
might have been used for direct consumption (one has to
consider that the remains probably ended up differently than
those of crop – processing (human excrement versus fuel)),
and wine could have been produced at a greater distance from
Troy (e.g. in vineyards (Hareuveni 1980 and 1984)) so that
grape pips are not abundant but ubiquitous because within the
settlement they represent mainly remains from consumption of
fresh grapes.
5.4.6 Other useful plants in everyday life
Specific aspects of the reconstruction of prehistoric diet are of
varying interest depending on the period that is studied, i.e.
questions of the seasonal availability are of much greater
significance in studying Palaeolithic groups than in agricultural
communities. Although plant gathering has always been
practised, its quantitative role in subsistence economy seems to
decrease in the course of time.
A quantification of the calorific values of different products
was not attempted in this study because of the problems in the
interpretation of such values. Even when a representative cross
– section of the food plants is known it is impossible to
63

chapter 5: economy
calculate the absolute quantity of food products in a site and to
conclude on the nutritional condition of the prehistoric people
from this data alone. Also, the information available on diet
from the Linear B tablets includes only relative data such as
the received ration in the ratio 5 : 2 : 1 for men, women and
children at Pylos (C. Renfrew 1972). Other factors that have to
be included in these calculations, such as population size and
density, size of the cultivated area, biomass production and
estimation of productivity, are rarely reliable. It is also
important to differentiate between the functions of food plants
because far from all food plants are collected for their calories.
Plants rich in vitamins but low in calories, such as fruits and
vegetables (e.g. onions in Flannery (1986)), should not be
included in calculations of calorific values. On the other hand
qualitative analysis of on the relative balance of the
composition of the diet might be quite useful, but is only of
interest when a narrow spectrum of crops and anthropological
results already indicate a probable nutritional deficiency.
Evidence for the consumption of wild plant foods at Troy is
limited to rare finds of Rubus spp. and possible Fragaria sp. It
cannot be excluded that occasionally also fig, grape and olive
were collected from the wild. Very likely other wild plants
were used (see chapter 2).
For three species their mass occurrence in some contexts was
striking, and suggest their use by humans. This is particularly
probable for Cistus sp., which was not harvested with the crops
and is not browsed by animals. The resin of the species is used
for various medicinal purposes (labdanum) and as fumigation
material. Seeds and capsules were found in masses in an
Middle Bronze Age building, and it might be possible that the
inhabitants (who were previously identified as probably of
Anatolian origin (Korfmann 1996)) used such substances for
some purpose.
Heliotropium europaeum L. was ubiquitously abundant in all
the periods, and the possibility might be considered that its
vegetative parts were used against poisonous bites as
mentioned by Dioskurides (Riddle 1985).
With the mass abundance of Malva sylvestris L. in Post –
Bronze Age contexts it is feasible, that a use against insect
bites, and as a preventive ointment, is indicated, particularly as
it is assumed that a large region behind the delta and river area
was already marshy and a focus of malaria.
Architectural use of plants, i.e. for roofing, matting, basketry
and other objects required within the houses must be assumed
for many of the persistent wetland plants recorded from Troy
and Kumtepe (Phragmites australis, Juncus spp., Typha
latifolia). Apart from architectural use Juncus spp. might also
have served for igniting dung fuel.
5.5 The weed flora
The generally extensive ecological variability of the wild plant
species corresponds with their adaptability to various
ecological habitats, which is also assumed to be an important
factor in the formation of weed communities. The weed
communities passed through a similar series of transformations
as did the crops. Weed communities therefore have to be
considered as slowly establishing pioneer communities. This is
supported by the fact that the number of weed species
increased from the Neolithic until the Middle Ages (Willerding
1988), i.e. species formerly growing in specific habitats found
good growing conditions within arable fields. Indicator species
are rare and with the assumed changes in ecological behaviour
in the course of time, modern indicator species might point in
the wrong direction for ecological interpretations.
Apart from evolutionary restrictions, archaeological
assemblages provide an incomplete record of the original
community composition. A predepositional factor of
preservation is that of crop – processing, which also leads to a
selective preservation of species.
The relation of Chenopodietea weeds to Secalietea
decreases during the progress of crop – processing, i.e. the
Chenopodietea weeds are easier to separate from the crop,
as was first recognised by Jones (1992). This is caused by the
morphological similarity of Secalietea seeds (often large –
seeded grasses) to the cereals. Crop – processing therefore
leads to an overrepresentation of the Secalietea weeds in the
crop products and to an underrepresentation in the by –
products. A dominant participation of Chenopodietea weeds
in contexts which do not particularly consist of crop –
processing by – products (e.g. Middle Bronze Age Troy),
could indicate an intensive garden – type cultivation practice.
5.5.1 Problems of species classification – Weed
or wild plants
For the above mentioned reasons, it is difficult to classify
archaeobotanical plant species according to their potential
habitat, i.e. crop weed or wild plant.
Some definitions of the term ’weed’ express its ’unwantedness’
as in Rademacher (1948), i.e. weeds are plants which grow
unwanted on the arable field where they compete with the
crops. Weeds and domesticated species are adapted to the same
habitat, and the ecological conditions within the arable fields
that are conducive to crops also stimulate weeds. Many weeds
have evolved adaptive mechanisms such as mimic morphology
(Lolium temulentum) so that they can hardly be separated from
the crop and are likely to be sown with the next planting
season. With this process some species evolved from an
original field weed to a later crop plant (e.g. Lathyrus sativus,
Camelina sativa, etc.). Sometimes when a pure crop is desired
even the admixture of another crop renders this crop into a
weed. It is not merely the borders between wild plants and
weeds which are vague, but also those between crops and
weeds.
The ’degree of unwantedness’ of a weed depends on the degree
of negative effect the weed has on the growth of the crop. Hanf
(1990) points out that modern Middle European plant
communities on cultivated ground comprise ca. 300 species,
but only 50 – 60 species are real competitors for the crops. The
other weeds are more or less tolerated.
Two considerations have to be made for the definition of the
weed communities at Troy and Kumtepe.
First, it had to be decided whether a plant known to be a crop
plant contributed to prehistoric agriculture or if it was just a
companion of other crop plants. In this respect, the species
under consideration were Camelina sativa, which was found
associated with flax in Middle Bronze Age Troy, and Lathyrus
sativus / cicera which was found in small numbers in almost all
of the bitter vetch and lentil samples.
64

chapter 5: economy
Second, it was necessary to judge which wild plants from the
spectrum in Troy and Kumtepe can be classified as crop
weeds.
The first question was solved with the evaluation of the data
which demonstrated the quality of the relations between the
species (e.g. correspondence analysis) and identified Camelina
sativa as a probable component of mixed cropping with flax
and Lathyrus sativus / cicera as a weed, particularly amongst
the bitter vetch crops (see below).
The second question was more difficult. Generally, those
species which belong to modern weed communities were also
classified in this group (see appendix 4). The remaining wild
species could either belong to the weed category or to another
plant community. Only a few species could be excluded with
some probability as having a weedy character by correlation
analysis. Others that were originally not assumed to be weeds
had to be classified in the weed group because of a definite
association with certain crops (see chapter 3). This was the
case e.g. for Scirpus maritimus, which grew ubiquitously as a
weed amongst the cereals during some periods. For the
autecological approach, such a classification was not
conducted. In this case the weeds were indicators for the
growing conditions of the crops.
5.5.2 Grass pea: crop or weed
As mentioned above, in some cases it was not easy to decide
whether a potential crop was cultivated or only occurred as a
weed. To exemplify the difficulties in deciding whether a plant
was grown intentionally or had a weed function, the finds of
grass pea from Troy and Kumtepe are discussed. The wild
Lathyrus cicera and the cultivated Lathyrus sativus have the
same seed morphology, and differ according to Zohary and
Hopf (1993) in size alone. Other experts who investigated the
legumes recognised a similar size range in both species, and
also a frequently identical testa topography (pers. com. A.
Butler). Generally, the use of size differences for identification
purposes is not possible because even if there were agreement
on the modern size relations of both species, knowledge about
the prehistoric size differences of the wild and the cultivated
grass pea is not available. Considerable intraspecific variability
of seeds might have existed in prehistoric times as well as
today. Furthermore, a single harvest from one plant could yield
seeds from nodes of varying maturity and therefore potentially
of different seed size. Finally, the appearance of the finds is
obscured by the effects of carbonisation. However, the
evaluation of the seed sizes can be useful to investigate the
possibility of having more than a single population represented
in the finds.
The problem of not being able to decide morphologically
whether the wild or the cultivated species is represented in the
archaeological material makes it necessary to use secondary
information such as sample composition and abundance of the
species within the samples.
Large numbers of grass pea in early settlements are quite rare.
In PPNB layers from Gritille/SE Turkey (Miller 1991) and in
Chalcolithic layers from Kuruçay/TR (Nesbitt 1996) huge
amounts of Lathyrus were found, and suggest early cultivation
in this region. The bulk of Neolithic finds originate from the
Balkans and Greece (see Kislev 1989). Considering bulk finds
from some sites (e.g. Kuruçay (Nesbitt 1996), Prodromos
(Halstead and Jones 1980), and Kephala (Renfrew 1977) one
has to be aware of the problems of lathyrism, a neurological
disease caused by the toxins in the seeds (Cohn and Kislev
1987).
In Eastern Mediterranean countries, modern L. cicera is known
as a weed in cereals (Zohary and Hopf 1993). From many
Bronze Age sites, the status of Lathyrus is unclear because of
low find numbers and, as documented by Kislev (1989)
because of small seed sizes. Van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983)
interpreted rare finds of Lathyrus seeds in Erbaba/TR (5800 –
5400 BC) as a weed within the frequently represented lentil
and bitter vetch crops. Considering the possible weed character
of Lathyrus spp., crop mimicry becomes very important. Crop
mimicry is known to apply to several species, such as Vicia
sativa, for example. When it grows with Lens culinaris it can
evolve lenticular seeds in response to the selective pressure of
crop – processing with lentil (Butler 1991, p.61). Erskine,
Smartt and Muehlbauer (1994) assume crop mimicry also for
the prehistoric grass pea (Lathyrus sativus). They refer to the
Neolithic finds (e.g. Erbaba, Çayönü), where admixtures of
grass pea in lentil, pea (Pisum sativum) and bitter vetch were
interpreted as a record of a selection process for grass pea
within a weedy habitat, from which cultivation occurred later.
In Ethiopia, grass pea is a crop for human diet, and is grown
today both as a monocrop and as a part of a mixed assemblage.
The yield from each crop species depends on the initial sowing
mixture and the environmental conditions of that particular
season (pers. com. A. Butler). Mixed cropping was probably
practised more in SW Asia and Europe in antiquity, and
therefore one should carefully take into account that even when
a potential crop plant occurs in low numbers, it might have
been part of polycropping (pers. com. A. Butler).
Considering Lathyrus cicera / sativus finds in the samples from
Troy and Kumtepe, the dominant features are low seed number
and ubiquity in all the periods. This scarcity, compared to the
abundance of other legume crops indicates that Lathyrus was
not an intentional crop.
In order to detect whether there were seed size differences
between the different samples, periods or localities (Kumtepe,
Troy), Lathyrus cicera / sativus seeds from different samples
were measured and plotted in a length/width – diagram. The
scatter plot Graph 43 shows the measurements of Lathyrus
cicera / sativus seeds from Kumtepe and from Bronze Age
Troy. While the Lathyrus seeds from Kumtepe fall into the
range of Kroll’s Bronze Age Lathyrus cf. cicera from Dimini
(Kroll 1979), the Bronze Age Lathyrus seeds from Troy, both,
Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age remains, lay in the
range of Lathyrus cf. sativus from Dimini. However, in
contrast to the abundant seeds from Dimini, for the few
remains from Kumtepe and Troy it is not possible to conclude
an affiliation to different species from the size difference.
There are too many other possibilities that might have caused
variation within one species, such as chronological changes,
different field management and / or adaptation of Lathyrus to
the size of the crop seeds; the latter is the most likely
explanation because Lathyrus is assumed to be a weed amongst
bitter vetch. In fact, bitter vetch also increases in size in the
course of time, and Lathyrus probably adapted to bitter vetch
as a consequence of the intensification of cultivation or soil
65

chapter 5: economy
management (nitrification) from Neolithic/Early Bronze Age to
Late Bronze Age.
Correspondence analysis demonstrated an association of
Lathyrus with bitter vetch and lentil and thus supported the
above interpretation (see chapter 3). Additionally, some of the
clean stores (e.g. from Kumtepe A) were composed of more or
less equal portions of bitter vetch and lentil, and were
interspersed with a few seeds of grass pea as the only weed.
Lathyrus sativus / cicera was also found in small numbers
within crop – processing by – products of emmer, and in Troy
VIIa it occurred as a weed amongst chickpea storages.
The classification of Lathyrus as a weed in all the samples
from Kumtepe and Troy can be considered as definitive.
5.5.3 Ryegrass as a weed of cereal crops
The Lolium species were amongst the most abundant weeds,
particularly during the Late Bronze Age periods VI and VIIa in
Troy and during Kumtepe B. Different morphological types
were separated from the material (see catalogue), which were
designated to modern species. A possible morphological
change in the course of time cannot be excluded because the
range of adaptability of this genus is unknown. For the
morphological change as an aspect of the adaptation (see
Kislev 1980) it is important to note that the small, elongated
type Lolium rigidum appears abundantly in the Kumtepe B
samples and during Troy VI. The problem regarding the shape
of the seed and the extent to which it represents an adaptation
to the particular crop (in both periods mainly emmer and
barley) it was grown with is not yet solved.
In some publications a greater length of the cereal weed Lolium
temulentum is used as a criteria to differentiate this species
from Lolium remotum, which is considered as a weed in flax
fields.
The caryopses of Lolium temulentum are infested 70 – 80%
with a pyridin – alkaloid (Temulin) producing fungus
(Gloeotinia temulenta). This fungus mainly affects the nervous
system, and is harmful to humans and grazing animal.
Incidents of poisoning are particularly known from historic
Europe, but might have also occurred in prehistoric
Mediterranean (Madaus 1938).
At Kastanas Lolium temulentum increases during Late Bronze
Age, what correlates with increasing einkorn cultivation and
population growth. During the transition period and Iron Age,
einkorn cultivation decreases as does Lolium temulentum, thus
signalising a shift to the cultivation of other cereals (here
millet) with the possibility to avoid contamination of the crops
with darnel (Kroll 1983).
Most of the Lolium grains at Troy belong to the morphological
type Lolium persicum (excluding Lolium sp. as a
morphological type) and were associated with cereal products
or by – products. There was no association of Lolium spp. with
the flax remains.
Although the different species of ryegrass were abundant
weeds at Troy and Kumtepe, they occur in less than a third of
all the samples. They are generally associated with chaff
remains from hulled wheats, which means that crop –
processing by – products are represented, diminishing the
probability that the grass seeds were difficult to separate from
emmer and einkorn grains. Their low abundance amongst the
cereal grains supports the idea that they were probably not well
adapted morphologically and so could be separated by crop –
processing. During Early Bronze Age Troy, the weed is of
negligible occurrence, which might be also related to the
general taphonomic situation of Early Bronze Age finds.
During Middle Bronze Age Troy, darnel associates with a
diverse set of crops. Beside emmer chaff, it appears also with
barley grains. Another aspect of adaptation during this period
is the increased abundance of the weed seeds. In Troy VI
mainly barley is contaminated by Lolium spp., whereas from
Troy VIIa onwards the association of emmer chaff with
ryegrass appears stronger again in the samples. Also the
numbers are very high during this period. During Troy VIIb
Lolium spp. decrease strongly, which correlates with the results
from correspondence analysis, i.e. a layout of fields in the delta
valley formerly not cultivated ground, so that the weed species
are in a state of re – establishment amongst the crops. The
infested crops during this period are mainly barley and
einkorn.
Taken together, ryegrass was an abundant weed mainly
amongst the cereals, but differed in its frequency during the
different periods. That Lolium spp.were mainly found with
crop – processing by – products, suggests that in most of the
periods it was not optimal adapted to the morphology of the
grains, and could be more or less easily separated from them so
that the weed was not significantly detrimental to the harvest.
During Troy VIIa the large abundance of the weed suggests
anyway its vast distribution within the emmer fields.
5.5.4 Agricultural techniques
Apart from recognising the intensification of agriculture,
specific agricultural techniques are difficult to deduce from it.
The intensification techniques might have involved an increase
in mechanical processing of the soil, but also maybe manuring.
The difficulty of recognising manuring by archaeobotanical
means alone was already mentioned above. However, the use
of dung as a fuel renders the use of it for manuring less likely,
particularly during those periods in which deforestation is
suggested (at least from Troy VI onwards). Intensification was
probably also conducted by extending the fields, i.e. by
cultivating larger areas, as is likely for Kumtepe B, Troy VI
and VIIa. The consideration of soil treatment in agriculture is
inseparable from the life form of the wild species. Generally,
an increase of annuals is assumed when soil management
becomes more intensive (Jacomet, Brombacher and Dick 1989,
Hillman 1981). A high presence of annual species is evident
for the periods Troy VI and VIIa (chapter 3); this would fit in
well with a pattern of intensification of agriculture during these
periods. A general ecological feature with the occurrence of
annuals is pointed out by Sallares (1991). Because summer
drought causes the increase of annuals as opposed to
perennials, one might discuss the above mentioned economic
conclusion for Troy VI and VIIa in consideration of the
suggested drought (Carpenter 1966) during the Late Bronze
Age, and the abundance of annuals as a consequence of small –
scale climatic change. It might be argued that this aspect would
be negligible for botanical macroremains because of a strong
superposition of agricultural over synecological indicators.
Differing agricultural practice from previous periods is likely
for Troy IV, with a broad spectrum of different crops. Diverse
66

chapter 5: economy
ecological areas under cultivation are related to new crops to
meet the subsistence needs during this period. Flax was
probably used exclusively for oil and not for linen production,
and very likely as substitution for olive, which was not
cultivated during this period (see chapter 3), particularly when
considering the bad survival of linseeds in archaeological
contexts (Willerding 1973).
Considering storage facilities, one might expect a large – scale
storage particularly with the existence of an elite. Storage was
evident for all the periods, either small – scale within buildings
as in Middle Bronze Age Troy, or large – scale in pithoi as in
Late Bronze Age Troy (see Map 2).
The generally high abundance in chaff remains from hulled
wheats in all periods is not only explained by the better
preservability of hulled wheat chaff (Boardman and Jones
1990), but also indicates that emmer and einkorn were stored
with the glumes and processed piecemeal, probably because of
moist summers (Hillman 1981) or for providing higher
resistance against pests (Jones 1987a). The general abundance
of hulled wheat chaff remains corresponds with the dominant
crop – processing stage of fine sieve by – products. This
classification is not only evident from the ratios of grain and
chaff, but also from discriminant analysis.
Graph 44 shows the position of the crop – processing stages at
Troy and Kumtepe in relation to the four crop – processing
stages (group centroids 1 – 4) found by Jones (1987b) for
modern crop – processing groups in Greece (Kolofana) (for
description of the method see chapter 2). Of the 122
unweighted cases used for the printed output, one was a
member of the fine sieve products, five were group members
of the coarse sieve by – products, 14 of the winnowing by –
products, and the main portion of 102 were group members of
fine sieve by – products. This made a general comparison of
samples easy to undertake, because most have been subjected
to the same crop – processing treatment.
5.5.5 The progression of the weed floras of
Troy and Kumtepe
Typical weed species increase in number from Kumtepe A to
Kumtepe B3, i.e. an almost continuous broadening of the
species spectrum is indicated through the periods.
This enrichment of the weed flora with stress – tolerating,
strongly competitive species has to be interpreted as an
establishment of agricultural practices, and beyond this as an
extension of agriculture from intensive small – scale
agriculture in Kumtepe A to large – scale cereal cultivation
during Kumtepe B2/3. Another supporting argument is the first
and abundant occurrence of Lolium spp. in Kumtepe B.
Probably the weed flora in Kumtepe A (as far as deduced from
only 53 weed items) consisted in its low abundance mainly of
Chenopodietea weeds, which were associated with the
labour intensive crop legume cultivation (lentil and bitter
vetch).
Considering the slight increase in the abundance of moisture –
indicating plants, the suggestion of large – scale arable farming
in Kumtepe B3 (dominance of Secalietea species) might
raise the question of whether irrigation or cultivation close to
the coast was practised. The lack of correlation of the cereals
with the moisture – indicating plants and the existing
correlation of the cereals with grasses from drier habitats
render it more likely that cereal cultivation took place at higher
elevations further from the sea – shore and also from
freshwater sources. The moisture – indicating plants must have
reached the settlement by different means (e.g. collected for the
purpose of matting or basket production as for Juncus sp.).
In the subperiod Kumtepe B2 the strong abundance of single
species of a generally small species spectrum is connected to a
small spectrum of crops (mainly barley). A high occurrence of
weeds in the fields, especially those difficult to separate during
crop – processing (e.g. Lolium spp.), occurred during this
subperiod, which also supports a large – scale cultivation of
barley during Kumtepe B2 that was enlarged in Kumtepe B3
with a shift to the hulled wheats. Compared to the other
subperiods, the high abundance of annuals in Kumtepe B2
underlines the argument that intensive field management was
practised. The enrichment of the weed flora in Kumtepe B3
involves the first appearance of the species Chenopodium
ficifolium, Medicago orbicularis, Polygonum convolvulus,
Sherardia arvensis, Lolium remotum – type and Bromus
hordaceus. In addition, many weed species had their main
abundance in Kumtepe B3 (Chenopodium album, Fumaria
officinalis – type, Heliotropium europaeum, Polycnemum
majus, Valerianella dentata). Taken together, the signs seem to
indicate a surplus economy starting in Kumtepe B2 at the latest
and significantly modifying the weed flora.
With only a slight dominance in Chenopodietea species, a
much smaller species spectrum than in Kumtepe B, and the low
abundance of Lolium spp., the intensity of cultivation during
Early Bronze Age Troy is difficult to assess. In a stratified
society one would rather expect an organised, large – scale
cultivation with a strongly developed weed flora or at least
enduring traces of a well developed arable farming. Recalling
the very probable existence of large – scale storage (pits), the
idea of an appropriation of crops from other farming villages
should be discussed, although taphonomic reasons are also
responsible for the lack of evidence in the weed flora. It was
also suggested that the human need of protein was covered to
large proportions by wild game and livestock during Early
Bronze Age Troy. The persistence of the social structure was
possibly even warranted by the owning of large flocks.
In Middle Bronze Age Troy the Chenopodietea weeds are
still only slightly dominant, but with a generally higher number
of weeds and a much broader spectrum. Considering the
general under – representation of Chenopodietea weeds in
crop stores, a probably intensive, garden – type cultivation was
practised with a broad spectrum of crops. The weeds that were
found within storage finds are good indicators for the growing
conditions of the crops. With the additional results from
correlation analysis the probable location of the crop fields
could be reconstructed. While garden pea occurred mainly with
grasses, thus indicating drier conditions, and can therefore be
located with greater certainty on the Low Plateau, the cereals
were accompanied by more moisture – indicating plants, and
particularly emmer by salt tolerant wild plant species, so that
the emmer fields were located in the delta region of the valley
with greater probability. The intensity of the cultivation is also
indicated by a great increase in number and ubiquity of Lolium
spp. compared to Early Bronze Age Troy.
During Troy VI an increase in the Secalietea weeds indicates
67

chapter 5: economy
a tendency towards extensification with specialisation on
barley and a probably intensive soil management, as suggested
by an increase in annuals.
The extension of cultivated areas and intensification of soil
management increases considerably during Troy VIIa. The
weed flora is dominated by Secalietea weeds, which reach
their highest percentage occurrence of all the periods. Lolium
spp. reach their culmination in abundance and ubiquity during
this period, and also indicate the intensity of cultivation with
their occurrence amongst different crops. Beside this, the main
crops, emmer and einkorn, are accompanied by abundant
annuals.
There is a considerable change in the weed flora with the
transition to Troy VIIb. Chenopodietea species become
more dominant and a shift to intensive, garden – type
cultivation is suggested. But perennials also dominate the life
forms of the weeds and suggest that new fields were under
cultivation. Barley and bitter vetch, the two main crops, are
associated with abundant moisture – indicating plants and
demonstrate that the inhabitants of Troy VIIb must have
shifted their arable fields into the valley to use the fertile
alluvium, probably because the soils on the Low Plateau were
already heavily eroded. The weed flora seems to have had to
get re – established after a period of lower agricultural activity
with the destruction of Troy VIIa.
The Post – Bronze Age weed flora was not analysed in detail,
but a striking abundance of Chenopodietea weeds is
indicated, providing evidence for an intensive agricultural soil
management.
5.5.6 The location of the crop fields
Apart from the correlation analysis of the grasses (see chapter
4), there are other indicators for a reconstruction of the location
of prehistoric crop fields.
During Kumtepe A the few seeds from moisture – loving
plants do not correlate with the crops, and cereal cultivation
definitely took place further from the sea – shore. During
Kumtepe B, the location of the arable fields was probably also
inland, possibly on freshly cleared woodland or maquis.
Generally, soils under maquis can be equally good as soils
under woodland, and it might be reasonable to assume that the
prehistoric farmers cleared the maquis vegetation with minimal
labour input to obtain land for fields. Cultivation must have
been practised under the usual seasonal conditions, i.e. without
irrigation.
Considering the coastlines (see Map 4) it can be observed that
during Early Bronze Age, the delta region was only accessible
by going beyond the 2 km radius of Troy. Cultivation of
cereals primarily on the Low Plateau becomes plausible. On
the other hand the maquis – type vegetation is sparsely
represented and one should assume that the inhabitants of
Early Bronze Age Troy might have preferred to execute their
activities (particularly herding) near the river banks, where the
vegetation was already open. The different spectra of weed
components in the samples of Early Bronze Age Troy might be
explained by the existence of fields in different regions of the
landscape. Probably the 1 – 2 km radius around Troy was
already relatively open and was used for emmer and einkorn
cultivation, whereas the remaining regions and areas in the
river valley were used for grazing animals.
The position of the coastline in Middle Bronze Age provided
moist land in the valley less than 1 km from Troy, and a
cultivation of emmer in the valley in close vicinity to the coast
is evident. Probably barley was also cultivated in the valley
further from the coast (see Map 4). The weed flora in Middle
Bronze Age Troy indicates that cultivation of peas took place
under drier conditions on the Low Plateau.
The increase in the number of species of crops is accompanied
by an increase of the typical weeds. Also members of
woodland vegetation increase amongst the remains. The
agricultural system was probably intensive, self – sufficient
and oriented towards risk – buffering. ’Grassland’ – type
vegetation was not found so frequently as in Early Bronze Age
Troy, whereas salt – tolerant, moisture – indicating weeds, and
also associations of crops with wild species from drier
vegetation demonstrate that Middle Bronze Age inhabitants of
Troy exploited the delta region and the maquis – covered Low
Plateau rather than the slopes near the river. An expansion of
cultivation into the coastal area as well as clearing to turn
woodland into arable fields seems to be indicated.
With the suggested opening of the areas (maquis or steppe)
during Troy VIIa, a preferred position of crop fields becomes
evident for the Low Plateau, at least in the 1 – 2 km radius
around Troy (see large uneroded patches beyond the 2 km
radius on Map 5) and probably similarly around the
neighbouring producing villages. A high abundance of
annuals and Secalietea weeds suggests large – scale
agriculture, probably with extended fields on the Low Plateau,
which must have increased soil erosion. Similar intensive
agriculture is also probable for Troy VI, where the species
spectrum of weeds is small but with strong abundance in
single species.
During Troy VIIb a high percentage occurrence of freshwater
plants is associated with cereals and suggests cultivation in the
valley, probably using the fertile alluvium, in a period in
which soil erosion must have affected already considerable
areas on the Low Plateau. The weeds are dominated by
perennials and Chenopodietea weeds, which renders the
shift into the fertile valley under intensive cultivation of
einkorn and barley all the more probable.
At Post – Bronze Age Troy, moisture – indicating plants are
present to a lesser extent than in the Bronze Age periods,
which might be interpreted as an indication that agriculture
mainly took place on the Low Plateau.
5.6 Insect pests
In some samples a high infestation by insect pests was evident
(I wish to thank P. Buckland and E. Panagiotakopulu (both
Sheffield) for the identifications).
Bruchus species were present in large numbers in the Middle
Bronze Age pea storages and indicate that pea cultivation must
have been well established. Tenebrio cf. melitor occurred in
small numbers in Troy VIIa contexts (see also catalogue).
The grubs of Bruchus live on the endosperm of crop legumes
and increase very quickly with the intensification of cultivation
(Heitefuss 1987, Kaltenbach 1874, Talhouk 1969, Aldrige and
Pope 1986, Hyman 1992).
Ethnographic reports for some coastal regions refer to the
intentional breeding of grubs of Tenebrio melitor for fishing
68

chapter 5: economy
(pers. com. P. Buckland). However, numbers and ubiquity do
not allow such conclusions to be made for Troy VIIa.
In general, the pests indicate aspects of a well established
agriculture, either what concerns the pre – harvest conditions
within more small – scale farming as in Middle Bronze Age
Troy or, considering Bruchus sp., the existence of
comprehensive storage of crops, as suggested for Troy VIIa.
5.7 The dung remains
The need of wood for different purposes, and the early decline
of woodland in the Mediterranean past made the use of dung
obligatory.
As said earlier, some of the plants which are not browsed by
animals and which were not harvested with the crops are likely
to have been collected for fuel. The use of Sarcopoterium
spinosum for fuel is evident from Kumtepe B3 samples and
suggests a scarcity in wood already in the beginning of the
Early Bronze Age.
Increasing deforestation and soil erosion is evident from Troy
VI onwards (Pustovoytov, in prep.). This correlates well with a
great increase in dung remains. Dung as a fuel was probably
used from the beginning of Troy.
A characteristic of dung remains from Troy is that they contain
beside the abundant ’main plants’ (e.g. Trifolium spp.) also
species from different other habitats (as an indirect feature of
grazing activity) with an emphasis on open, moister vegetation.
The ’typical’ species in abundance are not occurring as weeds
(no correlation with the crop remains).
Dung remains from contexts older than Troy I are mainly
composed of Trifolium sp., Medicago sp., Carex divulsa, and
Poa trivialis – type alongside an enormously broad species
spectrum. The common pattern for all the Troy II samples is
distinguished by a broad and abundant spectrum in the
Cyperaceae and Gramineae families. The most numerous
grasses are the small – seeded Alopecurus geniculatus – type,
Eragrostis sp. and Phalaris aquatica/paradoxa, that constitute
large parts of the samples. Amongst the other numerous
species are small – seeded legumes.
In Middle Bronze Age Troy it is probable that dung cakes were
stored in the small entrances of the buildings to keep them dry
and to have them handy for providing the oven with fuel.
In Troy VIIa probable stables or byres were uncovered, the
samples of which were composed mainly of clover (Trifolium
sp.) and grasses. Some of the clover species (e.g. Trifolium
subterraneum) are known to reduce the fertility of ruminants
(Riddle 1985). The additional feeding of cattle with crop
legumes (bitter vetch – barley mixtures) could have increased
the milk production with a simultaneous reduction of gravid
ruminants. During Troy VIIa in particular an increased regard
for secondary products might have occurred. This would at the
same time induce an increase of hunting activities to provide
additional proteins from meat. Possibly the Troy VII
inhabitants already highly manipulated livestock to meet their
own necessities. In relation to this it is also interesting that in
most of the Troy VII samples that contain large amounts of
Trifolium sp. and bitter vetch, the weedy, medicinal plant
Silybum marianum is present, which promotes lactation
(Riddle 1985).
Whereas in the earlier periods (Early Bronze Age and Middle
Bronze Age) dung remains are found mainly around cooking
or heating facilities, the strong increase in Late Bronze Age
Troy is more related to stables. Sheep dung has the best
burning qualities and might have been used continuously
through all the periods. Cow dung (Kerpiç) also seems to have
been used in architecture, as archaeologically evident.
The storage of fodder (Trifolium herbage and crop legumes) is
very likely for Troy VIIa (see chapter 3). An additional
argument that supports the use of crop legumes as animal feed
just in Troy VIIa is that legume cultivation is labour intensive.
Subsistence farmers hardly grow forage legumes in place of
food crops simply to supply food for livestock, but this
becomes more probable with the existence of a stratified
society where surplus production is practised, as suggested for
Troy VIIa.
Human faeces might be difficult to discover because they were
presumably not deposited in regions in which they could be
exposed to fire. Seeds from gathered fruits are therefore rarely
found in Troy because many of the fruits are difficult or
impossible to store. Mineralised seeds of fig in pits from
Kumtepe were also interpreted as deriving from faeces.
5.8 Other aspects of animal husbandry in Troy
The archaeozoological investigation in Troy and Kumtepe is
still in progress and therefore only the preliminary, published
data, which includes results from Troy VI, VII and from Early
Bronze Age Troy (Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan 1992), will
be taken into consideration.
From an archaeobotanical perspective our main interest lies in
the socio – economic behaviour of the Early Bronze Age
Troians towards livestock keeping and hunting. As mentioned
above, weed ecology suggests to small – scale plant
cultivation, which might be somewhat biased for taphonomic
reasons. Eventual appropriation of crops from neighbouring
villages cannot be proved, although from the archaeological
results it is evident that an elite with a comprehensive storage
system must have existed. Halstead (1987a) assumes a more
prominent role for livestock in normal subsistence for the
Aegean Bronze Age. Later, in Late Bronze Age (Linear B
archives), some kind of ’system of banking on sheep’ is
obvious (Cherry 1981). The entire archaeobotanical data from
Troy suggests reliance on animals to unknown extent, but
particularly during Early Bronze Age Troy livestock must have
played an important if not basic role for elite power, not least
for the emerging textile production (see 1.2.2). The assumption
of important livestock keeping during Early Bronze Age Troy
is, beside the finds of loom weights, supported by animal
figurines made of terracotta which appear in Troy II.
Unfortunately it is not possible to determine the quadruped
animal they represent exactly, but the inclination to make
animals a subject of human’s creative impulses implies a pre –
eminence of animals in people’s spirit or thoughts. This aspect
is not yet investigated by archaeozoology.
In contrast to early assumptions that hunting must have ranked
high within the subsistence economy (Blegen 1950ff.) it is
evident from the new excavations that the main portion of
animal bones is represented by domesticates, in the first place
sheep (Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan 1992). Cattle follows in
69

chapter 5: economy
numbers, but from the amount of meat they must have been the
most important economic livestock. Pigs were quite common,
which seems to be a general feature in Aegean Bronze Age and
contrasts with traditional husbandry of this region (Halstead
1987a). Fallow – deer bones are most abundant amongst the
wild game. This species is adapted to partially open woodland
and lived in the area until historic times. The High Plateau,
with its more mountainous vegetation (coniferous trees), starts
about 5 – 7 km east of Troy and might have been an optimal
hunting ground. The wild fauna is more strongly represented in
Late Bronze Age Troy. Wild boar is most abundant in Early
Bronze Age Troy and is considered as an indication for
changing woodland vegetation in so far, that oak woods were a
dominant pattern within the vegetation of the study area,
whereas with the abundant fallow – deer in Late Bronze Age
Troy, vegetation must have become even more open
(Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan 1992, p.120). Considering the
appearance of ’oak woods’ it has to be noted that the
archaeobotanical results indicate a relatively open vegetation
for Early Bronze Age Troy, which might best be interpreted as
a mosaic of maquis and steppe – type vegetation, at least in
close vicinity of the settlement. This would not contradict the
presence of wild boar because in Mediterranean countries
(France, Greece) the species is recorded in highest abundance
in maquis and even occurs in reeds (Rackham 1983). As
mentioned above, an increase in oak pollen does not tell us
anything about the height of the oaks. An increase in woody
species from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age with a
decrease in the Late Bronze Age is suggested by the botanical
macroremains and supported by the pollen analysis (Gennett
and Gifford 1982). It is likely that wild boar hunting during
Early Bronze Age Troy took place within the more or less open
oak maquis on the Low Plateau.
The decrease of small ruminants and the relative increase of
cattle in the course of time is also reflected in the
archaeobotanical remains. Whereas in Early Bronze Age Troy
dung remains that definitely originate from grazing habitats
can be recognised, additional storage of crop legumes (bitter
vetch) within stables was suggested for Late Bronze Age
contexts (see chapter 3). A tendency to keep animals with
higher demands as regards feed quality, corresponding with the
above mentioned increase in wild game during Troy VI and
VII, supports the assumption of hunting by an elite (Uerpmann,
Köhler and Stephan 1992). Another attribute of stratified
societies is the appearance of the first horse bones at the
beginning of Troy VI. By contrast, on the Greek Mainland
such bones have been found at Tiryns, and possibly also at
Lerna in EH III contexts; in south – eastern Europe or the
northern Black Sea areas, the horse appears much earlier.
Because horses became a significant factor during war in the
eastern Mediterranean, Korfmann (1992b) suggests that Troy
might have played an important role as an intermediary
between the regions.
As mentioned before, the archaeobotanical remains need to be
discussed for additional feeding of cattle with bitter vetch –
barley mixtures at least from Troy VI. It is hard to say whether
a maslin or an intentional post – harvest mixing of the crops
for the preparation of a specific meal is presented. The mixture
of grain and legumes is not mentioned to be a typical one for
traditional Mediterranean maslins (see Halstead and Jones
1995), and it is occasional in Turkey (pers. com. Mark
Nesbitt). It might be possible that maslins were produced for
risk – buffering reasons during Troy VIIb.
5.9 On the organisation of economic systems
Changes in the crop spectrum and the associated weeds, and
also in the locations of fields, are evident for the different
periods in Kumtepe and Troy. The degree to which the
different ecological habitats and regions (moisture – indicating
vegetation in the valley, maquis – type to open vegetation on
the Low Plateau) were exploited, changes in each period for
various reasons. These include various environmental reasons,
such as a probable decrease in yields as a consequence of soil
impoverishment and soil erosion, as evident in Troy VIIb; a
strong impact of pests, as suggested for the garden pea
cultivation in Troy IV, and very likely but not demonstrated,
crop failures as a consequence of weather and climatic change.
But there seem to be also sociological reasons, as for the
suggested cultural change and related change in agricultural
technology for the transitions from Early to Middle Bronze
Age and to Late Bronze Age Troy.
Considering this broadness of the Middle Bronze Age crop
spectrum one might be tempted to speculate on the reasons to
cultivate many different food plants. The phenomenon of this
’cultivation behaviour’ might occur in wealthy as well as in
poor societies, either to enrich the everyday kitchen or as a
mean of risk – buffering in case of crop failures. The
archaeological evidence of at least six conflagration events
within a period of 200 years, i.e. an average of one to two
conflagrations in each generation, suggest a certain insecurity
and probable poverty, in which additional risk of crop failures
might have been avoided by cultivating a broad spectrum of
crops. The high diversity in the group of the crops, compared
to the Early Bronze Age samples, suggests a lower degree of
specialisation than in the previous period, and also during the
following periods.
In the following paragraphs the question is raised as to how far
it is possible to recognise any socio – economic implications in
the archaeobotanical results from Troy.
5.9.1 Aspects of surplus production
Probably the most influential model of the structure of Bronze
Age agriculture in the Aegean was elaborated by C. Renfrew
(1972), who believes that civilisation is not the ’result’ of pure
improvement of food production through irrigation, but that the
introduction of ’Mediterranean polyculture’ (olive, vine and
cereals) was fundamental to the development of Aegean
civilisation (p. 265). He subdivides the development of
agriculture in the Aegean into several phases, each comprising
a specific stage of economy, obviously excluding the
possibility that those phases might have existed simultaneously
within a landscape. His third phase is defined as
’diversification in the farming pattern’, which laid the
foundation for intensification and specialisation during later
periods. It is understood that the changes were not deliberate
foresight, but “were the result of continual adaptation to the
70

chapter 5: economy
environment” (C. Renfrew 1972, p. 274). The main trends
during this phase seem to be increasing diversity in the cereal
species grown and exploitation of a new range of species
(including grape and fig). Renfrew’s third aspect, an increasing
crop purity, is archaeobotanically hard to assess and dependent
on the context, particularly for the early investigations. For
livestock husbandry, small ruminants seem to be dominant in
these areas where good meadow pastures are absent. Weaving
with wool is the main if not only textile production. Oxen are
used principally for draught. Seafood seems to be of
considerable importance in human diet.
Renfrew’s fourth phase comprises the “development of
Mediterranean polyculture” and seems, partially at least, to fall
into the Early Bronze Age. In some sites there is a tendency to
produce more and diverse pulses as an important provider of
proteins in the diet. The cultivation of vine might be assumed,
although the evidence is sparse. But as Renfrew argues very
plausibly, finds are rare partly “because the essential nutritive
element – the juice – is often separated from the
archaeologically less fugitive element – the pip before use” (C.
Renfrew 1972, p. 281). As mentioned before, traditional wine
production often takes place within the plantation, so that the
remains, the pips, are mainly found not as remains from wine
production, but from consumption. But at least the pottery
proves oil and wine production. Storage in bothroi is also an
aspect of this period.
His fifth phase is understood as a ’subsistence in the palace
economy’, i.e. large – scale food storage and controlled supply
of subsistence commodities forced by an elite. In some regions
an increased cultivation of six – row barley and pulses is
evident, and grape and olive are frequently found.
Redistribution and exchange are important activities within the
economic system of this phase.
Considering the economic development of the Troad, with
Renfrew’s model in mind, the following aspects should be
noted:
− The diversity in crops and the exploitation of a new range
of species increase from the Neolithic to Late Bronze Age,
but with the main increase from Early Bronze Age to
Middle Bronze Age.
− No definite demarcation seems to be possible between
Renfrew’s phases III and IV for the Troad. Signs of
diversity go along with ’polycultural’ developments. The
importance of fruit trees in each period varies. The
occurrence of grape increases, that of fig decreases, olive is
sparsely recorded, and is absolutely missing during Middle
Bronze Age Troy. This discontinuity is probably the result
of a cultural break with the arrival of the Middle Bronze
Age population, assumed to be of Anatolian origin.
− Palatial subsistence economy is evident for Late Bronze
Age Troy from the early excavations already, with
numerous pithoi finds in store rooms. During Troy VI
emphasis is laid on the cultivation of six – row barley and
bitter vetch, in Troy VIIa on emmer and chickpea (see
chapter 3 and Graph 45).
Models of intensification and specialisation forced by an elite
are critically discussed by Halstead (1992). He seems to see a
discrepancy between the Linear B texts, which only reflect the
interests of the palatial bureaucracy, and therefore document
specialisation in Bronze Age agriculture and the
bioarchaeological evidence from simple households on
archaeological sites, which demonstrate diversity in storage
crops.
The combination of bioarchaeological and archival information
sources can be interpreted as a diverse pattern of regular
transactions written in the archives and probably irregular
exchange of products and social storage of surplus (Halstead
1992, p. 105). The different types of surplus production and its
mobilisation he distinguishes are surplus induced by an elite,
and ’normal surplus’ accumulated by single households. Direct
consumption of ’normal surplus’ leads to considerable
destruction of resources. Mobilisation of ’normal surplus’ by
an elite leads to food crises in the case of crop failure. The
enlargement of agricultural productivity by political or military
pressure in order to gain surplus can increase the output
considerably. The ’specialisation’ evident from the archives in
the palaces should be understood as an economic interest in the
mentioned products (cereals, olive, sheep): “specialisation in a
single cereal reflects the administrative need for a standardised
medium of ’staple finance’”. (Halstead 1992, p.113)
Halstead (1992) suggests a model for the development of the
Aegean economic system that during Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age, emerging elites confiscate ’normal surplus’ that
had been accumulated in private households as a measure of
’risk – buffering’. During the Late Bronze Age a higher level
of surplus production should have been mobilised as part of the
cultivation of more land. The cause for the collapse at the end
of the Late Bronze Age is seen in the conglomeration of
settlements with lessening measures in ’risk – buffering’. For
the following periods and historic times a small – scale
intensive production close to the settlements is projected.
The fact that co – ordinated intensification consolidates the
superiority of the elite and protects the whole population from
starvation in case of unforseeable crop failures seems to have
lost its status of being the sole explanation for the production
of surplus and thereby justification of an economic structure of
social inequality. Ethnographic research has demonstrated that
Mediterranean farmers developed agricultural practices to
buffer the risk of crop failures without any pressure from an
elite (Forbes 1976, cf. Gallant 1991). Surplus is independent
from stratification of the society and can also occur in many
societies as a production beyond the biologically subsistence
necessity, e.g. ’normal surplus’ as provision for possible crop
failure.
Obviously a society does not necessarily need a subordinated
co – ordinator to survive, so the original question remains
“How do some individuals manage to convert economic
surplus into power or other benefits and particularly how do
they induce other community members not only to produce
surpluses but also to surrender control over those surpluses”
(Hayden 1995).
Gallant (1991) offers the model of a complex structuring of
past society. According to him, the persistent fear of famine
leads people to the elaboration of strategies for survival,
subsistence and collective security. Understanding the
interconnections between domestic economy and risk –
71

chapter 5: economy
management strategies is an important aspect in learning about
peasant societies in their role as part of the whole societal
system within a larger region. The survival strategies, based on
labour derived from within the household level, are therefore a
characteristic of peasantry, which “represents only a sector in
large, complex, stratified societies” and supports the other
social strata through “surplus extracted from peasant
producers” (Gallant 1991, p.4).
However questions such as the reasons for surplus production
cannot be resolved by archaeobotany. What is possible to
resolve through archaeobotany is the recognition of presence
or absence of intensification, assuming that economic surplus
arises through intensification, and to perform from this a model
of the economic organisation.
The ways in which agricultural production could have been
intensified include increasing deforestation, seed bed
preparation, weeding, irrigation, shorter fallow periods,
manuring, or simply mechanical intensification of soil
preparation by the plough, which would result in an increasing
destruction of perennial weeds and abundance of species that
prefer growing on nitrogenous soils.
’Intensification’ is a relative term, and is not self – explanatory.
Brookefield (1972) characterises intensification in regard to
land as being measurable by inputs of capital, labour and skills
against constant land. Beside the intensification of production
on constant land by the latter means, there is the possibility of
extending onto land which was previously not formed
(extensification), which might be intensification of production,
but also a measure resulting from soil exhaustion, or other
factors not necessarily related to a co – ordinated producton of
surplus.
That expansion must not necessarily be a result of
intensification was evident from the remains of Late Bronze
Age Troy economy. In Troy VIIb an expansion onto new fields
in the valley is indicated, but there are no signs that the people
generally exploited more land during this period (see chapter
3). It is more likely that soil erosion made the area on the Low
Plateau less useful for crop cultivation, which made a shift of
the arable fields into the fertile, alluvial valley necessary.
Specialisation is sometimes ecologically explained as the
reduction of diversity (Pearsall 1989, Costin 1991).
Archaeologists often connect specialisation to intensification
and derive models from this relating to the social structure, but
intensification does not necessarily mean a reduction of
diversity. Productive intensification can introduce new
methods or implements to produce surplus or the additional
cultivation of crops formerly not cultivated, which would result
in diversification. The aims behind diversification can be
intensification for a co – ordinated economic surplus but can
also represent the attempt at risk – buffering (Forbes 1976,
Gallant 1991), which makes diversity in crops difficult to
interprete in terms of socio – economic significance. Here only
the whole set of results (e.g. archaeological indicators for
wealth) provide a secure basis to construct a model for the
development of prehistoric agriculture and society. Agriculture
during Middle Bronze Age Troy, with the greatest diversity in
crops of all the periods, is interpreted as applying risk –
buffering measures.
An example of the contribution of archaeobotany via weed
ecology to the classification of surplus is the modelling of the
agricultural systems of Mycenae and Assiros (Halstead 1992).
Archaeobotanical weed communities of Mycenae are very
similar to modern communities, which indicate extensive
agriculture on probably large fields. Weed communities from
Assiros are typical for intensive gardening (i.e. rich in
Chenopodietea species, compare Jones (1992)) and suggest
a collection of ’normal surplus’ from diverse small – scale
producers.
Considering the relation of Chenopodietea and Secalietea
in different periods of Kumtepe and Troy, and keeping the
above comments on intensification, extensification and the
stratified society in mind, the following aspects become
evident.
There is a low abundance of weed species in Kumtepe A,
consisting mainly of Chenopodietea species. This can be
interpreted as indicating a small – scale, intensive garden –
type cultivation of the Kumtepe A crops.
Kumtepe B with its comparatively rich weed flora (see chapter
3), has an overwhelming dominance of Secalietea species, as
might be explained by an extensive cereal cultivation. In detail
there seems to be an intensification of barley cultivation, which
is related with a narrow species spectrum of weeds and a
dominance of Lolium spp. during Kumtepe B2. Grape
consumption starts in Kumtepe B3. The emphasis on emmer
and einkorn cultivation seems to indicate a surplus economy,
but at the present time nothing can be said about the social
background, because Kumtepe was a relatively small
settlement (< 1.4 ha) and Troy might not have yet existed. It is
questionable whether an elite was involved in the decision –
making of the earlier Kumtepe B people to intensify their
agriculture by an extension of the fields. For Kumtepe B3 it
becomes more likely that surplus collection by an elite was
practised because specialisation is indicated by a relatively low
diversity in crop species. Beside this grape and fig cultivation
might have played a central role in the diet of the farmers and
probably reflect a relative poverty. Another argument for
emerging inequality is provided by archaeology. The recent
results from Kumtepe may change the dating of Kumtepe B3
horizons. The pottery remains suggest that Kumtepe C is
represented (pers. com. U. Gabriel). Kumtepe C is
simultaneous with Troy I. If the previously dated Kumtepe B3
samples are in fact Kumtepe C, a large – scale production of
plant crops to support Early Bronze Age Troy is a possibility.
However, in Early Bronze Age Troy the weed classes indicate
a probable intensive, small – scale cultivation with a slight
dominance of Chenopodietea species. The existing social
hierarchy might have been based on livestock. In Middle
Bronze Age Troy the Chenopodietea are still slightly
dominant, but with generally higher absolute counts. Intensive,
garden – type cultivation might have been practised with a
broad spectrum of crops, which is evident from a strong
increase in crop species diversity, and probable mixed
cropping. Agricultural practice with polycropping of trees and
arable land and land fragmentation with the resulting diversity
of crops buffers the risk of crop failures (Forbes 1976). The
consequences of such a practice are a reduction of the yields
but equalisation of events which cause the failure of the
harvests (less fluctuations). This stability is demonstrated in
the modern polycropping of olive and cereals, practised today
in the Troad near Harmantarla. The cereals rely on their seeds
72

chapter 5: economy
to survive a long hot summer, whereas the trees rely on the
supplies of moisture from the winter rains. The roots of trees
can reach the nutrients and moisture deeper in the ground, and
are thus independent of the weather. Thus one of the two
planted crops will surely bring a yield. The agricultural
practice in Middle Bronze Age Troy differs not least in the
range of crops from earlier and later periods at Troy (see
chapter 3). It might be possible that Korfmann’s suggestion is
true that a newly arrived population was the reason for this
distinctiveness (Korfmann 1996).
In Troy VI a slight increase in the Secalietea might indicate
a tendency towards intensification. The main crops are barley
and emmer, and along with the high abundance of annuals and
the disappearance of crops that were already established before
suggest a certain specialisation, probably to meet the purposes
of an emerging elite.
This tendency becomes even stronger in Troy VIIa. The weed
flora is strongly dominated by Secalietea; in fact they reach
the highest numbers of all the Bronze Age periods. The main
crops emmer and einkorn are accompanied by abundant
annuals and large numbers of Lolium spp.. Some of the
buildings might have been used as stables, probably for horses,
and many of the other rooms were filled by numerous pithoi
(documented from Blegen’s excavations), reflecting an
impressive storage organisation. Troy seems to have had its
culmination in Troy VIIa, which is also the period of the
palaces on the Greek mainland. These significant indicators of
a stratified society are even more striking considering the
abrupt change in Troy VIIb. Chenopodietea species are
very abundant. After the destruction of Troy VIIa people seem
to practice a more risk – buffering type of cultivation. Probably
the living conditions were not optimal. Beside barley, bitter
vetch is one of the main crops. People seem to have shifted
their arable fields into the valley in order to use the fertile
alluvium, which is indicated by a dominance of perennials and
great abundance of moisture – indicating plants. There seems
no longer to have been influence of an elite.
To summarise, large – scale surplus production is probable
during the earlier periods of Late Bronze Age Troy (VI and
VIIa) and possible during Kumtepe B, whereas Middle Bronze
Age Troy and Troy VIIb indicate more likely a small – scale
intensive production. For Early Bronze Age Troy the
archaeobotanical remains would suggest small – scale
production, as far as arable farming is concerned. But
numerous pits and the treasures show that an elite existed
during this period. Although not archaeobotanically evident,
surplus was surely stored during Early Bronze Age Troy.
5.9.2 The agricultural territory of Troy
The investigation of the cultural area of a site warrants a more
realistic definition of the socio – political and economic
position of the settlement examined within the whole
geographical unit. Usually the information on adjacent sites is
sparse and their economic or political position in prehistory is
difficult to estimate.
Aslan (1997) conducted surveys in an area of about 100km²
around Troy. Prehistoric settlements and tumuli in different
periods were examined, with the aim of detecting the ancient
network of settlements and of forming a picture of the
changing population patterns within the Troad. The number
and location of probable simultaneous settlements is known,
with no further details on the size, the socio – economic role or
the relationship to Troy (see chapter 1 and Maps 3 – 5). The
assumptions on the ’importance’ of the different sites are
mainly based on their preservation.
South of the Troad the ’Izmir Region Prehistoric Excavations
and Research Project’ has investigated western Anatolian
prehistoric sites since 1992. The sites are Liman Tepe, a major
Early Bronze Age harbour town with habitation from Late
Chalcolithic up to the end of the Late Bronze Age, and
Panaztepe, a Middle and Late Bronze Age harbour site 2 km in
diameter that was also inhabited during the Early Bronze Age
and Bakla Tepe (Late Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age I).
Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe are so far the only west Anatolian
sites with bioarchaeological results.
Very early information on the agricultural territory of Troy, i.e.
textual resources of Homeric times are somewhat problematic,
because of the partially contradictory interpretations of the
Iliad. It has to be assumed that the nomenclature of plant
names before the introduction of the Linnaean binomial system
is inconsistent and random, and the later philological
’translations’ are in reality interpretations (Mason 1995).
Many apparently insoluble problems exist for the terminology
of the cereals, particularly for emmer, with two existing terms
impossible to class with either variants of one species, or with
different stages of processing (i.e. one is the hulled and the
other the dehusked emmer), or with different soil conditions.
Other crops are scarcely mentioned in Homeric texts. Small –
scale agricultural production such as in vegetable or flower
gardens is hardly evident (Richter 1968, p.96). Mixed farming,
as described in ethnographic literature (e.g. Forbes 1976) as
’low risk’ agriculture, and fallow field agriculture was known
at least in Homeric times.
Original texts and their relevance and contribution to the
palaeo – landscape of the Troad have been investigated by B.
Mannsperger.
Another ancient source of information on the landscape and the
agricultural territory is numismatics. In the Troad several
towns coexisted in the 3rd and 4th centuries BC, each with its
own coinage (pers. com. D. Mannsperger). The coins show the
most characteristic objects or symbols of their time, i.e.
agricultural products, important animals or parts of natural
vegetation that must have been very typical and highly
esteemed within the observed period. The regions where horse,
deer, vine, coniferous trees or cereals must have been
’landmarks’ reflect behind their symbolic character an
economic pattern within the landscape. On the whole, the
predominance of the horse on coins from different areas is
quite impressive. It is assumed that there was important horse
breeding in this period in the middle Scamander valley (pers.
com. D. Mannsperger). The horse appears in the
archaeozoological remains from Late Bronze Age (Uerpmann,
Köhler and Stephan 1992). Although this kind of information
cannot be quantified in its extent one should keep in mind
these witnesses of the Classial period.
Regional settlement and subsistence patterns are only rarely
considered in early publications on the Troad (e.g. Bintliff
(1991) and Cook (1973)). The high number of determining
73

chapter 5: economy
variables renders the calculation of the population density of a
region problematic. Calculations often do not correlate with
reality because modern agricultural concepts about what is
economic do not concur with the actual behaviour of
traditional subsistence farmers. For example, Hillman’s
observations in the Aşvan region (Turkey) demonstrated that
farmers use a much wider distance than that considered
economical for keeping the energy balance (Hillman 1973b).
In other words, the observed practices would be considered as
uneconomic in calculations and would therefore be excluded
for models of economic structure.
Population density for a region is directly related to the number
and size of local groups. The size of a local group (i.e. the
inhabitants of a village) is (according to Helbling 1987)
dependent on the quantity, quality, seasonal and spatial
distribution of the resources. This is assumed for hunters and
gatherers, but might also be relevant for farming societies.
These factors are determined by largely natural conditions such
as landscape morphology, soil qualities, vegetation,
temperature, precipitation, and nutritional value. In farming
societies, the limiting factor is protein supply because the diet
is usually rich in carbohydrates. The degree of resource
management (e.g. storage) determines the dependence of a
population on quantity and spatial and seasonal distribution of
the resources and by these the size of the territory. The main
factors determining the size of a territory are its biomass
production (potential yield), the method of subsistence
production and the intensity of mobility.
A territory usually comprises several ranges which are used
within one year and that is not only the case for hunters and
gatherers. Farmers also use different ranges for different crop
types and for livestock grazing. For example, land holding of
modern farmers (1938) in the Aşvan region (Turkey) was
fragmented in about 15 units for each, evenly scattered over
the territory (Hillman 1973b).
Helbling (1987) mentions 10 – 15 km for the radius of hunting
and for gathering 5 – 10 km. Arable fields should lie in closer
vicinity to the settlement, e.g. up to 1 km and above, but
probably not much more than 7 km (two hours oxen – walk,
according to Hillman (1973b)). With the exhaustion of the soil
they might be located further (more than 2 km) from the
settlement. Livestock herding was probably carried out further
away from the settlement because of arable fields (e.g. within
and above a range of 3 – 6 km). The radii measured in hours of
walking distance, as applied by Chisholm (1962) (1 – 1.5 hours
walking distance between the largest centres during
Mycenaean times) were not used here, but instead the different
mentioned radii in kilometres (see Maps 3 – 5).
In his discussion of the distribution of agricultural resources
Hillman (1973b) offers a basis for calculations of the
population density in the Aşvan region. He emphasises the
spatial distribution of major land resources, i.e. different types
of farmland in relation to distance from the settlement. Within
a distance of 7 km from Aşvan, ca. 44% of the arable fields lie
in a distance of up to 2 km from the settlement. Further away
from the 2 km distance the land is cultivated equally, with
values around 10 – 12% per km distance. Grazing is mostly
practised between the 3 – 6 km distance.
Hillman (1973a) calculates past population levels in respect to
agricultural productivity and territorial limits. He suggests that
although it is difficult to use the archaeobotanical data to
conclude directly on population levels, it is possible indirectly
by means of intensification, as deduced from the data (Hillman
1973a, p.226). His data collection includes numbers on the
yields for each main crop under different kind of irrigation.
The yield of dry cultivated Triticum aestivum is 63 kg/dönüm
(= 1000m²), that of slightly irrigated Triticum durum 110
kg/dönüm, that of dry cultivated two – row barley 41
kg/dönüm and under slight irrigation 115 kg/dönüm. These
yields from 1940 are somewhat below the average yields in
modern Turkey (1970), and should be much below those of the
northwest coast, because of differing precipitation patterns.
About 80% of the calorie requirement is covered by cereals.
The result for population densities based on food consumption
from 1940 was between 14,5 and 17,5 people/km². A system
with cultivation up to 3 km (including grazing) would have
been able to sustain 20 people/km². Without irrigation slightly
more than half the density could be sustained. Because the
figure of 20 people/km² is far too low having the higher yields
for Çanakkale in mind, it can be considered as the absolute
minimum. Therefore the exploitation of the area including
grazing at a distance of up to 6 km around Late Bronze Age
Troy, must have supported much more than 2262 people. This
number lies also at the lower limit of Halstead’s observations
for prehistoric Thessaly (Halstead 1994). According to him,
the Neolithic settlements on the Greek mainland measured ca.
0.5 – 1.0 ha with populations of between 50 – 300 inhabitants.
Considering the 1.4 ha covering settlement area of Kumtepe
and its adjoining arable land, between 140 and 420 people
might have been supported. As we are aware of the high
portion of sea food in the diet, we should assume that even
more people actually lived at the same time within the
settlement. For the Early Bronze Age settlements on mainland
Greece, sizes of up to 7 – 15 ha are known and 25 – 50 ha for
Late Bronze Age (Halstead 1994). Using Halstead’s figures a
population of at least 2000 and more than 6000 people might
have found place to live within Late Bronze Age Troy. But as
we can assume that an organised economic system with
redistribution existed, the density within the settlement may
have been higher. A figure of more than 6000 inhabitants
during Troy VI and VII coincides with Korfmann’s suggestion
(Korfmann 1992a, p.138).
Bintliff (1991) calculated the carrying capacity for different
regions in the Troad with the available environmental data
(Kraft, Kayan and Erol 1980 and 1982). Taking into account
that Bintliff conducted his calculation by considering arable
fields only, his figures are found at the lower limit of the
previous calculations (e.g. for Bronze Age Kumtepe he
calculates a population of 138 people). For Troy he disregards
any socio – political structure of the area, and the hypothetical
human population maxima are based on settlement territories
equal in size, i.e. Troy’s probable central political position is
not taken into account in the calculations. Bintliff’s
calculations are based on territories surrounding the
settlements within the 2.5 km radius, and he suggests a
population of ca. 647 for Late Bronze Age Troy. In the
meantime we know that Late Bronze Age Troy covered a
surface area of ca. 20 ha, whereas Bintliff had to use the data
from the early excavations with an assumed size of 2 ha for
Troy VI. In reality, Late Bronze Age Troy provided space for a
74

chapter 5: economy
population ten times higher. However, taking into account that
the socio – economic influence of Late Bronze Age Troy
surely extended far beyond the 2.5 km radius, and knowing
that economy was strongly co – determined by livestock, the
maximum size of the Late Bronze Age population must have
stood far beyond Bintliff’s calculations.
A reconstruction of population patterns will become more
significant with further investigations of other sites in the
Troad.
The approach of measuring the level of agricultural
development by the yields with the aim to obtain an impression
of the labour expenditure of prehistoric people, is still common
amongst economic archaeobotanists and archaeologists, and a
lot of ethnographic and experimental data is available from
almost all geographical regions in the world. Calculations of
yields for Troy and Kumtepe were not conducted, because
there are so many factors influencing such calcuations that they
are hardly significant, and rather reflect modern idealistic ideas
of western economic standards than prehistoric everyday life.
The anthropogenic factors determining productivity are labour
processes (technology) and their intensity. Increases in yield
are probable with the use of new implements that rationalise
work and techniques. The social structure, which might
determine the technology and the organisation of labour input,
is a factor that greatly influences the appearance of
productivity, but can hardly be estimated for its actual
influence on working population.
Furthermore the input of labour and time, which involve
several factors concerning manpower (e.g. number of workers,
length of working time, kind of work, etc.), but also
agricultural techniques by themselves (e.g. duration of fallows)
can only be guessed for calculations. The input of time in
arable farming is dependent on the efforts with other
subsistence activities, e.g. livestock and hunting, which can
often not to be brought into relation to plant production for
their contribution. Working hours for the cultivation of certain
crops revealed considerable differences in labour input, e.g.
labour input for legume cultivation is about 50 times higher
than with cereal cultivation during the growing time and about
20 times higher in harvesting (Schlüter 1985). Different
cultivation technologies demand different labour inputs and
production outputs and they might account for some
discrepancies in ancient literary estimates of labour
requirements or productivity (Halstead 1987b). Comparisons
of biologic – dynamic farming with conventional modern
agriculture resulted in considerable differences in labour input.
The much more traditional biologic – dynamic farming
requires about twice as much labour as modern agriculture,
which is caused mainly by the efforts that have to be made
during the growing time of the crops (Schlüter 1985).
Yield as a result of an agricultural cycle is also dependent on
and efficiently determined by various natural factors, which
rule out labour input as the sole significant factor determining
the yield. “The best returns at low population densities, given a
preindustrial technology, are from decrue farming or the
cultivation of sites watered naturally or with little effort:
favourable sea page areas and land adjacent to bodies of water
or above a high water table” (Henry 1989, p. 136). Natural
factors such as climate, relief, soils, autecology of the crops
and their yield structure (e.g. lower number of grains in
einkorn compared to bread wheat, differences in weight per
thousand grains), and the anthropogenic input of labour and
methods, are more foreseeable factors that define the
preconditions for the efficiency of plant production. The actual
yields are based on these foreseeable factors, but are strongly
determined by unforseeable factors such as weather.
Weather, i.e. already slight variations in precipitation, can
result in the loss of a considerable part of the harvest, and
might have a very destructive influence on a prehistoric
economy. But it cannot be reconstructed, as at least
approximately possible for large – scale climatic variation, or
only in case of catastrophies. Weather and climate not only
determine the harvest, but also the following crop – processing
and the related distribution of work over the year.
Some factors will remain totally unknown, such as the density
of crop plants (i.e. sowing rates) in a field. Archaeological
experiments therefore orientate themselves towards modern
sowing rates and choose more arbitrary lower sowing rates, as
in Reynolds (1992), where half of the amount used in modern
agriculture was sown. The absolute yield of a crop field varies
by this density, and is also variable depending on the crop
species because of the different yield structures (number of
grains per plant and weight per thousand grains). The same
density of einkorn and bread wheat plants, for example, will
bring differences in the yields, but because the density is a
totally unknown factor, the yield structure of a certain crop
plant becomes a questionable factor in calculations of yields.
This aspect becomes even more significant in considering the
probable change in cereal morphology in the course of time
(e.g. for Neolithic temperate Europe, Jacomet and
Schlichtherle (1984)). Related to this is another problem
discussed by Sigaut (1992). Modern yield calculation is based
on the measurement of yield per square, which is a very
modern measuring unit not applied in Europe before the 18th
century because arable fields were not large and uniform
enough to have a comparable crop plant distribution over the
surface. Such a measurement is therefore irrelevant for ancient
or at least prehistoric farming.
Considering both the ecological and anthropogenic influence,
it is hardly possible to develop a general scheme of input and
yield. Within natural limits, economic efficiency is often
calculated by the comparison of the actual yield with the
maximum potential yield. Both, the actual and the maximum
potential yield in prehistoric societies can scarcely be
calculated, when considering all the unknown factors and
particularly the fact that the archaeobotanical remains represent
only a tiny part of the original harvest in an unknown
representativeness. Therefore the maximum potential yield is
mainly derived from the settlement size and estimated
population size; biomass production; or surface usable for
arable farming are calculated with an assumed ’natural’ loss of
efficiency due to various environmental factors. Hillman
(1973c) demonstrates that certain economic structures might be
easily recognisable in archaeobotanical data, but their
quantification within a representative relation for the whole
settlement may be impossible.
5.9.3 Social implications of diet and consumer
– producer site classification
75

chapter 5: economy
According to Gumerman (1993) three factors determine the
composition of the diet. These are first the physical
environment including its nutritional potential and the set of
crops, second the resource characteristics including the degree
of controllability (consider for example the generally difficult
to control marine resources, which could be a reason, why
Troy’s inhabitants did not exploit marine resources to the same
extent as the population from Kumtepe) and production costs
and nutritional value, and third the socio – political
dimensions.
If the production of a crop is very labour intensive, then its
value is probably higher than that of other crops and very
likely it becomes a luxury item available to limited groups of
people only. The ideology of the people towards a certain food
or economic product is an unknown factor, and might only
become apparent where documents are available.
According to Gumerman (1993) the degree of social
stratification and specialisation decide how resources are
obtained and who will be able to afford them and thus
determines the diet. Diversity in resources is sometimes
interpreted as risk – buffering, but diversification might just as
well have been encouraged by an elite to enrich the spectrum
of consumer goods.
An aspect of interest in prehistoric Mediterranean economy
would be the degree to which a stratified society led to dietary
variation between socio – economic groups. In the above
mentioned model, i.e. a mighty palatial economy, specialising
in a specific set of crops, and the unspecialised non – palatial
economy cultivating the whole range of crops, a dietary
variation between these groups might be possible, but difficult
to prove archaeobotanically, if a hierarchy within the different
living areas of a site is not already evident from the
archaeological remains.
Transferring Gumerman’s model to Troy one might expect to
find an elite in the Upper City specialising in appropriation of
specific crops and providing dependent specialists (e.g. smiths
and other craftsmen) with food, and farmers (independent
specialists) belonging to the lower social stratum who produce
a broad spectrum of crops, have a diverse diet, and inhabit the
Lower City or neighbouring villages. There surely was a
stratified society at Early and Late Bronze Age Troy, refering
to the archaeological results, but the strict model of the
conditionality of diet and profession (which is often described
as a social class) seems to be somewhat unrealistic. A model
like this would expect the whole family of a smith, for
example, to be highly and exclusively integrated in this
profession. Usually a family carries out a broad spectrum of
different activities to obtain an optimal subsistence for the
group (family). Abstract conceptions of clearly definable
subsistence behaviour depending on social level, derive from
traditional thinking that often goes back to literary sources, as
pointed out by Halstead (1992) for the mode of specialisation
of elites (i.e. the specialisation on specific crops as an
administrative measure might not necessarily mean that the
respective people narrowed down their diet).
Additionally, a serious problem in the reconstruction of human
diet is the differentiation of crops for human diet and animal
feed. Halstead and Jones (1995) investigated alternative
sources of mixed crop samples with an ethnoarchaeological
study of cereal and pulse crops in Greece, and found a highly
variable composition of ’maslins’, i.e. deliberate crop mixtures.
Maslins have an intermediate position as far as consumption is
concerned. In good years they may be fodder while in bad
years they are regarded as human food, thus providing
additional security. The assignment of an archaeobotanical
sample to a function as human food or animal fodder by the
archaeobotanist might therefore not always be relevant and
thereby seriously interfere with the recognition of human diet.
On the whole, no differences in diet between the Upper and the
Lower City were visible for none of the periods.
As mentioned in 5.9.2, the discussion of labour input and yield
raises socio – economic questions of labour organisation and
surplus production as a co – ordination result of an elite. A
controversial economic classification of archaeological sites
into ’producer’ and ’consumer sites’ makes use of the very
abstract idea that sites with predominantly products (mainly
crops and only large seeded weeds, similar to morphology of
grains) are ’consumer sites’, whereas sites with mainly by –
products (with the whole weed spectrum) represent ’producer
sites’, with the assumption that generally in prehistory all the
crop was processed within the settlement (M. Jones 1984b).
Another precondition of this model is that all the sites (periods)
are sampled equally, which might be a problem for large sites
which are only selectively excavated, such as Troy.
Hulled wheats are often stored in their spikelets and processed
shortly before consumption on a piecemeal basis. Therefore so
– called ’consumer sites’ might contain considerable amounts
of chaff remains. Furthermore ’consumer sites’ should not
contain barley or bread and durum wheat rachises because free
– threshing grains would arrive fully – processed at the site. It
seems to be assumed that fine – sieving by – products (i.e.
small – seeded weeds) should be present in consumer sites
because this is the last processing stage (van der Veen 1992).
Probably a large amount of the small seeds would get lost
when the semi – cleaned crop product (e.g. emmer in its
spikelets before fine – sieving) is transported to the ’consumer
site’, just by normal processes of grain size distribution
(depending on the means of transport). Therefore this aspect
seems to be of low reliability in the determination of consumer
sites.
Other problems that lead to a taphonomic underrepresentation
of the characteristics of the so – called ’producer sites’ are that
the very early crop – processing stages (e.g. straw store for
thatching and flooring, consisting of undamaged straw) are
comparatively rare in archaeobotanical assemblages due to the
fact that these early stages of processing usually take place at a
distance from sources of fire, or are stored and thus not
preserved (Hillman 1984a). Furthermore different cereal
categories have different preservability, i.e. the easy
combustion of fragile components, such as rachis internodes of
free – threshing cereals during charring (Boardman and Jones
1990). Within a sample, the better preservability of grains
renders the classification into ’producer’ or ’consumer site’
ambiguous. An originally self – supporting settlement might be
incorrectly identified as a ’consumer site’ which might never
have existed in this extreme form.
76

chapter 5: economy
Bintliff (1977) was already able to demonstrate that there are
no ethnographic examples of specialist economy communities
where self – sufficient subsistence was not locally feasible, at
least for the geographic region covered by this work.
But following the train of thought of ’producer’ and ’consumer
sites’, it is easy to understand, why this model does not work
for the remains from Troy and Kumtepe.
Fine sieve by – products, which constitute the main class in the
material from Troy (see Graph 44), should according to the
model be assumed to indicate ’consumer sites’ because they
represent the final stage of the crop – processing sequence, i.e.
the piecemeal processing of emmer stored in its hulls. The
taphonomic aspects mentioned above, would call in question
whether ’consumer sites’ alone are represented in the different
periods of Troy and Kumtepe. The characteristics of ’producer
sites’ might have simply not been preserved. A classification of
the samples according to their archaeobotanical interpretation
as storage, crop – processing by – products or dung would then
give a result for Early Bronze Age in that no storage existed,
and that a ’producer site’ is represented. In fact we saw that
this is the result of taphonomy, because storage pits existed,
which were not filled with crops, chance to the area excavated
and lack of destruction fires. In this case archaeobotany is not a
tool to provide information on the socio – economic system,
and wider archaeological knowledge seems to be more suited
to answer such questions. Many storage samples from Middle
Bronze Age Troy contain low numbers of chaff remains, and
are preserved because of the numerous destruction fires.
Beside this almost no samples were avialable from the Lower
City, so that again a classification according to the ’consumer –
producer site’ model is not possible because of taphonomic
reasons. The results for the Late Bronze Age seem to be less
affected by taphonomy. There seems to be a trend for
’consumer sites’ presented in Troy VI and VIIa, not least from
the archaeological finds. The results of the weed flora and
large – scale cultivation suggested also appropriation of crops.
Crop – processing stages do not differ from the previous
period, i.e. mainly the fine sieve by – products are represented
by the weeds, but they derive exclusively form the Lower City
of Troy VI. This is so far the only evidence for a stratified
society, with crop – processing in the Lower City and
residence of the elite in the Upper City, but also would not
conform with the abstraction, because the city consists of both
a producing and a consuming part.
It is particularly problematic to reach definite conclusions
about Early Bronze Age Troy’s position as a central place
within the Troad. As we have seen, the archaeobotanical
remains show hardly any influence of a stratified society,
mainly because of taphonomic reasons. This demonstrates the
necessity to include a variety of information sources in
considerations on the social level of populations. Beside this,
the weed flora indicates more likely garden – type cultivation.
Given these aspects the presence of wealth (treasures, megara)
has the appearance of being without any recognisable ’socio –
spiritual’ concomitant. The fact that ’Troy II culture’ was never
found in its pure, rich expression outside Troy and could never
convincingly be traced back to its origins fits well within this
scheme. However, in the Early Bronze Age, Troy is the
topographical centre for five settlements within 5 – 7 km
distance (see Map 4). The archaeobotanical remains of
Kumtepe B3 (extensive large – scale cereal cultivation with a
probable specialisation) support the suggestion that these
settlements were sub – suppliers of agricultural goods
sustaining the Early Bronze Age ’chiefs’ of Troy.
Although for Middle Bronze Age Troy, only samples from the
Upper City could be analysed, it seems likely that the farmers
were not subject to an elite. The cultivation practices seem to
have been intensive and small – scale, and cover a broad
spectrum of different ecological habitats (Low Plateau and
delta region). The species diversity shows for the range of
crops the greatest increase of all the periods, and probably
mixed cropping was practised with flax and gold – of –
pleasure. Olive cultivation was presumably substituted by flax.
Very likely an agricultural system with the concept of risk –
buffering might have been practised in different areas around
the settlement (hinterland, delta). The lack of evidence in
simultaneous settlements in the area is due to mainly reasons of
preservation, but possibly the area was not that densely settled
compared to other periods. All in all, the assumption by
Korfmann (1996), that a new population probably with
Anatolian roots arrived on the scene is not opposed by the
archaeobotanical results.
In Troy VI the archaeobotanical evidence suggests a tendency
to a centralised economic organisation. Cultivation becomes
larger – scale, with a specialisation particularly in barley.
Although destruction is the reason for the end of Troy VI, there
seems to be a continuous increase in centralisation by the elite
from Troy VI to VIIa, where the economic growth must have
reached its culmination point. The assumption made by earlier
archaeologists that Troy VIIa was no longer ruled by a
monarch cannot be supported by the archaeobotanical remains.
Large – scale cultivation and specialisation in emmer and
einkorn is indicated. Livestock played a central role, but also
hunting (fallow – deer), that was probably carried out by the
elite (Uerpmann, Köhler and Stephan 1992). Possible horse or
cattle byres are archaeobotanically evident in different parts of
the city. Furthermore deforestation and soil erosion must have
greatly increased. It is strongly suggested that the surrounding
settlements were supplying farming villages, but also in Troy
itself farmers might have lived in the Lower City. Strong
differences in domestic architecture (wooden post houses,
apsidal houses, etc.) are the archaeological signs for a distinct
social structure during Troy VI.
Summarising the determinants of agricultural practice during
Neolithic Kumtepe and later periods in Troy, the line of least
resistance in the interplay between a changing environment and
more or less pressure by socio – political forces becomes
obvious. Vegetation seems to be a considerable obstacle in
Kumtepe A; the subsistence economy strongly relied on sea
food and on the wild food plants (fig). In Kumtepe B, socio –
political aspects become likely in the development of
agriculture, whereas Early Bronze Age Troy could have been
appropriator of Kumtepe B/C crops. In Middle Bronze Age
Troy, the people seem to struggle with the natural
preconditions (’normal surplus’ in a more or less unstratified
77

chapter 5: economy
society as a response to the risk of scarcity), whereas in Troy
VI the shape of agriculture becomes determined by socio –
political power, and is almost solely dependent on guidance by
an elite during Troy VIIa. The environmental changes brought
about by anthropogenic, ruinous exploitation leading to
considerable soil erosion during the Late Bronze Age and the
destruction of the socio – political power with the end of Troy
VIIa led to a small – scale agricultural system that depended
mainly on the natural preconditions during Troy VIIb.
5.10 Troy in its regional context
5.10.1 Archaeobotanical evidence for Bronze
Age trade
Another socio – economic and socio – political aspect defining
the position of a settlement within a larger region is trade.
Trade is often a consequence of surplus production and thus in
many cases controlled by the elite.
Cline (1994) pointed out the intensity of Bronze Age trade
contacts of Greece and Crete with other regions. The finds
from early Late Bronze Age (LM I – II) suggest intensive
contacts between Egypt and Crete. The decay of Knossos (LM
IIIA2) marked the decreasing of intensity in trade contacts.
Subsequently, trade routes seem to have been controlled by
Mycenaeans. The intensity of trade contacts with peoples of
the Black Sea region is unclear (Hiller 1991). The geographical
position of Troy at the transition of the two regions might have
been important for these contacts. Hiller assumes that Troy
functioned as an intermediate harbour of the Mycenaeans on
their way to the Black Sea. Mycenaean objects are rare in the
Black Sea region and located mainly on the Bulgarian Black
Sea coast. At some sites on the northern coast of the Black Sea
(Borodin, Cjurupinsk and Kertsch on the Crimea peninsula),
similar double axes are found to those in Troy VI (Hawkes
1936, quoted in Hiller 1991). An indicator of definite contacts
between the Pontic coast and the Aegean is, according to Hiller
(1991), evident from the Troy VII axes, which are common in
the North Pontus and rare in the Aegean. Cline (1994) suggests
more intense contacts during the Early Mycenaean period.
Furthermore, the main commercial contact took place between
larger centres, such as Mycenae or Tyrins. The directed course
of the trade was surely highly dependent on natural conditions
such as currents, wind direction, and seasonal weather.
Considering the trade contacts between the Aegean and
Anatolia, there are only 12 objects of probable Anatolian
origin known from LM I – III contexts, whereas Mycenaean
finds on the West – Anatolian coast are much more common,
at least from LM III. Contact with the Hittite area is difficult to
assess in its concrete appearance, also because of lack of finds.
In Linear B texts there is no hint of the relationship with
central Anatolian localities, whereas in Hittite texts the
’Ahhiyawa’ are assumed to represent the Mycenaeans (cf.
Mellink 1983). Cline (1994) suggests that the contacts were
more likely indirect, e.g. that similarities were ‘transmitted’
through Milet (p. 69). However, it would be surprising if no
mutual interest in the products of each region existed, and one
explanation for the apparent lack of contacts might be that the
Hittite laid an embargo on Mycenaean trade.
Contacts between Mainland Greece and Troy are apparent in
Troy II and from Troy VI onwards, and become more intensive
up until the time of the destruction of Troy VI. Minoan
contacts, on the other hand, are minimal (Bryce 1989). The
infrastructure (i.e. a harbour) necessary for trade contacts is
discussed in detail by Korfmann (1986 and 1992b, p. 20 ff.)
and Kayan (1996). The trade potential of the city during Troy
II is supported by the architecture (the monumental Megaron
IIA), the treasures and the crafts, i.e. the use of bronze and the
potter’s wheel, which go along with specialised production of
trade goods (Korfmann 1991).
Although a palace is not preserved in Troy VI, there are
differences between Troy and a Mycenaean fortress in terms of
urban planning, fortification architecture (including gate
systems, tower construction, and provision for a water supply),
and domestic architecture within the citadel itself. Mycenaean
trade was in a general decline during Troy VIIa and this is
assumed to be likely evidence for a hypothetical siege of Troy
by Mycenaeans. It remains to be established how much of the
’imported Mycenaean’ pottery from Troy VIIa is from the
Peloponnese, from the Aegean islands, or from Mycenaean
sites on the coast of Asia Minor itself.
Direct evidence on the course of trade is represented by finds
of shipwrecks, such as the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck (ca.
1200 BC) on the south coast of Asia Minor, which provided
information particularly on Bronze Age metal trade. Paintings
in Egyptian tombs presented indications that the origin of the
traders might be Mycenae. However the presumption of a
monopoly by Mycenaeans involved in trade in oxhide ingots is
debatable (the origin of the ship is not clear, if one were to
suppose that Bronze Age cargo ships have a ’nationality’ at
all).
Apart from the abundant finds of copper and bronze ingots,
mostly of the so – called ’oxhide’ type, some information of
plant use was preserved. Traces of mats on many of the ingots
suggest that these were layered between the individual ingots
in the stacks. Tools were probably originally stored in wicker
baskets. Traces of food in the form of fish bones and olive pips
were present.
So far no systematic investigation of organic material from
shipwrecks has been conducted as, for example, was carried
out by Haldane (Haldane 1991a, 1991b and 1993). The author
analysed archaeobotanical samples from several shipwrecks on
the south – western shore of Turkey and thus contributed to the
knowledge of trade and shipping practices in the Late Bronze
Age.
In addition to olives and grapes, various other native
Mediterranean fruits and nuts were objects of trade, such as
pistachio, almond and diverse Prunus species. Spices and
evidence of at least half a ton of terebinth resin was found in
the cargo from the shipwreck at Ulu Burun (TR), and provides
an insight on the value placed on certain plant products in
Bronze Age Mediterranean societies.
No plant remains of potential trade goods are evident from
Troy. Far – reaching trade contacts are suggested by raw
material finds in Troy, but there is lack of organic precious
objects including spices and resins (except the Cistus sp. finds
in a Middle Bronze Age Building which might suggest its use
for resin production).
78

chapter 5: economy
Many of the samples are from contexts in which one would not
expect spices or aromatic essences (dung, crop – processing by
– products), which might also explain their absence.
However, the proposed socio – political patterns at Troy show
that Aegean contacts must have been considerable during Troy
VI at least and probably also during Troy VIIa. An
organisation of agriculture by a stratified society similar, if not
identical to other Mycenaean centres is evident at least as
concerns plant production. No economic decay linked to a
decrease of trade contacts during Troy VIIa is indicated in
agricultural production; on the contrary, Troy VIIa seems to be
the most prosperous period of plant production. A probable
siege by Mycenaeans can only be expected to have occurred at
the end of Troy VIIa.
5.10.2 Economic and ecological parallels
between the Bronze Age Troad and other
locations in Greece and West Anatolia
With the new investigations in Troy the knowledge of cultural
influences and contacts between Troy and other regions has
become more concrete. According to the grouping of Troy I –
III as ’Maritime Troia Culture’, Troy IV/V as ’Anatolian Troia
Culture’ and Troy VI/VII as ’Troia High Culture’ the direction
of the dominant interregional contacts shifted through time.
The material culture of the so – called ’Maritime Troia
Culture’ is concentrated in the coastal areas and islands of the
East and North Aegean and the Sea of Marmara. According to
Korfmann, this phenomenon can be appreciated by considering
the ocean – currents, that enable North – South
communication, but do not allow a direct East – West crossing
of the Aegean (Korfmann 1996).
Climatic or edaphic differences between different regions are
interpreted as causal determinants for a differing set of crops
(e.g. dominant barley cultivation in arid climates during Early
Bronze Age (van Zeist and Bakker – Heeres 1985) in contrast
to dominant wheat cultivation in regions with more
precipitation (Schlichtherle 1977/1978)).
Dickinson’s conclusion that we can “expect that the
communities of Greece” and proably everywhere in the world
“will have made a conscious effort to suit their practices to the
land and climate” (Dickinson 1994, p.23) seems to be a
sensible basis for further considerations of economic
behaviour. Forces by some kind of elite add on a lower, often
small – scale level for these times and are therefore here
considered as secondary. Human beings are much more
environmentally determined than they would like to admit.
Many changes in economic behaviour can be related to an
environmental change. The chains of cause and reaction might
be long and tortuous, but when traced back there will always
be an environmental dependency. No matter whether a group
of peasants decided to cultivate a new crop or an elite forced
farmers to specialise in single crops, the decision would rarely
be conducted against the environmental constraints. The
environmentally determined economic behaviour might
become tradition, and even when a new population emigrates
to a new environmental range they might keep their set of
crops and thereby indicate the environmental region they came
from. Such a case is suggested for the Middle Bronze Age
Troy farmers, who cultivate a new range of crops, formerly not
having been cultivated in theTroad, and disappear again with
the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Only after adaptation to the
new environment may the set of crops change.
Environmental destination and cultural determination in
relation to economic change are not a contrasting pair, since
the first is always a basis, whereas the second is just one of
several possible reagents. This is also the case for the changing
environment of the Bronze Age landscape of the Troad. The
delta region as well as the Low Plateau change through the
periods, either through natural or human impact. The economy
seems to be determined by environmental conditions, but
seems also to be influenced in its intensity (Troy VIIa) and
specific characters (Middle Bronze Age Troy) by an elite or at
least a hierarchical convention.
While climatic changes that result in a change in the set of
crops can be excluded for the Bronze Age Troad, changing
edaphic factors, i.e. soil erosion (as proved for many Aegean
sites (see e.g. van Andel, Zangger and Demitrack 1990) were
surely reason for changing the set of crops, at least during Troy
VIIb, when a shift from a predominant cultivation of emmer
and einkorn during Troy VIIa to predominantly barley and
bitter vetch took place (see chapter 3).
Palatial economy is a much discussed subject in relation to the
development of Aegean Bronze Age society (C. Renfrew 1972,
Halstead 1992, etc.), while only a few scholars have
investigated the contribution of peasantry to the structure and
change of societies (Gallant (1991) for the Classical period).
Halstead (1994) mentions subsistence, exchange and social
behaviour as variables determining the development of
’palatial civilisation’. The environmental conditions in the
Troad are similar to those of the Greek coastal area. These
preconditions (e.g. geomorphology, average growing season,
precipitation and the potential resource base) are developed by
the agricultural activity of the population and result in
productivity.
Early Neolithic settlements in Greece are concentrated heavily
in the lowlands and raised basins of the Eastern Mainland,
where the precipitation deficit is low. Early foundations are
tells of ca. 0.5 – 1.0 ha with populations of between 50 – 300.
Kumtepe corresponds well with its 1.4 ha. During the Late
Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, a major expansion of the
settlements was apparent in Thessaly, whereas in the more arid
regions, there was still little settlement. Expansion might
directly be related to population growth caused by more
favourable conditions for crop production. This phenomenon is
also seen when comparing the economic structure of Kumtepe
A with Kumtepe B. Conditions (either technological, cultural
or natural) for large – scale agriculture seem to be much more
favourable during Kumtepe B. The settlements in Thessaly
attained up to 7 – 15 ha in the Early Bronze Age and 25 – 50
ha in the Late Bronze Age, with populations of several hundred
to a few thousand people (Halstead, 1994). Troy VI, with its
probable settlement size of 20 ha, also fits well into this
pattern.
The scale and intensity of land use for crops in Neolithic
communities is described for Thessaly as small – scale,
intensive and “horticultural” (Halstead 1994, p. 201). This kind
of crop husbandry is also assumed not to degrade the landscape
or to promote competition for land use. On the other hand,
79

chapter 5: economy
extensive herding is assumed to account for the widespread
sixth millennium BC expansion of hornbeam (Carpinus
betulus) and for erosion and alluviation in Thessaly (6. – 3.
millennium BC). An opening of the landscape is assumed to
have been caused by intensive grazing and suggests a strong
reliance of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age people on
livestock. The economic structure of Early Bronze Age Troy
(evident from the plant remains) fits very well into the pattern
drawn for Thessaly. The beginning of nucleation of settlements
in Early Bronze Age Greece is interpreted as a sign of
productive inequalities and an emerging, redistributing elite
that would attract ordinary households. This results in the
disappearance of risk – buffering and a suppression of sharing
within communities (Halstead 1994).
In the early small scale horticultural regimes, human labour
rather than land or plough animals was the limiting factor for
crop production. Factors in the scale of production are the
seasonal, interannual and long – term variability. Seasonal
variability, i.e. moist and cool winters and dry, hot summers,
were already taken into account by the early farmers (mudbrick
buildings, storage, multicropping/low risk agriculture). The
areas preferred for colonisation were generally located near
watercourses. Interannual varying crop yields (e.g. by drought)
were buffered by maslins or multicropping as aspects of a low
risk economy (e.g. Bronze Age Macedonia: Jones et al. 1986),
or when the shortage was not universal, by an exchange of
surplus food between households. Aspects of risk – buffering
were also suggested for Middle Bronze Age Troy.
There is not much information about the Middle Bronze Age
and a discontinuity in settlement is likely. In general there is a
coexistence of large and small settlements in both the Early
Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age, which might indicate
economic and political inequality, but no discrete hierarchical
levels. Settlement growth is occasionally assumed to be in
relation to a diversification in the subsistence economy, as is
evident for Middle Bronze Age Troy. Halstead (1994) relates
this diversification to the abundance of wild animals (increase
of hunting in Later Early Bronze Age in Thessaly) and the
enlargement of the range of species of domestic livestock (e.g.
horse and donkey in Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age).
Nucleated settlements in Late Bronze Age Greece are thought
to have increased the average distances to fields. The exclusion
of part of the population from agriculture (in crafts) forced
those remaining to cultivate on a larger scale. Clearance is also
apparent in the palynological record from now. Agriculture
may have been a combination of small – scale horticulture and
extensive agriculture under palatial control (e.g. Gla (Jones and
Halstead, in prep.) and Tiryns (Kroll 1984 and 1982)).
Introduction of exotic craft goods, and palatial craft production
as a means to finance the activities of an elite and long distance
trade in raw materials are common. The Linear B archives
record the centralised control of large – scale agricultural
production, particularly of one type of wheat and wool. Not
recorded is the large human labour force at harvest time and
the archaeobotanically evident diversity of cultivates, which
imply a diversified non – palatial sector (see above). As
regards the decline of the ’palatial’ community, Halstead
(1994) suggests that it was caused by the collapse of palatial
’currency’ as a result of the concentration on trading for raw
materials instead of mobilisation of surplus.
One might feel inclined to describe Kumtepe and Troy as
typical Aegean sites when considering the economic and
ecological parallels between the Bronze Age Troad and other
locations in the Eastern Mediterranean available from
archaeobotanical studies.
The prehistoric coastal settlement Lerna covers horizons from
early Neolithic (Lerna 1) until the Roman period (Lerna 9).
More or less representative archaeobotanical sampling was
conducted for the late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Middle
Bronze Age layers (Hopf 1962b). The main crops in Neolithic
Lerna are legumes and fig, which is equivalent to the situation
at Kumtepe A. Fig was also dominant at late Neolithic
Rachmani (Renfrew 1966). Cereal cultivation (barley) seems to
have played only a minor role during this period.
Emmer, einkorn, barley and lentil are the main crops in the
Preceramic horizons of Argissa – Magula (Hopf 1962a) with a
dominance of wheats. This set of crops appears somewhat
later, i.e. at Kumtepe B, where six – row barley also starts to
increase, as is the case for late Neolithic Pyrasos, for example
(Renfrew 1966).
Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Thessalian sites are notable for
their strong development of legume cultivation (Halstead and
Jones 1980, Kroll 1981), as was obvious for the same periods
at Kumtepe.
In the early periods (Neolithic, Early Bronze Age) ’alternative
food’ (acorn, Medicago sp.) is usually suggested to have been
used in human diet, whereas in later periods the tendency is
towards an interpretation as animal feed. Acorn was abundant
from late Neolithic Sesklo, where the main crop was emmer
(Renfrew 1966). In Neolithic Franchthi Cave (7000 – 5200
BP), in addition to emmer, lentil and two – row barley,
Medicago sp. is abundant and is interpreted as human food
(Hansen 1991, p. 65).
A difference in the cereal spectrum between the Cyclades and
the Greek mainland is the dominance of six – row barley in
Late Neolithic Thessaly, which can be explained neither by
environmental change, nor by a differing productivity of two –
row barley (Renfrew 1966).
Hubbard (1979) suggests for the Middle Neolithic Servia a
closer resemblance of agriculture with that of Bulgaria than
with that of Thrace. The main crops are emmer and einkorn,
six – row barley, lentils and peas. Except for pea, the set of
crops seems to correspond with the Kumtepe remains.
Ecological aspects were also of interest at Servia. Charcoal
analysis provided information on the broader ecological
structure around the site, with diverse deciduous trees and pine,
but without evergreen trees or shrubs. Malacological analysis
revealed that shaded environments must have been just about
as common as dry, open conditions. Unfortunately this form of
analysis is not available for Kumtepe and Troy at the moment.
Hulled barley and wheats are the main crops at Early Bronze
Age Kastanas (Kroll 1983). Pulses, particularly bitter vetch
seem to have been also intensively cultivated. Lentil and other
crop legumes might have been of minor importance. Fig and
grape are strongly represented. Apart from this, gathered fruits
supplemented the diet, including acorns.
At Lerna the hulled wheats and grape occur for the first time
during Early Bronze Age, which is interpreted as a relation of
the inhabitants to – or even their origin in – Asia Minor (Hopf
1962b).
80

chapter 5: economy
Cultivated grape was identified by J. M. Renfrew (1972) at
Myrtos for the Early Bronze Age.
Crop legumes were not of importance during Early Bronze
Age Troy, and proteins must have been derived mainly from
livestock keeping. The differences to other eastern
Mediterranean sites might be explained by the isolation of the
settlement during this period, as suggested from archaeology.
The species spectrum at Middle Bronze Age Argissa – Magula
is similar to the previous periods. The occurrence of garden
pea is new, as is the case for Troy IV. A probable use of
Astragalus sp. in higher numbers for human diet has been
suggested, but remains from animal dung may well be
represented in this case (Hopf 1962a).
Assiros differs from Late Bronze Age Troy in that it was not a
large centre with thousands of inhabitants, but a small (50 –
100 individuals) ’protopalatial’ settlement with communal
storage and a kind of redistributive function that was inhabited
between 1800 – 800 BC (Jones et al. 1986). Beside emmer and
einkorn, Triticum aestivum / durum and Triticum spelta were
found in a big storage complex. In addition, six – row hulled
barley, broomcorn millet and bitter vetch were also cultivated.
Agricultural techniques are clear. Whereas most of the crops
were monocrops, emmer and spelt seem to have been grown
and stored together, an evident maslin. The weed flora of
Assiros indicates an intensive garden – type cultivation of
cereals, as at Troy VIIb, where the inhabitants seem to have
shifted their fields into the fertile valley region after the
destruction of Troy VIIa.
At Late Bronze Age Iolkos Renfrew (1966) found several
samples that were dominated by Vicia faba along with an
abundance of six – row barley. This dominance of barley over
hulled wheats is also significant for Troy VI and VIIb, whereas
during Troy VIIa the elite specialised in hulled wheats. The
most abundant legumes in Late Bronze Age Troy are bitter
vetch in Troy VI and VIIb and chickpea in Troy VIIa. Late
Bronze Age Iolkos and especially Troy VI, seem to have
similarities in economic requirements, i.e. a great demand for
vegetable protein and preference of barley. Renfrew (1966)
suggests that acorn was an important supplement to human
diet, whereas the acorn finds of Late Bronze Age Troy suggest
from their contexts (presumably stables) a more likely use for
animal feed.
The geomorphology of prehistoric Kastanas was different, i.e.
a bay reached far inland and the Toumba was a small island
(Kroll 1983). The set of crops in Late Bronze Age is almost
identical to that of Early Bronze Age, but with the new crop,
Panicum miliaceum. Millet also appears during Troy VI.
Einkorn is assumed to have been a trade good at Kastanas,
whereas spelt and naked wheat were only admixtures in the
crop without autonomous cultivation. Bitter vetch is the most
frequent amongst the pulses. The wheat harvest is strongly
infested by Lolium temulentum and indicates a decrease in
quality of the harvest. This is taken as an indication that after a
phase of prosperity the production capacity of the arable land
was exhausted.
At Late Bronze Age Tiryns Hordeum vulgare is the most
ubiquitous crop (Kroll 1982). Emmer also occurs in large
amounts and einkorn is ubiquitous but in small amounts. Bitter
vetch is the most ubiquitous crop legume and indicates an
important role for this protein – providing species in Late
Bronze Age Tiryns. The admixture of barley in bitter vetch
storage is interpreted as being a result of crop rotation. Fig was
heavily used at Tiryns. Amongst the wild plants, Malva sp. was
strongly represented and its possible medicinal use is
suggested. Medicago sp. occurs in several samples and is
cautiously mentioned as animal feed. Fruit tree cultivation is
only sparsely recorded. Lolium temulentum played a certain
role as a weed in the cereals. Lolium spp. are among the
species in the final crop – processing stages, due to their
adaptation of shape to the crop they are growing with. One
might therefore wish to consider also the chaff remains for an
evaluation of the degree of contamination and not just the
number of grains. In Troy most of the ryegrass seeds are
associated with the chaff of crop – processing by – products. In
this way, the contamination does not appear so drastic as
described (see Kroll (1982, Tab. 1 (emmer/einkorn chaff
remains) and p.483)).
In general, the situation atTiryns appears very similar to that of
Late Bronze Age Troy.
The development of cultivation patterns in the Troad (i.e.
preferences for specific crops in different periods) corresponds
very well to that of Thessaly (Kroll 1981), although the oil
plants provide an exception. Whereas olive is not a crop in
Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age Thessaly, it played
a certain role during Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age /
Post Bronze Age Troy at least. During Middle Bronze Age
Troy, vegetable oil was provided by Linum usitatissimum,
which apart from Troy IV, is only recorded in low numbers at
Kumtepe.
Plant remains from several third millennium BC sites have
been reported from Turkey. Preferences in specific cereal
species in Near Eastern sites were often related to different
precipitation patterns. Barley and wheat are the major crops,
but wheat seems to predominate during Early Bronze Age
Anatolia, which contrasts with comparable sites in areas of
lower rainfall (e.g. in Mesopotamia), where barley seems to be
more important (Miller 1991). At Demircihüyük, preliminary
results suggested a preference for wheat, especially wild and
domestic einkorn (Schlichtherle 1977/1978). This site also has
the first Camelina sativa known from the Near East, although
it is scattered in the ash levels and may be just a weed. At
Middle Bronze Age Jericho (Hopf 1983) and Arad (Hopf
1978) a dominance of barley was evident.
In western Turkey only a few archaeobotanical investigations
have been undertaken. The Izmir Region Project only recently
started to conduct research on archaeological sites in the area
(Izmir – Region – Project – Team 1996).
Aegean contacts are evident from imported and local
Mycenaean painted pottery at Liman Tepe. The site already
existed during the Early Bronze Age II period, where a
massive defence system including a harbour was erected.
Residential buildings were uncovered in the Lower Town,
while the administrative buildings are in the acropolis.
Another site, Panaztepe, north of the Gulf of Izmir, was
continuously inhabited from the third millennium BC to the
fifth century AD, and is also furnished with an acropolis and a
harbour.
The acropolis, dating to the beginning of Middle Bronze Age,
is thought to have an administrative character. Excavations at
the harbour town yielded a stratigraphic sequence that covers
81

chapter 5: economy
the time period between the Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze
Age. Local and imported Mycenaean wares have been
encountered in the Late Bronze Age stratigraphic levels along
with the local Late Bronze Age wares. Panaztepe seems to
have reached its cultural peak during the Middle Bronze Age.
The site shows strong central Anatolian links during this
period, as is suggested for Middle Bronze Age Troy
(Korfmann 1996).
Bakla Tepe is located within the borders of Izmir province
(Menders district). The site is situated on a rocky hill and
reflects a cultural sequence starting from Late Chalcolithic and
continuing into the Early Bronze Age I period. The size of the
site is at 6.25 ha relatively large for this period. At Bakla Tepe
some agricultural organisation is evident. A ’Kumtepe – type’
ceramic sequence of at least four main phases has been
identified so far. The latest Late Chalcolithic phase is
characterised by Kumtepe Ib (B1) ceramics. Bakla Tepe
yielded remains of multiple building complexes of ’row
houses’ dating to the Early Bronze Age I period. These
architectural features are surrounded by a defence system.
Carbonised seeds uncovered from Bakla Tepe and Liman Tepe
were analysed by Oybak (1997) and contain mainly hulled
barley, einkorn and emmer wheats and also lentil at Bakla
Tepe. The Late Chalcolithic I layers of Liman Tepe possessed,
in addition to the same crop spectrum, also common vetch and
grape remains, resembling the crop spectrum from Kumtepe.
The Inner Anatolian influences at Middle Bronze Age Troy are
not only evident from the ceramic types, but also from
settlement patterns and other architectural objects such as
dome – shaped ovens. According to Korfmann the
archaeozoological remains, with a large proportion of wild
game, and the first appearance of dome – shaped ovens,
indicate changes in food preparation, if not totally different life
styles related to a different population. The archaeobotanical
remains from this period do not give information about food
preparation, but demonstrate different agricultural techniques
and preferences (e.g. the substitution of certain crops, as it is
the case for olive and flax). Free-threshing wheat, which is
established only during Middle Bronze Age Troy, may provide
evidence for differing spheres of influence. However, it is
impossible to deduce the mentioned eastward relations from
the crop species.
Korfmann (1996) also assumes Anatolian contacts for the
suggested ’Troia High Culture’ (Late Bronze Age). The find of
a seal with Luwian hieroglyphs, dating around 1100, which
might have belonged to a writer, strengthens Korfmann’s
assumption that Troy was culturally oriented towards Anatolia
during the whole second millennium. Other finds, such as the
’standing warrior figurines’ found before the 16th century in
Syria and Palestine serve to support the assumptions. The
contemporary presence of Aegean finds is explained as a kind
of bilingualism, as is also indicated from philological
investigations.
All in all the economic patterns at Troy are strikingly similar to
those of the simultaneous Aegean sites, particularly during
Late Bronze Age. During Middle Bronze Age some
peculiarities demonstrate the individualism and a certain
degree of socio – political independence of Troy from the
Aegean. Other sites in West – Anatolia (Izmir District) seem to
show very similar archaeobotanical features as at Kumtepe and
Troy.
82

chapter 6: summary
6 Summary: A model of subsistence
economy and environment in the
Bronze Age Troad
The natural Mediterranean environment is the background of
the first farming inhabitants in the Troad. The continuous
increase in weed species from the beginnings until the end of
the Late Bronze Age is one of the facts demonstrating human
influence. The natural flora was exploited for different
purposes throughout all the periods. Tenacious wetland plants
such as Phragmites australis, Juncus spp. and Typha latifolia
were used for roofing and furnishing of houses. The maquis
vegetation (e.g. Paliurus spina – christi) was cut to meet the
central demand for a fuel supply and for clearing the area for
new fields.
Starting from Kumtepe B, the inhabitants cleared the landscape
to fulfil their need for fuel and building material and thereby
facilitated the spread of a rather more degraded vegetation with
phrygana elements such as Sarcopoterium spinosum, Cistus
spp., etc., which were again used for fuel. But the demand for
fuel for various reasons (metal production, domestic fires)
remained a daily concern, particularly during the later periods.
This was satisfied by alternatives such as burning dung. The
early probable dung remains (Early Bronze Age and Middle
Bronze Age) derive from grazing goat or sheep probably on
coastal slopes and in the valley, and are mainly found together
with cooking or heating facilities. Plants from open, not too
dry vegetation, particularly Trifolium sp., Medicago sp., Carex
divulsa, and Poa trivialis – type, formed the typical dung
composition in the early periods of Troy. Later (from Troy VI)
the increase in bitter vetch might be a result of its use for the
purpose of additional feeding. Sheep dung has the best burning
qualities and might have been used continuously throughout all
the periods. Cow dung (Kerpiç) was also used, at least for
building, as probable from the archaeological remains.
Woodland (maquis), which was relatively open during Early
Bronze Age already, seems to recover partially during Middle
Bronze Age Troy, only to be cleared with stronger impact
during Late Bronze Age.
While climatic changes that could have resulted in a change in
the set of crops are not provable for the Bronze Age Troad,
changing edaphic factors, i.e. soil erosion (as evident for many
Aegean sites) are a more likely reason for changes in the set of
crops, at least during Troy VIIb, where a shift from cultivating
predominantly emmer and einkorn during Troy VIIa to barley
and bitter vetch took place.
Changes are suggested, not only in the crop spectrum and the
associated weeds, but also in the locations of fields for the
different periods at Kumtepe and Troy. The degree to which
the different ecological habitats and regions were exploited
changes in each period for various reasons. These include a
probable decrease in yields as a consequence of soil
impoverishment and soil erosion, as suggested for Troy VIIb,
an impact of insect pests to unknown degree, as evident for the
garden pea cultivation in Troy IV, a change in agricultural
technology, as probable for the transition from Early to Middle
Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age Troy, cultural change, as
archaeologically suggested for the Middle Bronze Age
population, or the likely but not yet proven crop failures as a
consequence of weather and climatic change. In most of the
periods at Troy, agriculture was practised both in depressions
of the Low Plateau and in the valley, depending on cultural
preferences and natural conditions.
During Kumtepe, only the hinterland was cultivated, which in
fact was the only possible place because the coastline at this
time left only a small coastal strip. The first intensification of
field management occurred during Kumtepe B2 and during
Kumtepe B3 at the latest, specialisation in cereal cultivation is
indicated, leading along with the layout of new fields to
increasing deforestation around the settlement.
During Early Bronze Age Troy the Low Plateau was still a
favoured place to cultivate crops, probably because the river
valley was located further inland from the settlement. The
riverside was presumably frequented by grazing animals.
After the Early Bronze Age abandonment, maquis partially
reestablished on the Low Plateau, so that the Middle Bronze
Age farmers had to clear some areas of the rather open maquis
woods. The Scamander delta was now closer to the settlement
and the inhabitants made use of the availability of ample water.
They cultivated a broad spectrum of different crops on the Low
Plateau and in the valley, sometimes very close to the coast.
This probably small – scale, intensive cultivation during
Middle Bronze Age, with the likely aim of risk – buffering and
the use of different areas (e.g. cereal cultivation in the delta
region) was well adapted to the ecological constraints of dry
climates.
During Troy VIIa crop fields were more numerous on the Low
Plateau, whereas Troy VI fields were at least equally frequent
in the valley. The Low Plateau was again extensively cleared
for new fields, with the consequence that dung must have
become an important fuel again. Sheep might still have found
enough feed in the open maquis vegetation and the grassland –
type vegetation in the valley must also have been welcome as
grazing ground for cattle and horses. Apart from this there are
signs that cattle were additionally fed with crops (bitter vetch
and barley). The probability that neighbouring villages
exploited the land to a great degree during Troy VI and VIIa is
very high.
During Troy VIIb at the latest the soil partially must have been
leached out, eroded, and then accumulated in the valley,
forcing the inhabitants to set out their cereal fields in this area.
Post – Bronze Age Troians seem to have avoided close contact
with the delta, possibly because of the risk of catching malaria.
In considering the individual periods for their main crops, it
became evident that the diversity of crops and the exploitation
of a new range of species increased from the Neolithic to
Middle Bronze Age, with a slight decrease after and increase
again during Troy VIIb. Surplus cereal production is suggested
for Kumtepe B and during the earlier periods of Late Bronze
Age Troy (VI and VIIa), whereas Kumtepe A, Middle Bronze
Age Troy and Troy VIIb more likely indicate a small – scale,
intensive production with high proportions in crop legumes.
The type of agricultural subsistence remains somewhat unclear
for Early Bronze Age Troy. The strong presence of dung
remains suggests a significant livestock keeping, at least during
the final phase.
During Kumtepe A – as far as deducible from only seven
samples – an intensive, but probably small – scale cultivation
of grain legumes (lentil and bitter vetch) and fig trees is
83

chapter 6: summary
obvious, which corresponds to the set of crops in several other
Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Thessalian and Argolid sites,
such as the coastal settlement Lerna. Cereal cultivation (barley)
seems to have played a minor role during this period. An
important protein supply was sea food. The generally difficult
regulation of marine resources might have been a reason why
Troy’s inhabitants did not exploit them as much as the
population at Kumtepe.
During Kumtepe B cultivation was concentrated on emmer
with signs of specialisation, and to a smaller degree on einkorn
and barley. Grape consumption starts no earlier than Kumtepe
B3.
Hulled wheats and fig are the dominant crops in the horizons
of Early Bronze Age Troy, whereas barley and crop legumes
only occur in small numbers. Considering the presumed
intensive use of dung, it might well be that a large part of the
proteins in the diet were supplied by livestock, which contrasts
against some Aegean sites such as Kastanas (Macedonia), but
corresponds with others (e.g. Lerna). The differences with
other eastern Mediterranean sites might be explained by the
isolation of the settlement during this period, as suggested from
the archaeological results.
The cultivation of new crops (free-threshing wheat, garden pea
and flax) and discontinuation of others (olive) is concurrent
with likely new techniques (mixed cropping) during Middle
Bronze Age Troy. The archaeological suggestion of the
immigration of Anatolian people during this period is
supported if one considers geographical inland regions, in
which olive cultivation was not practised.
Large – scale storage is suggested for Late Bronze Age Troy
from the early excavations already with numerous pithoi finds
within the buildings. During Late Bronze Age Troy some new
crops also appear for the first time (e.g. broomcorn millet).
Vine and oil production are present with only a few seed
remains but might have taken place in the plantations. The
subsistence economy during Troy VI relied on barley. Einkorn
might not have been cultivated intentionally in this period, and
probably occurs as a weed of barley and emmer.
In Troy VIIa emmer and einkorn greatly increase in contrast to
barley and were surely part of the palatial subsistence
economy. Chickpea was probably an important food, providing
additional proteins in the human diet. In Troy VIIb barley
cultivation is once again dominant.
Late Bronze Age Troy corresponds very well to other sites
with its different periods. The feature of an intensive
cultivation of crop legumes and the preference of barley, as
suggested for Troy VI and VIIb, is common to other Aegean
sites such as Iolkos or Tyrins. Late Bronze Age Kastanas with
its set of crops seems to resemble Troy VIIa, whereas the weed
flora of Assiros, with its intensive garden – type cultivation, is
similar to Troy VIIb.
In general the development of cultivation patterns in the Troad
and other West – Anatolian sites (the Neolithic Izmir region)
correspond very well with those in the whole Aegean area, and
relations to Anatolia are only barely suggested, e.g. in Middle
Bronze Age Troy.
Considering the development of single crops and their
significance in the course of the time, similarities with other
economic systems in the Aegean become even clearer.
Emmer and einkorn were important crops during most of the
periods, starting from Kumtepe B3. In the Lower and the
Upper City of Troy II the storage of semi – cleaned emmer
grain is suggested. From Middle Bronze Age onwards (except
Troy VIIa), emmer and einkorn started to decrease slightly in
percentage occurrence, but still remained important crops in
the Troad until the end of the Bronze Age. The high abundance
of emmer and einkorn during Troy VIIa demonstrates the
probable influence of the elite and their specialisation in these
cereals. They were probably stored with the glumes and
processed piecemeal.
Barley increases to become a dominant crop during Kumtepe
B2 at the earliest. During Troy VI and VIIb the subsistence
economy relies heavily on this cereal. In the final period of the
Bronze Age (VIIb) the reasons for the dominant barley
cultivation may lie in the different growing conditions close to
the coast, which was probably the preferred growing area after
the soil was eroded during VIIa.
Other cereals, such as millet or naked wheat, were probably of
minor importance for the economy of the settlements.
The crop legumes differ greatly in the extent to which the
people relied upon them. Whereas at Kumtepe A lentil and
bitter vetch constitute the main crops, they almost seem to
disappear during Kumtepe B, and during Early Bronze Age
Troy. From Middle Bronze Age Troy they are again frequent.
Bitter vetch is the most ubiquitous legume throughout all the
periods, and presumably demonstrates the intensity of its
cultivation by an increasing seed size from Kumtepe to Late
Bronze Age. A suggested small – scale, intensive cultivation of
the crops in the fertile valley during Troy VIIb could have been
the reason for increased seed size. At least from Late Bronze
Age Troy, bitter vetch might have been used as animal feed, or
a possible social factor latest during Troy VIIb, as human food.
Other crop legumes were of minor importance (e.g. horse bean
during Post – Bronze Age Troy) or they only occurred as
weeds (Lathyrus sativus/cicera).
The olive remains from Early Bronze Age Troy are the earliest
in the region. In Middle Bronze Age the olive was probably
substituted by flax. In Late Bronze Age Troy olive does not
reach the counts of Early Bronze Age Troy, but its ubiquity is
slightly higher. The crop becomes more numerous and
ubiquitous only in Post – Bronze Age Troy, where ceramic
types also indicate that olive oil was stored. The
archaeobotanical records in Troy show no evidence for large –
scale olive oil production in any of the periods, although
natural conditions were optimal, fitting very well with the
general situation in the Aegean. However, due to the human
need for fatty acids and the unlikeliness that fats were only
provided by animals, oil production should be assumed for
Bronze Age Troy because olive oil production often takes
place in the plantations in traditional Mediterranean
agriculture. The only other oil plant used to meet this demand
for fatty acids was flax, which was only, as already mentioned,
cultivated on a large scale during Middle Bronze Age Troy.
Grape occurs in the final stage of Kumtepe B already. Probably
a significant part of the grape harvest was used for direct
consumption, whereas wine might have been produced at a
distance further away from Troy, which would account for
grape’s low abundance and high ubiquity within the
settlements.
84

chapter 6: summary
The natural position of Troy and Kumtepe by the sea side and
additionally between two rivers in the case of Troy, with a
probable high water table, presumably saved the inhabitants
from applying irrigation and thus reduced the efforts in labour
input considerably. The use of the plough can be assumed from
Early Bronze Age Troy at least. Changing cultivation methods
and intensity in field management during different periods
determine the development of agriculture in the Troad.
Typical weed species increase from Kumtepe A to Kumtepe
B3, i.e. an almost continuous broadening of the species
spectrum is indicated through the periods.
This enrichment of the weed flora with stress – tolerating,
highly competitive species has to be interpreted as an
establishment of agricultural practices. Beyond this an
extensification of agriculture from intensive small – scale
agriculture in Kumtepe A (mainly lentil and bitter vetch) to
large – scale cereal cultivation during Kumtepe B2/3 with
probable surplus economy is recognisable. Another supporting
argument is the initial and abundant occurrence of Lolium spp.
in Kumtepe B. Lolium spp. also occurs later, nearly always
with the cereal processing by – products, which might
correspond with a specialisation in these crops. Only during
Early Bronze Age Troy is the weed of negligible occurrence.
The weed classes suggest small – scale cultivation during Early
Bronze Age Troy, which can be either due to appropriation of
crops from surrounding villages with small – scale cultivation
or more likely to the specific taphonomic situation of these
horizons.
During Middle Bronze Age Troy intensive, garden – type
cultivation was practised with a broad spectrum of crops as
probable risk – buffering measures. The intensity of the
cultivation is indicated by a great increase of Lolium spp. in
numbers and ubiquity compared to Early Bronze Age Troy.
The self – supporting and very distinct form of agriculture in
Middle Bronze Age Troy might support the archaeological
suggestion of a newly arrived population as the reason for this
distinctiveness. The weeds that were found within closed
storage finds are good indicators for the growing conditions of
the crops and the probable location of the crop fields were
reconstructed with this information. While garden pea
cultivation can be located with greater certainty on the Low
Plateau, the cereals were probably cultivated in the delta region
of the valley.
In Troy VI a tendency towards extensification is suggested,
with the specialisation in barley and emmer cultivation to meet
the purposes of an emerging elite. These tendencies increase
during Troy VIIa with emmer and einkorn cultivation,
intensive soil management and the culmination of Lolium spp.
Deforestation must have led to an intensive use of dung for
fuel. Many of the buildings must have been used as stables or
byres. The indicators of a stratified society are even more
striking in the abrupt change with the transition to Troy VIIb.
After the destruction of Troy VIIa, agricultural practice shifted
back to intensive, garden – type cultivation predominantly in
the valley, in order to use the fertile alluvium. The living
conditions were probably not optimal. In addition to barley,
bitter vetch was one of the main crops.
The Post – Bronze Age weed flora was not analysed in detail,
but a marked abundance of Chenopodietea weeds is
indicated; this might be a first hint on very intensive
agricultural soil management.
Apart from the weeds, insect pests also infested the harvest of
prehistoric people.
Bruchus species were present in the Middle Bronze Age pea
stores and indicate that pea cultivation must have been well
established, whereas Tenebrio cf. melitor occurred only in
small numbers in Troy VIIa contexts.
The contact of the Troad and other western Anatolian sites
with the Aegean and regions such as the Pontic coast or
Anatolia are suggested by archaeological remains, particularly
during Late Bronze Age. It remains to be established how
much of the ’imported Mycenaean’ pottery from Troy VIIa
comes from the Peloponnese, from Aegean islands, and how
much from Mycenaean sites on the coast of Asia Minor itself.
No plant remains that would have had a good potential for
trade are suggested from Troy. Because it is to be expected that
precious spices or fruits might have been stored in specific
regions within the Upper City, the lack of them is
understandable due to the earlier destructions (since Roman
periods) of the settlement area under consideration. In contrast,
many of the samples are from contexts in which one would not
expect to find spices or aromatic essences (dung, crop –
processing by – products).
However, the socio – economic pattern at Troy shows that
Aegean contacts must have been considerable, at least during
Troy VI and VIIa. An elite organisation of agriculture that is
similar, if not identical to other Mycenaean centres is
suggested for plant production. No economic decay which
would support a decrease of trade contacts during Troy VIIa is
indicated by agricultural production, on the contrary Troy,
VIIa seems to be the most prosperous period of plant
production. Any siege by the Mycenaeans must have occurred
at the end of this period.
Inner Anatolian influences at Middle Bronze Age Troy are not
only suggested from the ceramic types, but also from
settlement patterns and other architectural objects. Probably
also the agricultural techniques were different (mixed
cropping, flax instead of olive cultivation). Anatolian contacts
are also archaeologically suggested for ’Troia High Culture’
(VIIb).
The archaeobotanical outline of the socio – economic
development of Troy, from settlements producing surplus more
likely on the household level as during Kumtepe A and Middle
Bronze Age Troy, to mighty towns probably importing surplus
from adjacent villages as in Troy VI and VIIa, corresponds
with the impressions of subsistence needs from calculations of
population densities (based on geographical preconditions and
the assumed settlement size). Kumtepe with its adjoining
arable land might have supported between 140 and 420 people.
Considering the high proportion of sea food in the diet, even
more people would have lived at the same time within the
settlement. For Late Bronze Age Troy, a settlement density of
between 2000 and 6000 people can be assumed. Products from
beyond the direct vicinity of the settlement can be assumed to
have arrived in the town during this time (e.g. by confiscation
or exchange). Therefore the population density within the
settlement may have been even higher.
85

chapter 6: summary
Considering the different economic systems in the different
periods of Troy, it is particularly problematic to make
definitive conclusions about Early Bronze Age Troy’s position
within the whole Troad because of taphonomic reasons.
However, in Early Bronze Age, Troy is the topographical
centre for five settlements in 5 – 7 km distance. The extensive
large – scale specialisation in cereal cultivation during
Kumtepe B3 implies that these settlements might have been
sub – suppliers of agricultural goods to support the Early
Bronze Age elite of Troy, evident from archaeological finds.
During Early Bronze Age livestock must have played a major
role, which is also suggested by numerous looming weights
and terracotta animal figurines. Wild boar, as the most
abundant wild game during Early Bronze Age Troy in addition
to its subsistence value, is also considered as an indicator of
vegetation patterns. In Mediterranean countries (France,
Greece) the species is recorded in highest abundance in maquis
and even occurs in reed. The archaeobotanical results, of a
relatively open vegetation for Early Bronze Age Troy, suggest
a mosaic of maquis and steppe type vegetation as the
appearance of ’oak woods’ on the Low Plateau during this
time.
Although for Middle Bronze Age Troy only samples from the
Upper City could be analysed, it is suggested that the farmers
were not subject to the regime of an elite. The cultivation
practices are intensive and small – scale, but involved a broad
spectrum of different ecological habitats (risk – buffering).
Species diversity shows the greatest increase of all the periods.
New crops are cultivated. Unfortunately there is a lack of
evidence for simultaneous settlements in the area, due mainly
to preservational reasons. The possibility exists that a new
population with probable Anatolian roots arrived on the scene.
In Troy VI the archaeobotanical evidence suggests a tendency
towards a centralised economic organisation. Marked
differences in domestic architecture are archaeological
indications of a distinct social structure from Troy VI onwards.
Cultivation becomes larger – scale, with a specialisation
particularly in barley. Appropriation from neighbouring
villages cannot be excluded, considering the increase of
storage finds. Although destruction is the reason for the end of
Troy VI, there seems to be a continuous increase in
centralisation by the elite from Troy VI to VIIa, where the
economic growth reaches its culmination point. The
assumption made by earlier archaeologists that Troy VIIa was
no longer ruled by a monarch is not tenable from the
archaeobotanical remains. Large – scale cultivation and
specialisation in emmer and einkorn is indicated. Livestock
played a central role and cattle are probably additionally fed
with crops. The decrease of small ruminants and the relative
increase of cattle in the course of time might be reflected in
possible stables or byres that are archaeobotanically suggested
in different parts of the city. This tendency to keep animals
with higher demands on feed quality would also justify
additional feeding with crops. Possibly the Troy VII
inhabitants already strongly manipulated livestock to meet their
own needs. Significant deforestation and soil erosion must
have occurred, which is obvious from the increase in dung
contexts. But at the same time a superimposition of this pattern
with an increase in the amount of livestock must be expected
(particularly for Troy VIIa). Economic poverty might be
suggested for Troy VIIb, where probably soil erosion, caused
by disappearing vegetation cover, forced the inhabitants to
cultivate in the valley.
Taken together, the economic patterns at Troy are strikingly
similar to those of the simultaneous Aegean sites, particularly
during Late Bronze Age. The set of crops is also similar during
the earlier periods (Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze
Age), but here some peculiarities demonstrate the
individualism and a certain degree of socio – political
independence of Troy from the Aegean.
86

catalogue of seeds
CONTENTS
CATALOGUE OF SEEDS AND FRUITS FROM KUMTEPE AND TROY
ALISMATACEAE (WATER PLANTAIN FAMILY)...............................................................................................................................90
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. (ribbon-leaved water-plantain) ........................................................................................................... 90
BORAGINACEAE (forget-me-not family)...................................................................................................................................... 90
Echium sp. (viper’s-bugloss) ......................................................................................................................................................... 90
Heliotropium europaeum L. (european turnsole) .......................................................................................................................... 90
Lithospermum arvense L. (field gromwell) ................................................................................................................................... 90
Lithospermum cf. tenuiflorum L. (alkanet) .................................................................................................................................... 91
Other species in small seed numbers ............................................................................................................................................. 91
CARYOPHYLLACEAE (pink family) ............................................................................................................................................ 91
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris.-type (lesser sea-spurry) ................................................................................................................. 91
Stellaria media (L.) Vill. (common chickweed)............................................................................................................................ 91
Other species in small seed numbers ............................................................................................................................................. 91
CHARACEAE (stonewort familiy) .................................................................................................................................................. 91
Chara sp. (chara) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 91
CHENOPODIACEAE (goosefoot family) ....................................................................................................................................... 91
Chenopodium album L.-type (fat-hen) .......................................................................................................................................... 91
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. (fig-leaved goosefoot)..................................................................................................................... 92
Chenopodium murale L. (nettle-leaved goosefoot) ....................................................................................................................... 92
Polycnemum cf. majus A. Braun (polycnemum)............................................................................................................................ 92
Salsola kali L. (prickly saltwort) ................................................................................................................................................... 92
Other species in small seed numbers ............................................................................................................................................. 92
CISTACEAE (rock rose family)....................................................................................................................................................... 92
Cistus sp. (rock rose) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 92
COMPOSITAE (daisy family) ......................................................................................................................................................... 92
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. (corn chamomile) ................................................................................................................................... 92
Anthemis cotula L. (stinking chamomile)...................................................................................................................................... 92
Carthamus creticus L.-type (carthamus) ....................................................................................................................................... 92
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner-type (milk thistle) ..................................................................................................................... 93
Other species in small seed numbers ............................................................................................................................................. 93
CONVOLVULACEAE (bindweed family)...................................................................................................................................... 93
Convolvulus arvensis L.-type (field bindweed) ............................................................................................................................. 93
CRUCIFERAE (mustard family)...................................................................................................................................................... 93
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (gold-of-pleasure)............................................................................................................................. 93
Other species in small seed numbers ............................................................................................................................................. 93
CYPERACEAE (sedge family) ........................................................................................................................................................ 93
Carex divulsa Stokes (grey sedge)................................................................................................................................................. 93
Carex remota L.-type (remote sedge)............................................................................................................................................ 94
Carex sp. (biconvex) and Carex sp. (trigonal) (sedge) .................................................................................................................. 94
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl (great fen-sedge)............................................................................................................................... 94
Cyperus longus L.-type (galingale) ............................................................................................................................................... 94
Eleocharis uniglumis/palustris-type (spike-rush)......................................................................................................................... 94
Scirpus maritimus L. (sea club-rush)............................................................................................................................................ 94
Other species in small seed numbers ............................................................................................................................................. 94
EUPHORBIACEAE (spurge family) ............................................................................................................................................... 94
Euphorbia helioscopia L. (sun spurge).......................................................................................................................................... 94
FAGACEAE (beech family)............................................................................................................................................................. 95
Quercus sp. (oak)........................................................................................................................................................................... 95
GERANIACEAE (geranium family)................................................................................................................................................ 95
Geranium cf. dissectum L. (cut-leaved cranesbill) ........................................................................................................................ 95
GRAMINEAE (grass family) ........................................................................................................................................................... 95
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. ............................................................................................................................................. 95
Alopecurus spp. (foxtail) ............................................................................................................................................................... 95
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P. Beauv.-type (tor-grass)............................................................................................................... 96
Bromus spp. (bromegrass) ............................................................................................................................................................. 96
Eragrostis cf. minor Host (small love-grass)................................................................................................................................. 96
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P. Beauv.-type (Jersey love-grass) ............................................................................................................. 96
Festuca sp. (fescue) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 96
87

catalogue of seeds
Hordeum spp. (weedy barley types) .............................................................................................................................................. 97
Lolium spp. (rye-grass) .................................................................................................................................................................. 97
Phalaris spp. (canary-grass) .......................................................................................................................................................... 98
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten-type (purple-stem cat’s-tail)......................................................................................................... 98
Phragmites sp. (common reed)...................................................................................................................................................... 98
Poa spp. (meadow grass)............................................................................................................................................................... 98
Other species with small seed numbers ......................................................................................................................................... 98
CEREALS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Hordeum vulgare L. (six-row barley, hulled)................................................................................................................................ 99
Panicum miliaceum L. (common millet) ....................................................................................................................................... 99
Triticum aestivum/durum (free-threshing wheat) .......................................................................................................................... 99
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (emmer) and Triticum monococcum L. (einkorn) ............................................................................. 99
Cerealia (culm nodes) ................................................................................................................................................................. 100
ISOËTACEAE (quillwort family) .................................................................................................................................................. 100
Isoëtes duriei Bory (quillwort) .................................................................................................................................................... 100
Isoëtes histrix Bory (land quillwort)............................................................................................................................................ 100
JUNCACEAE (rush family) ........................................................................................................................................................... 100
Juncus spp. (rush) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 100
LAMIACEAE (mint family) .......................................................................................................................................................... 100
Teucrium cf. botrys L. (cut-leaved germander) ........................................................................................................................... 100
Other species in small seed numbers ........................................................................................................................................... 100
LEGUMINOSAE (pea family)....................................................................................................................................................... 100
Astragalus sp. (milk-vetch) ......................................................................................................................................................... 100
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi (disk trefoil) ...................................................................................................................... 101
Medicago sp., Sect. Spirocarpos Ser., Subsect. Leptospireae (Urb.) Heyn (medick) ................................................................. 101
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. (large disk-medick) .................................................................................................................... 101
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (medick)........................................................................................................................................ 101
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss.-type (sainfoin)............................................................................................................................ 101
Onobrychis sp. (sainfoin)............................................................................................................................................................. 101
Scorpiurus muricatus L. (caterpillar-plant) ................................................................................................................................. 101
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. (hatchet vetch)........................................................................................................... 101
Trifolium spp. (clover)................................................................................................................................................................. 101
Trigonella cf. monspeliaca L. (star-fruited fenugreek)................................................................................................................ 102
Other species in small seed numbers ........................................................................................................................................... 102
CROP LEGUMES....................................................................................................................................................................... 102
Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea)...................................................................................................................................................... 102
Lathyrus cicera/sativus (grass pea).............................................................................................................................................. 102
Lens culinaris Medik. (lentil) ...................................................................................................................................................... 102
Pisum sativum L. (garden pea) .................................................................................................................................................... 103
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. (bitter vetch).......................................................................................................................................... 103
Vicia faba L. (broad bean) ........................................................................................................................................................... 103
LINACEAE (flax family) ............................................................................................................................................................... 104
Linum cf. strictum L. (upright yellow flax) ................................................................................................................................. 104
Linum usitatissimum L. (flax)...................................................................................................................................................... 104
MALVACEAE (mallow family) .................................................................................................................................................... 104
Malva sylvestris L. (common mallow) ........................................................................................................................................ 104
Malva sp. (mallow)...................................................................................................................................................................... 104
Other species in small seed numbers ........................................................................................................................................... 104
MORACEAE (mulberry family) .................................................................................................................................................... 105
Ficus carica L. (fig)..................................................................................................................................................................... 105
OLEACEAE (olive family) ............................................................................................................................................................ 105
Olea europaea L. (olive) ............................................................................................................................................................. 105
PAPAVERACEAE (poppy family)................................................................................................................................................ 105
Fumaria officinalis L.-type (common fumitory) ......................................................................................................................... 105
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. (red horned-poppy)................................................................................................................ 106
Papaver rhoeas/dubium (common/long-headed poppy).............................................................................................................. 106
PINACEAE (pine family)............................................................................................................................................................... 106
Pinus sp. (pine)............................................................................................................................................................................ 106
PLANTAGINACEAE (plantain family) ......................................................................................................................................... 106
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit.-type (branched plantain) ....................................................................................................... 106
Plantago lanceolata L.-type (ribwort plantain) ........................................................................................................................... 106
88

catalogue of seeds
POLYGONACEAE (rhubarb family)............................................................................................................................................. 106
Polygonum aviculare/patulum (knotgrass/red-knotgrass) ........................................................................................................... 106
Polygonum lapathifolium/salicifolium (pale persicaria) .............................................................................................................. 106
Rumex conglomeratus Murr.-type (clustered dock)..................................................................................................................... 107
Rumex cristatus DC. (Greek dock) .............................................................................................................................................. 107
Other species in small seed numbers ........................................................................................................................................... 107
PORTULACACEAE (purslane family) ......................................................................................................................................... 107
Portulaca oleracea L. (common purslane).................................................................................................................................. 107
PRIMULACEAE (primerose family)............................................................................................................................................. 107
Anagallis sp. (pimpernel)............................................................................................................................................................. 107
RANUNCULACEAE (buttercup family)....................................................................................................................................... 107
Adonis annua L.-type (pheasant’s-eye) ....................................................................................................................................... 107
Thalictrum flavum L. (common meadow-rue)............................................................................................................................. 107
Other species in small seed numbers ........................................................................................................................................... 107
RESEDACEAE (mignonette family) ............................................................................................................................................. 107
Reseda luteola L. (weld).............................................................................................................................................................. 107
RHAMNACEAE (buckthorn family)............................................................................................................................................. 107
Paliurus spina-christi Miller (Christ’s thorns) ............................................................................................................................ 107
ROSACEAE (rose family) ............................................................................................................................................................. 108
Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach (thorny burnet)................................................................................................................... 108
Other species in small seed numbers ........................................................................................................................................... 108
RUBIACEAE (bedstraw family) .................................................................................................................................................... 108
Asperula arvensis/orientalis (woodruff)...................................................................................................................................... 108
Galium aparine L. (cleavers)....................................................................................................................................................... 108
Galium aparine/spurium L.-type (bedstraw) ............................................................................................................................... 108
Galium spurium L. (false cleavers).............................................................................................................................................. 108
Sherardia arvensis L. (field madder)........................................................................................................................................... 108
Other species in small seed numbers: .......................................................................................................................................... 109
SCROPHULARIACEAE (foxglove family) .................................................................................................................................. 109
Verbascum sp. (mullein).............................................................................................................................................................. 109
Veronica persica Poiret-type (common field-speedwell) ............................................................................................................ 109
SOLANACEAE (nightshade family) ............................................................................................................................................. 109
Hyoscyamus niger L. (henbane) .................................................................................................................................................. 109
Physalis alkekengi L. (Japanese-lantern)..................................................................................................................................... 109
Other species in small seed numbers: .......................................................................................................................................... 109
THYMELAEACEAE (daphne family)........................................................................................................................................... 109
Thymelaea sp. (thymelaea) .......................................................................................................................................................... 109
TYPHACEAE (reedmace family) .................................................................................................................................................. 109
Typha cf. latifolia L. (bulrush)..................................................................................................................................................... 109
UMBELLIFERAE (parsley family) ............................................................................................................................................... 109
Berula erecta Hudson (lesser water-parsnip) .............................................................................................................................. 109
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. and Torilis-type (hedge-parsley)............................................................................................... 109
Other species in small seed numbers: .......................................................................................................................................... 110
URTICACEAE (stinging nettle family) ......................................................................................................................................... 110
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. (Roman nettle)......................................................................................................................................... 110
Other species in small seed numbers: .......................................................................................................................................... 110
VALERIANACEAE (spikenard family) ........................................................................................................................................ 110
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich (cornsalad) .............................................................................................................................. 110
Other species in small seed numbers: .......................................................................................................................................... 110
VERBENACEAE (teak family) ..................................................................................................................................................... 110
Verbena officinalis L. (vervain)................................................................................................................................................... 110
VITACEAE (grape family) ............................................................................................................................................................ 110
Vitis vinifera L. (grape-vine) ....................................................................................................................................................... 110
INSECTS......................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
Bruchus sp. (‛pea beetle’) ............................................................................................................................................................ 111
Tenebrio cf. melitor ..................................................................................................................................................................... 111
89

catalogue of seeds
The contents of this catalogue are the morphological
descriptions of the seeds, some quantitative observations, like
overall and period related ubiquity, the total number of records
and also the number of records for the period with the highest
counts of the species, information on ecology and, if
appropriate, on economy.
About 270000 seeds and fruits were identified and counted for
this investigation. The 336 categories (186 species) belong to
43 plant families and not all the species can be described in
detail.
The selection of the species for description was made on quantitative
and qualitative grounds. The proportion of categories
with high counts to groups with low counts was very unequal.
50% of the categories had counts between one and 15, 25%
had counts between 16 and 69, and only the last fourth
consisted of categories with more than 70 records. Those
categories with more than 15 specimens in the whole data set
were all entered, while from the remaining 50% only a few
categories were chosen, either when they were not recorded
from other sites, or when they were assumed to bear some kind
of qualitative ecological information, even though they were
not numerous enough to influence the general results. In all,
121 species are documented in this catalogue. The catalogue is
organised in an alphabetical sequence of families, genera and
species.
The identifications were made with the seed collections in Tübingen
(Labor für Archäobotanik, Universität Tübingen),
Sheffield (Department of Archaeology and Prehistory,
University of Sheffield) and London (Institute of Archaeology,
University College London) and with the usual identification
literature (e.g. Anderberg 1994, Beijerinck 1947, Berggren
1969 and 1981). The identification criteria mentioned in this
catalogue are not described in full detail for species that are
common at other sites and that are already documented in site
publications or seed catalogues. Here only the key characters
are described that are used for the differentiation between
species.
The Latin nomenclature is according to Davis (1965-1988).
The English nomenclature was mainly taken from Stace (1991)
and from Polunin (1987). The plant names with the extension
‛type’ are categories where reference material was not fully
available (compare chapter 2). This extension refers more to a
morphological appearance than to the species itself. The
information about the modern ecology refers to Davis (1965-
1988) and my own field observations conducted between April
1993 and August 1996.
I wish to thank Dr. Glynis Jones (Sheffield), Dr. Ann Butler
(London) and Mark Nesbitt (London) for extensive checking
of my identifications.
ALISMATACEAE (water plantain family)
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. (ribbon-leaved water-plantain)
Plate 1 1
Seed length: 1.0-1.1 mm
ID criteria: The rod-shaped seed differs from Alisma
lanceolata in a different arrangement of the granules on the
surface.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1.6%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (starting from Late Bronze Age, and increasing to
Post-Bronze Age) (6%)
Number of seeds: 6, main proportion in: Post-Bronze Age (4)
Ecology: This species grows on the banks of slowly flowing
nitrogenous waters, as well as in dried relicts of muddy,
brackish pools, partially or totally submersed (Davis 1965-
1988, vol.8, Pascher 1980). It is one of the numerous plants
that were used for medicinal purposes in antiquity (e.g. Germer
1985).
BORAGINACEAE (forget-me-not family)
Echium sp. (viper’s-bugloss)
Plate 1 2
Seed length: 2.9-3.2 mm
ID criteria: The genus differs from Lithospermum sp. in its
larger attachment scar (base) and the aciculate surface pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 5%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (22%)
Number of seeds: 154, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(75)
Ecology: The genus is represented in the Mediterranean area
by c. 60 species which all grow under dry conditions, e.g. on
sandy soils near coasts or in stony fields. E. plantagineum is a
very common species in modern vegetation around Troy.
Heliotropium europaeum L. (european turnsole)
Plate 1 3
Seed length: 1.4-1.5 mm
ID criteria: The seeds are slightly egg-shaped with a wrinkled
rough surface pattern. Sometimes they occurred as modern
contaminants in the samples.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 14%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (22%)
Number of seeds: 207, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(77)
Ecology: Today the species is a weed of vineyards. It is also
common on wasteland around Troy. This explains the
contamination of some samples with modern seeds of this
species.
Lithospermum arvense L. (field gromwell)
(syn. Buglossoides arvensis (L.) Johnston)
Seed length: 2.5 mm
ID criteria: The seeds of this species have a much smaller
attachment scar (base) than Echium sp., and the surface of L.
arvense is smooth to nodular.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 13%, main ubiquity in
Middle Bronze Age (25%)
90

catalogue of seeds
Number of seeds: 125, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(64)
Ecology: This species grows on limestone embankments and
clayey soils, on the borders of arable fields, and in fallow fields
and rocky places.
Lithospermum cf. tenuiflorum L. (alkanet)
Seed length: 1.9-2.0 mm
ID criteria: This species is quite similar to L. arvense, but
smaller and with a smaller basis.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
(12%)
Number of seeds: 54, main proportion in Kumtepe (20)
Ecology: The plant grows on limestone slopes and other stony
places.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss.-type, (alkanet), Anchusa
officinalis L.-type (alkanet). Of the 15 Anchusa-species in the
area, there are only three modern comparatives in the
collection. A. ochroleuca and A. undulata can be excluded
because of differing morphology of the surface ‛relief-lines’.
CARYOPHYLLACEAE (pink family)
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris.-type (lesser sea-spurry)
Plate 1 4
Seed length: c. 0.5 mm
ID criteria: Of the five species mentioned for the area (S.
media, S. diandra, S. rubra, S. bocconii), there were just two in
the seed collection. S. media is sharply bordered and has too
large, and slightly elongated protuberances. S. rubra is
surrounded with a prominent rim and has a very pointed
radicle. S. bocconii was only found in a picture in Stace (1991)
and has a pointed ovate outline, differing strongly from the
archaeobotanical seeds. The species S. diandra was not found
either in the collections nor in the literature. For S. marina only
pictures were available for comparison (Stace 1991, Berggren
1981), but matched the closest.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 16, main proportion in: Late Bronze Age
(10)
Ecology: Habitats are close to water, with a certain tolerance of
salty conditions.
Stellaria media (L.) Vill. (common chickweed)
Plate 1 5
Seed length: 0.5-0.6 mm
ID criteria: The morphology of the circular, compressed seed
with its surface of concentric rows of small, stelliform papillae
is well known from many Mediterranean and European sites.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 4%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (11%)
Number of seeds: 44, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(20)
Ecology: As a typical weed it grows on all kinds of cultivated
ground.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Arenaria serpyllifolia L. (thyme-leaved sandwort), Myosoton
aquaticum (L.) Moench (water chickweed), Silene cf. gallica
L. (small-flowered catchfly) and one calyx from Silene sp.. The
genus Silene is represented by 129 species in Turkey, from
which at least 41 species are common in the research area. This
broad spectrum of possible species is not covered by any of the
seed collections. Morphological similarities of the objects exist
with several species (S. dichotoma, S. armeria, S. supina, S.
conoidea), but they all were excluded because of different,
rounded cell shapes. The species with the best fit was Silene
gallica, with a ring-shaped fold along the lateral side and a cell
structure dominated by elongated cells.
CHARACEAE (stonewort familiy)
Chara sp. (chara)
Plate 1 6
Length: 0.54 mm long, 0.38 mm wide. Windings: 10.
ID criteria: This plant is recorded by the finds of its oogonia
(lime encrustation of the oospores). Of the 314 species in the
world, only 6 are recorded world-wide, which indicates their
relatively narrow ecological habitats. Of the potential genera,
Nitella and Nitellopsis could be excluded because of their
shape. The number of the windings and the structure of both
ends of the oogonia are important features as well (for an
identification key of central European species and further
references see Haas 1994).
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 14%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (26%)
In some samples (e.g. D8BP31) the concentration of the
oogonia was so dense, that subsamples of 1 ml volume brought
averages of 30 records.
Number of seeds: 5871, main proportion in Middle Bronze
Age (4906)
Ecology: The Characeae are submerged inhabitants of
freshwater as well as of brackish waters, and can bear salt
concentrations up to 2/3 of the salinity of marine waters. None
of the species known is able to survive in marine water (Wood
and Imahori 1965). They are most common in lakes and pools,
but also in seasonal pools, ditches and rivers. Characeae have
been observed growing on the bottom of small puddles or in
fields and drainage ditches, but usually the plants find their
optimum between 90 cm and 6 m water depth, but can grow in
up to 19 m.
CHENOPODIACEAE (goosefoot family)
Chenopodium album L.-type (fat-hen)
Plate 1 7
Seed length: 1.0-1.2 mm
ID criteria: Many species of this genus differ only slightly
from each other (Berggren 1981). They have generally a flat
seed shape and an almost circular outline, but it is possible to
distinguish some species by their surface pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 22%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (31%)
Number of seeds: 468, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(189)
91

catalogue of seeds
Ecology: A very common weed, growing in the area mainly on
fallow or cultivated fields. With its enormous seed production
(up to 1 million seeds per plant), and high starch content, this
plant was used in historic times as an ingredient of flour for
bread making, but there are no signs for Troy and Kumtepe
other than fat-hen was a crop weed.
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. (fig-leaved goosefoot)
Plate 1 8
Seed length: 0.8-1.0 mm
ID criteria: The seed differs from Ch. album-type in its
slightly furrowed cell pattern. According to Davis (1965-1988,
vol.2) the presence of the species in Istanbul is a doubtful
record. Flora Europaea mentions it as present in most of
Europe, Greece and Turkey.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe, Late Bronze Age and Post-Bronze Age (2%)
Number of seeds: 10, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (6)
Ecology: The species grows as a weed, ruderal and close to
water (river banks).
Chenopodium murale L. (nettle-leaved goosefoot)
Plate 1 9a and 9b
Seed length: 1.5 mm
ID criteria: The most distinctive feature in this species is the
sharp keeled outline.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 12, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (10)
Ecology: The annual is common in waste places, on roadsides,
rocks and seashores up to 400m.
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun (polycnemum)
Plate 1 10
Seed length: 1.0 mm
ID criteria: The oval shaped seed consists of two bowls that
are pressed together to give the compressed cross-section,
typical for the Chenopodiaceae. The granular to nodular
surface is very distinctive for this species.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (6%)
Number of seeds: 116, main proportion in Kumtepe (113)
Ecology: This annual is found on sandy or stony fields.
Salsola kali L. (prickly saltwort)
Plate 1 11
Seed length: 1.2-1.5 mm
ID criteria: The seed has a very distinctive cochleate or helix
shape.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 5%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (17%)
Number of seeds: 44, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(29)
Ecology: This salt resistant plant grows on coasts and waste
places inland.
CISTACEAE (rock rose family)
Cistus sp. (rock rose)
Plate 2 12a, 12b and 12c
Seed length: 0.8-1.0 mm; capsule 6.0-8.0 mm
ID criteria: Both, whole capsules and individual seeds, some
of them still in the capsules, were found. The seeds are not
very distinctive, apart from their box-type shape with obtuse
angles.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 463 and 18 capsules, main proportion in
Middle Bronze Age (462)
Ecology: These small shrubs are often part of the maquis
vegetation and have their greatest species spectrum in the
western Mediterranean. Cistus parviflorus is the most common
species around Troy today, and the capsules match the ancient
material well.
COMPOSITAE (daisy family)
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. (corn chamomile)
Plate 2 13
Seed length: 1.2 mm
ID criteria: The seed is rod-shaped, with 4 to 5 angular, strong
longitudinal ridges that differentiate it from A. cotula.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (5%)
Number of seeds: 16, main proportion in Early Bronze Age (8)
Ecology: This annual grows on roadsides and cultivated
ground.
Anthemis cotula L. (stinking chamomile)
Plate 2 14
Seed length: 1.0-1.2 mm
ID criteria: The short rod-shaped seed has a distinctive
surface, with protuberances on the longitudinal ridges.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 27 and several receptacles, main proportion
in Kumtepe (19)
Ecology: This annual is found on pastures, roadsides, waste
ground, often on sandy soil from sea level up to 1300m, and
also, although not so frequent, in fields (nitrogenous ground).
Carthamus creticus L.-type (carthamus)
Plate 2 15
Seed length: 4.5 mm
ID criteria: The seed has partially a curving furrowed surface
pattern which differs from the smooth surfaces of other
Carthamus species which appear in the region.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (6%)
Number of seeds: 6, main proportion in Kumtepe (6)
Ecology: The plant is found today on dry slopes and waste
places and in fallow fields.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Beta vulgaris L. (beet), Suaeda maritima L. (annual sea-blite)
92

catalogue of seeds
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner-type (milk thistle)
Plate 2 16
Seed length: c. 4.0 mm
ID criteria: The compressed seeds were preserved without
their epidermis, so that the lower cell layers were visible. They
showed a distinctive pattern of fine curves.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.4%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (5%)
Number of seeds: 19, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (18)
Ecology: The modern habitats are roadside banks and ditches,
and fallow fields up to 600 m a.s.l..
Other species in small seed numbers:
Artemisia annua L.-type (annual mugwort), Calendula
officinalis L. (pot marigold) (which differs from C. arvensis in
the structure of the appendices on the back of the seeds. The
horizontal ridges are stronger developed in C. officinalis, while
in C. arvensis both directions of the grid pattern are equally
developed.), Centaurea sp. (knapweed), Leontodon sp.
(hawkbit), Onopordum acanthium L.-type (cotton thistle),
Picris cf. hieracioides L. (hawkweed oxtongue).
CONVOLVULACEAE (bindweed family)
Convolvulus arvensis L.-type (field bindweed)
Seed length: 3 mm
ID criteria: The broadly cuneate seed with obtuse angles has a
very distinctive rough, rugulose surface.
This species is only recorded in the Late Bronze Age levels
with an ubiquity of 3% and a seed number of 14.
Ecology: The climbing perennial, today one of the most
common field weeds all over the world (Hanf 1990), grows as
well in sandy steppe, on fallow fields, pastures, banks of
ditches, near rivers and lakes, and on nitrogenous screes.
CRUCIFERAE (mustard family)
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (gold-of-pleasure)
Plate 2 17a, 17b, 17c
Seed length: 1.2 mm
ID criteria: The obovate seeds are smaller than the modern
comparatives and slightly blown up, so that they appear oval.
But nevertheless, they appear to differ in their proportions
from the round-oval Camelina microcarpa Andrz. ex DC.
When preserved, the seed surface is papillose. Observations of
seed surfaces of modern Camelina species under SEM suggest
differences in the patterning of the papillae (compare seed
surface of modern Camelina sativa (Plate 2 17d) and modern
Camelina microcarpa (Plate 2 17e)). Unfortunately the
designating features in modern seed surfaces were not
preserved in the prehistoric material. Capsule fragments were
not found.
A comprehensive consideration of the species was conducted
for the chalcolithic layers of Kuruçay Höyük/Western Central
Anatolia (Nesbitt, in press). He found with charring
experiments, that the main effect of charring is in swelling
sideways. This could explain the oval appearance of the
Camelina sativa seeds from Troy.
Only a few (5) well preserved seeds were measured. Their
averages with 1.2 mm length and 0.75 mm width, fall into the
range of the modern, and uncharred C. microcarpa and two
other wild species (C. rumelica and C. hispida). Compared
with archaeobotanical, charred remains, the few seed
measurements from Troy are almost identical with those from
Kastanas (Kroll 1983). Nesbitt (1996) raised the interesting
question of whether the short length of the Kastanas seeds
represents a particularly Balkan form, when he compared the
longer and broader Camelina sativa seeds from Kuruçay
Höyük with those from Gordion/Western Central Anatolia,
which are also larger than those from Kastanas. If this is so, it
is more evidence for the close relation of Troy to the
Aegean/Balkan regions.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 2%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 572, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(524)
Ecology and Economy: The plant grows as an annual and a
biennial on cultivated places, and is also known as an ancient
crop. This species is recorded already in many Neolithic and
Bronze Age sites (e.g. Miller 1991, Schlichtherle 1977/1978).
The seeds contain oil, like most of the Cruciferae. Zohary and
Hopf (1993) point out, that the finds from the Eastern
Mediterranean (earliest finds from the 3rd millennium, mainly
in small numbers) suggests that Camelina sativa is a secondary
crop, which changed from a weed to an oil crop rather late.
One sample from an early Troy IV dating context
(D8BP37/41) consists to 45% of Camelina sativa, the other
44% of Linum usitatissimum and 7% are represented by
Fumaria officinalis. The remaining small proportion is
represented by chaff remains from Emmer and Einkorn.
Camelina sativa has to be interpreted as a tolerated weed, an
unintentional crop or deriving from multi-cropping.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Cardamine-type (bitter-cress), Arabidopsis thaliana (L.)
Heynh.-type (thale cress), Brassica sp. (cabbage), Capsella sp.
(shepherd’s-purse)
CYPERACEAE (sedge family)
Carex divulsa Stokes (grey sedge)
Plate 3 18a and 18b
Seed length: 1.5-2.1 mm
ID criteria: The general shape is what Berggren (1969) calls
almost trullate with rounded angles. The seed is biconvex and
in its cross-section transversely, sometimes narrowly elliptic.
The circular epidermis cells were relatively large and distinct.
This species was quite variable in its outline from trapezoid to
slightly squared-oval within the samples, but it certainly differs
from similar types, e.g. from C. echinata with mainly
depressed ovate cross-sections.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c.10%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (15%)
Number of seeds: 386 and 3 mineralised seeds, main
proportion in Early Bronze Age (315)
Ecology: The plant is found in open forests and ravines in
shady places, sometimes in scrub, meadows and exposed cliffs.
93

catalogue of seeds
Carex remota L.-type (remote sedge)
Seed length: 1.9-2.0 mm
ID criteria: The elliptic seed is also biconvex, with epidermis
cells similar to those in C. divulsa, but smaller.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 15, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (11)
Ecology: The species grows on damp to marshy ground or in
forests and other shady places.
Carex sp. (biconvex) and Carex sp. (trigonal) (sedge)
ID criteria: There are several morphological types which could
not be identified to the species level, mainly because of
preservation. Several species could be excluded, but still too
many were left to built artificial name aggregates.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (6-8%)
Number of seeds: 20 and 30, main proportion in Late Bronze
Age (3-10)
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl (great fen-sedge)
Seed length: 1.3 mm
ID criteria: The globular seed with its three longitudinal
sutures and obtuse point, is a common water plant in European
wet sites.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 44, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (40)
Ecology: This perennial is found in marshes, lagoons, swamps
and slow-flowing rivers.
Cyperus longus L.-type (galingale)
Plate 3 19
Seed length: 0.8-1.0 mm
ID criteria: The very small, elongated seed has a characteristic
regular, triangular cross section.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 171, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(147)
Ecology: This perennial is found in swamps, streamsides,
muddy river banks, sea shores and ditches.
Eleocharis uniglumis/palustris type (spike-rush)
Plate 3 20a, 20b, 20c and 20d
Seed length: 1.0-1.5 mm
ID criteria: There are only three species in the area. The seed
shape is obovate. The triangular stylebase was not preserved.
Although the modern seeds of Eleocharis uniglumis seem to be
different from Eleocharis palustris, mainly by their slightly
distinct surface pattern, the longitudinal furrows and a
generally more elongated outline, it is not possible to
differentiate them in the carbonised form.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 2% for the carbonised finds and
10% for the mineralised, main ubiquity in the mineralised
seeds from Late Bronze Age (20%)
Number of seeds: 55 carbonised and 763 mineralised, main
proportion in Late Bronze Age (55 and 677)
The seeds were mainly preserved by mineralisation (Plate 3
20a and 20b), and in some cases partially mineralised and
carbonised (D8BP30) (Plate 3 20c and 20d).
Ecology: This plant is found in habitats close to water, and it is
also salt tolerant and found in marshland, shallow river banks
and lake shores.
Scirpus maritimus L. (sea club-rush)
Plate 3 21a and 21b
Seed length: 1.8-2.4 mm
ID criteria: The almost three-sided, obovate seed differs from
Scirpus lacustris in the shape of the transition from the base to
the lateral angles, which is narrower in S. maritimus, and
appears therefore more pointed.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 21%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (48%)
Number of seeds: 1342 (only one seed was mineralised), main
proportion in Late Bronze Age (1263)
Ecology: The plant grows alongside changing water levels, i.e.
it is very adaptive to environmental conditions, it even can be
found in saline places. Recent investigations revealed, that S.
maritimus also grows in cereal fields (Harris and Limbrey in
press, Charles and Hillman in press, Hillman 1991). Potential
prehistoric habitats in the Troad may have been everywhere,
were wet or at least moist ground was available.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. (spring sedge), Carex cf.
punctata Gaudin-type (dotted sedge), Fimbristylis
bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani, Schoenus nigricans L. (black
bog-rush)
EUPHORBIACEAE (spurge family)
Euphorbia helioscopia L. (sun spurge)
Plate 3 22
Seed length: 1.6-2.0 mm
ID criteria: The most distinctive character of this seed, with its
egg-shaped and circular cross-section, is the net-type surface
pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 13, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (4)
Ecology: This annual weed grows on anthropogenic influenced
soil, e.g. as an associate on vineyards. Other habitats in the
region are limestone, slopes, river banks, and phrygana. In
April 1993 the species was very common around Beşik Bay,
perhaps the type of landscape, where the plant was growing in
prehistoric times.
FAGACEAE (beech family)
Quercus sp. (oak)
Plate 3 23
94

catalogue of seeds
ID criteria: Several Quercus species are in the region, with
acorns showing marked overlap in characteristics between
species. Identification beyond genus level was therefore
impossible.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of acorns: 46, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(45)
Ecology: Quercus coccifera (prickly oak) is an important part
of the maquis vegetation. This shrubby and spiny species and
Quercus macrolepis (syn. Quercus aegilops (valonia oak)) are
both very common in the Troad.
The high nutritional value of acorns made them a potential
food resource at any time (Mason 1992 ff.). Evidence from
early prehistoric times until medieval period in Mediterranean
and Near Eastern sites shows acorns as human and animal
food. Recent ethnographic studies in south-eastern Turkey
document the collection of acorns to be fed to goats, from trees
coppiced for firewood in areas from which animals are
excluded (Mason 1992, p. 93). The bulk of acorn finds in Troy
came from a chickpea hoard, amongst many plant remains
from open (dry tendency) vegetation. It seems more likely, that
the relatively small amount of acorns within the chickpeas was
associated by post-depositional accident, rather than
deliberately mixed with them. It is therefore not clear from the
contexts, whether the acorns were used for human nutrition or
for animal feed.
GERANIACEAE (geranium family)
Geranium cf. dissectum L. (cut-leaved cranesbill)
Plate 4 24
Seed length: 1.2-1.5 mm
ID criteria: Very similar to Brassica spp. but with a different
surface pattern (strongly regular cells, in rows). The general
shape is oval and the hilum differs morphologically and its
position.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 42, main proportion in Early Bronze Age
(41)
Ecology: This annual prefers growing within the area in damp
places, including fields, banks, marshes, up to 400m height.
GRAMINEAE (grass family)
The wide range of species and the relative abundance of grass
seeds has allowed a detailed study. With the knowledge of
their ecology, a correlation analysis has provided information
about the position of arable fields around Troy and Kumtepe in
the different periods (see chapter 4). The cereals are considered
at the end of this family group.
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl.
Plate 4 25
Seed length: 0.5-0.8 mm
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (9%)
Number of seeds: 425, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(324)
ID criteria: The rectangular to trapezoid shape and small size
is exclusively characteristic of Ae. litoralis.
Ecology: This perennial is salt tolerant and has a broad
spectrum of habitats in the area, including limestone cliffs near
the sea, pools in sand dunes, lagoons, beaches, as well as
Phragmites marsh, irrigation channels and abandoned
cultivated fields. The correlation with the Juncus seeds implies
a joint origin from the same natural habitat. Another
correlation of Ae. litoralis was with Emmer chaff, which may
indicate a weedy character as remains from crop processing.
Alopecurus (foxtail)
The differentiation from Phalaris types is definite by the
outline. Alopecurus spp. are asymmetric in their lateral axes
and also have a different cell pattern. The types found in the
material are all representative of wet places.
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol.-type (orange foxtail)
Plate 4 26
Seed length: 1.0-1.1 mm
ID criteria: The elliptic seed has a strongly pointed apex and a
great lateral width.
Only 9 seeds recorded from the Post-Bronze Age samples, with
an ubiquity of 6%.
Ecology: The species is found in damp places and marshy
waterside habitats.
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret-type (foxtail, meadow
grass)
Plate 4 27
Seed length: 1.8-1.9 mm
ID criteria: The elongated elliptic seed has from the lateral
view an almost blunt apex which gives it a similar shape like
the smaller Phalaris arundinacea.
Only 5 seeds recorded from the Middle Bronze Age samples,
with an ubiquity of 2%.
Ecology: The most common habitats of this species are marshy
ground, water meadows, cultivated land, roadsides and ditches.
Alopecurus geniculatus L.-type (marsh foxtail)
Plate 4 28
Seed length: 0.9-1.0 mm
ID criteria: The elongated seed has a pointed apex.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (3%)
Number of seeds: 74, main proportion in: Early Bronze Age
(72)
Ecology: This perennial is mainly found in wet places today. It
was very common in the Early Bronze Age material and
reflects the nearby position of the river valley and delta in
Early Bronze Age Troy.
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv.-type (tor-grass)
Seed length: 3.6-4.0 mm; modern seeds measure 6 mm
ID criteria: The narrow, long and flat vaulted seed has some
similarities to the genus Bromus, but differs in the pointedness
of the apex from those Bromus spp. that are similar to B.
pinnatum by their general morphology.
95

catalogue of seeds
Only 25 seeds recorded from the Early Bronze Age samples
with an ubiquity of 1%.
Ecology: The modern habitats in the area are mainly unshaded,
grassy hillsides, meadows and limestone pastures.
Bromus spp. (bromegrass)
This genus has many species in the area under consideration.
Because of a relatively large proportion of species available in
the comparative collections, it was possible to check most of
the species growing in the area today. In any case, the
similarities and overlap of many species and the known
changes in shape by combustion made it necessary to place
several species within one group or type.
Bromus hordaceus L.-type (soft-brome)
Plate 4 29a and 29b
Seed length: 3.6-4.0 mm
ID criteria: This type belongs along with several others (B.
adoensis, B. commutatus, B. inermis, B. lanceolata, B.
racemosus, B. squarosus) to a flat shaped group with broad
apex and pointed embryo end.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 18, main proportion in Kumtepe (10)
Ecology: This annual is mainly found in fields and along
roadsides. Most of the finds of this species are from Kumtepe,
where it is associated with the chaff remains from hulled
wheats, barley and with Lolium rigidum, indicating a typical
weed.
Bromus intermedius Guss.-type (brome grass)
Plate 4 30a and 30b
Seed length: 4.8-5.0 mm
ID criteria: This type is very similar to the B. hordaceus type,
but without the pointed embryo end.
Ubiquity in the whole data set smaller than 1%, main ubiquity
in Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age (1%)
Number of seeds: 7, main proportion in Early Bronze Age (6)
Ecology: The main habitats of B. intermedius are fields, open
phrygana, coastal shingle, waste places and field margins.
Bromus rigidus/sterilis (brome grass)
Seed length: 6.7 mm
ID criteria: Both species of this type share an almost identical
shape that could not be distinguished in the ancient seeds. They
are relatively large and pointed at both ends. The lateral
borders are thickened.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (5%)
Number of seeds: 23, main proportion in Kumtepe (17)
Ecology: The habitats of both species are only slightly
different and they both grow as weeds in cultivated fields,
which may have been as well their prehistoric habitat.
Bromus tectorum L.-type (drooping brome)
Plate 4 31
Seed length: 7.0-7.5 mm
ID criteria: This species is easy to distinguish from other large
seeded Bromus spp. by its general shape.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (3%)
Number of seeds: 14, main proportion in Early Bronze Age (6)
Ecology: Habitats of this species are dry, open grassland and
sandy places, it also grows as a weed and a ruderal.
Eragrostis cf. minor Host (small love-grass)
Plate 5 32
Seed length: c. 0.6 mm
ID criteria: This species is slightly smaller and more roundish
than E. pilosa. The embryo is flat and smaller than in E. pilosa.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 8%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (13%)
Number of seeds: 371, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(273)
Ecology: Within the study area, the plant has a number of
potential habitats on serpentine, limestone cliffs with thermal
pools, gravely screes, valleys and dried up river beds, wet
places, by lake shores, salt pans, under Populus, at the edge of
and in cultivated fields, ditches and roadsides. The grass seeds
were mainly associated with barley grains from MBA contexts.
Because they are very small, they should not be amongst the
products (grain) from crop-processing, and it is more likely
that a secondary admixture is represented. As there are ovens
were very probably dung remains were burnt in MBA Troy, it
is most likely that these seeds derive from dung.
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv.-type (Jersey love-grass)
Plate 5 33
Seed length: 0.6-0.7 mm; modern seeds measure 1 mm
ID criteria: The type is longer and more pointed in the apex as
E. minor. The embryo is relatively large.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 29, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (26)
Ecology: This plant grows in ravines, damp river banks, almost
dry river beds and other damp places, as well as in fields.
Festuca sp. (fescue)
Seed length: c. 2.9 mm
ID criteria: The very characteristic shape of the seeds is
reminiscent of Lolium spp., but Festuca spp. have their greatest
width near the apex and are in general wider.
Only 25 seeds recorded from the Early Bronze Age samples
with an ubiquity of 3%.
Ecology: The Festuca species have quite a broad spectrum of
potential habitats but very often grow close to woods or on
more or less damp and shaded places and meadows.
Hordeum spp. (weedy barley types)
The barleys fall into two groups by size. H. murinum, H.
bulbosum and H. spontaneum are longer than 5 mm. The other
group consists of species shorter than 5 mm: H. geniculatum,
H. marinum, H. nodosum, H. jubatum and H. violaceum.
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. (Mediterranean barley)
Plate 5 34
Seed length: 2.1-2.5 mm
96

catalogue of seeds
ID criteria: Within the smaller size class this species differs
from the others by its squared shape and a relatively narrow
apex. The last criteria is the one to distinguish the species from
H. marinum, with its quite broad apex, and which gives
Hordeum geniculatum the appearance of miniature
domesticated barley.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 5%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 76, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (56)
Ecology: Today this species is found on damp gullies, on hills,
steppe, sea coasts and salt marshes.
Hordeum marinum Hudson-type (sea barley)
Seed length: c. 2.3 mm
ID criteria: Differs in its relatively broad apex from H.
geniculatum.
The species is only recorded with two seeds, one from Middle
Bronze Age and one from Late Bronze Age.
Ecology: As the name implies, sea barley is particularly found
on maritime sands and in saltmarshes.
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss.-type (wall barley)
Plate 5 35
Seed length: c. 5.0 mm
ID criteria: This species belongs to the larger-seeded, narrow
wild barleys.
Only four seeds recorded, one from Middle Bronze Age and
three from Late Bronze Age.
Ecology: The plant grows on limestone steppe, dry hillsides,
sand dunes, sandy river flats and fallow and cultivated fields.
Lolium spp. (rye-grass)
The identification of the frequent Lolium species was
conducted with Mark Nesbitt’s comparative collection (UCL,
London).
From the morphological shape, there seemed to be at least five
types of Lolium spp.. Some of the rye-grasses could be more
clearly differentiated than others (e.g. L. remotum). The
problems in identification are compounded by the possible
adaptation of this genus to crops over time, which led to
morphological change in some species (i.e. modern material
differs strongly from archaeobotanical seeds, as in the cereals).
It was very difficult to decide, whether an observed
morphological difference was characterising different species,
or whether it was a reflection of complicated processes of
adaptation within different populations of the same species.
The adaptive change of seed shape linked to the seed shape of
the crop it is growing with, is pointed out by Kroll (1983) for
the species L. temulentum at Kastanas, and by Kislev (1980)
for Tell Keisan.
The following ‛types’ are morphologically designated within
the material from Troy and Kumtepe.
Lolium persicum Boiss. & Hohen. ex Boiss.-type
(Persian rye-grass)
Plate 5 36
Seed length: 3.5-6.0 mm, median of the L/W-Indices (n=40):
3,1
ID criteria: The elongated, narrow shape of the grains is
similar to the types L. perenne and L. rigidum, but at c. 6 mm
length, is much larger. The apex is box-shaped and after some
experiments with artificial carbonisation, the prehistoric
records could be designated as Lolium persicum. (For the
experiment, which was conducted by Mark Nesbitt, hulled and
dehusked grains were charred for 1-2 hours at 200-250°C.)
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 30%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (37%)
Number of seeds: 888, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(372)
Ecology: Lolium persicum is closely related to Lolium
temulentum. It is a weed of cereals, with additional habitats in
phrygana on sandy and clayey soils, and open meadows on
basalt, similar to those about 10 km south-east of Troy. The
raw material for some of the grinding stones that were found in
Troy is probably from this region. At least in historical times
the locality was used for cereal production, obvious from the
local name ‛Harmantarla’ translated as ‛threshing place’.
It can be assumed that the capability of the grass to adapt its
morphological shape to the seed shape of the crop it is growing
with, made it very difficult for prehistoric farmers to separate
the weed from the cereals.
Lolium perenne L.-type (perennial rye-grass)
Seed length: 2.0-2.8 mm
ID criteria: The differentiation of L. perenne and L. rigidum
was made by the length of the grains (L. rigidum up to twice as
long as L. perenne), although the carbonisation process causes
a shift in size to smaller grains. Additionally in modern
comparative material one can see a more flattened ventral side
in L. perenne, but this may be lost during combustion.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 45, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(20)
Ecology: This perennial grows in meadows, pastures, sand
dunes and waste places.
Lolium remotum Schrank-type (flaxfield rye-grass)
Seed length: 2.5-4.2 mm
ID criteria: In the modern material this type is smaller than L.
temulentum. There were samples with associations of Lolium
and Linum (D8BP18 and D8BP23) but generally Linum
usitatissimum was most common in samples without Lolium.
This could indicate that Linum was cleaned, but anyway the
number of L. remotum seeds in the whole material is to small
to allow any significant conclusion about its role as a flax
weed.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age (8%)
Number of seeds: 70, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (42)
Graph 47 shows the measurements of the different ‛types’,
which could also represent the intraspecific variability of one
single species. The scatter distribution of length to width of the
Lolium seeds shows very clearly the three described types,
accumulating in different regions of the diagram. While Lolium
remotum seems to be very different, from all the others, the
position of Lolium persicum and L. perenne is not clear. They
differ strongly in their sizes, but with the ‛intermediate types’
(L. rigidum, L. multiflorum) the picture becomes diffuse. If we
97

catalogue of seeds
neglect L. rigidum, which was most abundant in Kumtepe
samples, the picture becomes clearer for the Troy species. But
still, this cannot solve the question of whether different
populations or different species are represented.
Phalaris spp. (canary-grass)
Several types of canary grass were found. As they are all very
similar in shape and vary within the species, the identifications
are in most of the cases named as ‛type’ with reservation.
Phalaris aquatica/paradoxa (bulbous/awned canarygrass)
Plate 5 37
Seed length: 1.7-1.8 mm
ID criteria: The modern seeds of Ph. aquatica seem to be
slightly wider than Ph. paradoxa, but owing to the effects of
charring, one cannot easily find this difference in the
prehistoric material. From Ph. minor this group differs in its
more elongated lateral outline.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 8%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (15%)
Number of seeds: 174, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(81)
Ecology: The modern species of this group differ slightly in
their ecology, but can be both classed with moister vegetation.
Phalaris arundinacea L.-type (reed canary-grass)
Plate 5 38
Seed length: 1.3-1.5 mm
ID criteria: This very small species differs from the ‛typical
Phalaris shape’ in its egg shaped thick apex.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1.5%, same ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Post-Bronze Age (2%)
Number of seeds: 22, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (17)
Ecology: Habitats of this species are often wet places. In
modern times it is cultivated as an important grass for animal
fodder.
Phalaris minor Retz.-type (lesser canary-grass)
Plate 5 39
Seed length: 1.8 mm; modern seeds measure 3 mm
ID criteria: This species was unequivocally identified because
of its greater height and rounded ends in lateral view, which
give it an almost oval outline.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (8%)
Number of seeds: 47, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(29)
Ecology: In the study area the species grows on slopes and in
maquis vegetation (e.g. the small ravines on the lower plateau
in the close vicinity of Troy). The grains are very nutritious
(5% fat oil with palmitin, oil-and linol acid, 55% starch and
proteins, etc.), but not suitable for harvest, because they fall
from the ear when ripe. However it is a productive fodder
grass.
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten-type (purple-stem cat’s-tail)
Plate 5 40
Seed length: 0.9-1.2 mm
ID criteria: The lancet-shaped seed with pointed apex and of
medium size is clearly distinguished from other Phleum
species, such as the smaller and not pointed Phleum
arenarium, or the larger Phleum pratense.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (13%)
Number of seeds: 43, main proportion in Post-Bronze Age
(36)
Ecology: Preferred habitats are in open vegetation, dry pastures
and fields.
Phragmites sp. (common reed)
Plate 5 41
No seeds were found of Phragmites, but for the silicified
remains of its blades, embedded in large lumps of mudbrick
from trench E4/5. This species was already recorded by
Gennett and Gifford (1982) and Mulholland and Rapp (1987)
from earlier excavations.
Poa spp. (meadow grass)
There were several Poa types in the samples. Poa species
differ from Agrostis spp. by a triangular cross section and the
more or less visible ridge on the dorsal side.
Poa trivialis L.-type (rough meadow-grass)
Plate 6 42
Seed length: 0.8-1.0 mm; modern seeds measure 2 mm
ID criteria: The elongated lancet shaped seed shows a very
clear dorsal ridge.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 187, main proportion in Early Bronze Age
(182)
Ecology: The species grows under damp and nitrogenous
conditions, like in meadows or coastal grassland.
Other species with small seed numbers:
Agrostis sp. (bent), Avena sp. (wild oat), Catabrosa aquatica
(L.) P.Beauv.-type (whorl-grass), Hordeum cf. spontaneum
C.Koch (ancestral two-row barley), Lolium temulentum-type
(darnel), Milium-type (millet), Phalaris brachystachys Linktype
(confused canary-grass), Phleum arenarium L.-type (sand
cat’s-tail), Phleum pratense L.-type (timothy), Poa palustris
Grossh.-type (swamp meadow-grass), Poa pratensis L.-type
(smooth meadow-grass), Polypogon maritimus Willd.-type
(Mediterranean polypogon), Setaria sp. (bristle-grass)
CEREALS
Hordeum vulgare L. (six-row barley, hulled)
Plate 6 43a-h
The continuous presence of both straight and twisted grains in
all of the barley containing samples, lead to the identification
of six-row barley, either lax-eared (var. tetrastichum) or denseeared
(var. hexastichum) (for the nomenclature see Charles
1984 and van Zeist 1984).
98

catalogue of seeds
Already Hopf (1975) demonstrated that the distinction of laxeared
and dense-eared varieties should not be tried in the
prehistoric material, because the characteristics are variable
and depend on the length of the rachis internodes, which are
also variable within one ear. Only a small proportion of the
barley records from Troy and Kumtepe was represented by
rachis segments (237), which were rarely complete (Plate 6 43a
and 43b). The better preserved rachis segments appeared
narrow and elongated, a characteristic which was used by
several archaeobotanists to assume the lax-eared variety (e.g.
Kroll 1983). Hopf and Willerding (1988) demonstrated that the
theoretical relation of 2 : 1 twisted : straight grains in six-row
barley (particularly with the lax-eared variety) never occurs in
reality. No efforts were spent on calculating the relation of
twisted to straight barley grains from Troy and Kumtepe. From
most of the grains it was not possible to tell whether the
deformation was a natural one, caused by the grain’s position
in the rachis node, or if it derived from carbonisation.
Jacomet (1987) investigated the metrical differences between
the varieties tetrastichum and hexastichum by the length/width
indices (L/W) of the grains, but always warned against the
application of measurements for the distinction of cereal
grains. However a measuring experiment was conducted with
the abundant Late Bronze Age Barley grains from Troy.
According to Jacomet (1987), Hordeum vulgare L. var.
hexastichum has more rounded, short-broad grains and, when
charred, has a smaller L/W index (1.8). The averages of the L/W indices of
the caryopses in samples from Troy are between 1.86 and 1.94.
The indices within single samples varied a lot. Some grains
had values smaller than 1.8. Because H. vulgare L. var.
tetrastichum is only a lax-eared variety of the H. vulgare L.
var. hexastichum, with the same number of fertile grains, there
is no need to make a separation for purposes like answering
economical questions.
The two-rowed variety distichum, recognised by others at Troy
(e.g. Schiemann 1951), could not be found in the samples
analysed since 1991.
Those grains that were well preserved showed clearly the
impressions of the hulls and the resulting edged cross section,
which classifies the barley as hulled. Stalked segments, which
is used as a characteristic by some to designate naked barley
(e.g. Piening 1981), were not seen on any of the barley rachis
segments. The identification of a few naked grains was not
clear, because they were too badly preserved to be sure about
the missing impressions of hulls or other characteristics of
naked barley (see Jacomet 1987). Hopf (1975) points out that
naked barley grains, after strong carbonisation, can resemble
hulled barley because of the broken ventral groove.
Panicum miliaceum L. (common millet)
With a count of 121 grains this crop is poorly recorded, with
main presence in Late Bronze Age samples and a very few
records in Post-Bronze Age layers. The overall ubiquity was c.
3%, the ubiquity in the Late Bronze Age samples about 20%.
The hypotheses of origin are controversial, because the wild
ancestor is unknown, but certainly common millet does not
belong to the Neolithic Near East crop assemblage. According
to Sakamoto (1987) it seems likely that domestication started
before 8500 B.P. on the Loess-plateaux in China. In the eastern
Mediterranean the crop is recorded from Neolithic Argissa (cf.
Hopf 1962), and later from Late Bronze Age Kastanas (Kroll
1983).
Triticum aestivum/durum (free - threshing wheat)
Plate 6 44
112 rachis segments of free-threshing wheat were found.
Unfortunately the characteristics were not clear. The glumes
were missing and bulges at the top of the rachis (a
characteristic of the tetraploid free-threshing wheat, described
in Jacomet 1987) were not definitely visible, because the
rachises were all broken directly below the possible end of the
bulges.
Although it was found that they resemble more the hexaploid
type, the ploidy level could not be determined.
The main ubiquity of the rachis segments (4%) and the highest
species number (109) was from Middle Bronze Age deposits,
whereas no segments were found in Late Bronze Age or Post-
Bronze Age layers.
The grains of naked wheat (190) were also designated as
Triticum aestivum/durum, because of the problems in
differentiation of grains of hexa-and tetraploid naked wheat.
This problem is discussed comprehensively in Hillman (1995),
Maier (1995), Sallares, Allaby and Brown (1994), Allaby et al.
(1993), Brown et al. (1994) and numerous other publications.
Carbonisation effects and overlapping grain morphologies do
not allow separation of tetraploid from hexaploid grains.
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (emmer) and Triticum
monococcum L. (einkorn)
Plate 6 45a-c and Plate 7 45d-j (emmer) and Plate 7 46a and
46b (einkorn)
As is typical in archaeobotanical material, the grains are very
variable in shape. Emmer grains (780) are present in typical
narrow shape with the maximum lateral height closely behind
the embryo and a flat ventral side, but there were also
intermediate shapes resembling einkorn types. Chaff remains
from terminal emmer grains occurred, but no efforts were
made to designate one-grained emmer, because of the broad
variability of shapes within the whole group of hulled wheat. A
few emmer grains were of the drop shaped type (143).
Two-grained einkorn (386) was very abundant compared to
435 grains of the one-seeded type.
The chaff remains of both wheats were much more frequent
and abundant than the grains (13960 in emmer, 2792 in
einkorn, two glume bases scored as one spikelet). Because the
emmer chaff is in all of the periods the most frequent category,
esp. in Kumtepe samples, a debris character of the finds may
be indicated, but also the different preservation potential of the
cereal categories has to be considered (Boardman and Jones
1990). In the Post-Bronze Age samples both hulled wheats are
far less ubiquitous and frequent.
Cerealia (culm nodes)
There were only a few culm nodes (14), mainly from Late
Bronze Age samples, which give the impression that not many
sheaves were brought into the settlement. This implies that the
cereals were processed outside the living area, directly in the
99

catalogue of seeds
field and stored as grains. Another explanation would be, that,
no matter where the sheaves were processed, the culm nodes
did not get the chance to be burnt, and may have gone directly
into animal feed.
ISOËTACEAE (quillwort family)
Isoëtes duriei Bory (quillwort)
Plate 7 47a and 47b
Megaspore length: c. 0.6 mm across
ID criteria: The globular megaspores with their equatorial rib,
and ribs from the equator to one of the poles, which separate
one half of the globe in three sectors, show a net-type surface
pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 4%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (9%)
Number of seeds: 24, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (9)
Ecology: Both, I. histrix and I. duriei are exceptions in the
genus Isoëtes because they are not very well adapted to
submerged growing conditions. They even grow on sandy hills
without vegetation. But while I. histrix is able to grow
submerged (e.g. in winter flooded areas), there are no
submerged forms of I. duriei. The most likely habitats are on
sand dunes, somewhat further from the seashore.
Isoëtes histrix Bory (land quillwort)
Plate 7 48
Megaspore length: c. 0.4 mm across
ID criteria: The megaspores show a diagnostic surface pattern
of tuberculate papillae, partly merging with each other.
This species is only recorded for the Early Bronze Age layers,
with a ubiquity of 3%.
Ecology: As mentioned above this species is able to survive
from time to time in submerged conditions, but seems to prefer
dry ground (Casper and Krausch 1980).
JUNCACEAE (rush family)
Juncus spp. (rush)
Plate 8 49a and 49b
Seed length: c. 0.3-0.5 mm
ID criteria: With 25 species in the area, final identifications
could not be made because of the incompleteness of the
comparative material. 13 of the potential species were
compared with the subfossil seeds. Juncus subulatus Forsskål,
J. effusus L., and J. acutiflorus may have been amongst the
possible species. However more than one species is
represented by seeds and capsules.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 18%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
(32%)
Number of seeds: 781 and 5 fruits, main proportion in Late
Bronze Age (434)
Ecology: Most of the species are indicators of moist habitats.
LAMIACEAE (mint family)
Teucrium cf. botrys L. (cut-leaved germander)
Plate 8 50
Seed length: 1.5-1.6 mm
ID criteria: The quite small seed shows very deep punctate
grooves all over its surface.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2.5%, main ubiquity in
Middle Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 8, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(4)
Ecology: This germander is mainly found on stony, dry soils
on limestone and as a weed.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Origanum vulgare L. (wild marjoram), Teucrium flavum L.
(germander), which is common on rocky slopes and in woods.
LEGUMINOSAE (pea family)
Identification of legumes by seed morphology is a particular
problem because of the intrageneric similarities of several
species (e.g. those of Vicia and Lathyrus), but also because of
the general phenotypic plasticity, which allows a range of
morphological expression within species, as described for the
Vicieae by Butler (1991). This morphological plasticity is also
responsible for the phenomenon of crop mimicry, described
below.
Identifications of greater certainty can be reached, on condition
that hilum and testa are present, by specific microscopic
techniques, e.g. SEM (Brisson and Peterson 1976, LaSota,
Link, and Gunn 1979).
The terminology for the morphological descriptions follows
Gunn (1981).
Astragalus sp. (milk-vetch)
Plate 8 51
Seed length: 1.9-2.0 mm
ID criteria: Most of the different Astragalus species in the
material have the typical irregulary squared shape. As there are
more than 280 species of this genus in Turkey, it is obvious
why further identification was not made.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 18, main proportion in Early Bronze Age (7)
Ecology: The genus is very common in its spiny scrub form in
the Troad (e.g. in the coastal sand dunes in Alexandria Troas).
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi (disk trefoil)
ID criteria: Five fragments of the very distinctive disk-like,
reniform pods were preserved from Post-Bronze Age layers.
Ecology: The species grows on fields, fallow and waste
ground, dry hillslopes and occasionally on sandy seashores.
Medicago sp., Sect. Spirocarpos Ser., Subsect. Leptospireae
(Urb.) Heyn (medick)
Plate 8 52a-c
Seed length: 2.2-2.5 mm
ID criteria: Besides the abundant seeds, fragments of the
coiled pods, sometimes still attached to the seeds, were found.
In some of the better preserved pods, the thin spines were still
visible. The pods could not be designated within this
subsection, because sufficient comparative material was not
available. Compared with drawings, they matched best with
100

catalogue of seeds
Medicago polymorpha (Small and Jomphe 1989). The majority
of the seeds had up to three wave-like impressions on the back,
in cross-sectional direction, possibly deriving from the fruit
wall. This characteristic could only be found in modern
Medicago arabica seeds.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 14%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (21%)
Number of seeds: 1842, main proportion in Early Bronze Age
(1630), number of pods: 18, main proportion in Kumtepe (13)
Ecology: The species of this section are all very common in
ruderal habitats under animal management by humans. The
hooked pods stick easily to animal fur (e.g. sheep) and are
distributed in this way over the landscape.
The remains belong to a distinctive sample composition
amongst Early Bronze Age contexts, i.e. mainly small seeded
legumes and small seeded grasses. In this combination, they
are discussed in chapters 3-5 as derivatives from animal dung.
This functional interpretation is closely related to ecological
aspects. During grazing the seeds could have been collected
from their original habitats, which probably were similar to
parts of the modern, semi-natural Mediterranean landscape,
where the regeneration of the woodland vegetation is
suppressed, e.g. after fires.
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. (large disk-medick)
Plate 8 53
Seed length: 2.1 mm
ID criteria: The relatively large seeds have a typical trapezoidangular
and compressed shape, and a slightly nodular surface
pattern. Only 4 seeds of this species were found.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe and Post-Bronze Age (2%)
Ecology: This annual grows on heavy soils, rocky slopes, and
in cultivated and fallow fields.
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (medick)
Plate 8 54
Pod length: 4.0 mm
There was only one find of the turban-shaped pod in Early
Bronze Age layers.
Ecology: This annual grows in sandy pine woods, on
limestone, phrygana, fields, and waste ground, usually near the
sea level.
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss.-type (sainfoin)
Seed length: 2.2-2.5 mm
ID criteria: The seeds were as described in Onobrychis sp., but
with fragments of the spiny pod attached to the seeds.
Only 8 seeds were found, and additionally some pod fragments
in Post-Bronze Age layers.
Ecology: The perennial grows on rocky slopes, often
limestone, fallow fields and in Quercus scrubs, between 300
and 1200m.
Onobrychis sp. (sainfoin)
Plate 8 55
ID criteria: The flat seed has the typical oval, slightly reniform
outline, with a small hilum in the longitudinal incision.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 16, main proportion in Post-Bronze Age (8)
Scorpiurus muricatus L. (caterpillar-plant)
Seed length: 2.6-2.8 mm
ID criteria: The very typical luneate seed with its hilum in the
mid of the convex side, was usually poorly preserved.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.4%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 10, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (8)
Ecology: Common habitats are fields and waste ground.
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. (hatchet vetch)
Plate 8 56
Seed length: 3.0 mm
ID criteria: The rectangular, compressed seed with a surface of
small punctiform depressions is very distinctive.
Only 2 seeds were found in the Middle Bronze Age layers.
Ecology: This annual mainly grows in damp habitats by the sea
and in waste places up to 900m.
Trifolium spp. (clover)
Plate 9 58a and 58b
Seed length: 1.1-1.2 mm
ID criteria: Some of the cordate seeds had a smooth (58a),
others a rugose (58b) testa with conical papillae. Under SEM,
the hilum surface structures are missing and the rim,
characteristic for the genus Trifolium (pers. com. A. Butler) is
impossible to ascertain.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 14%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (30%)
Number of seeds: 5821, main proportion in Early Bronze Age
(3673)
Ecology: The seeds were most abundant in the Early Bronze
Age samples, and there they correlated with the above
mentioned medicks and grasses, so that they most likely form
part of the same ‛grassland’-type vegetation and have the same
history of deposition, i.e. via animal fodder and dung into the
fire.
Trigonella cf. monspeliaca L. (star-fruited fenugreek)
Plate 8 57
Seed length: 1.5-1.7 mm
ID criteria: The elongated seed has a nodular pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2.5%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (8%)
Number of seeds: 19, main proportion in: Early Bronze Age
(10)
Ecology: The species is found on stony slopes in Quercus
scrubland, in pine forests, on fallow fields and sand dunes.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Medicago lupulina L. (black medick), Lathyrus cf. hirsutus L.
(hairy vetchling) with a seed length of c. 3,5 mm, and the
following ID criteria: Of the 23 Lathyrus species that are listed
in Davis (1965-1988, vol. 3) for the west Anatolian region,
there are four species that possess the nodular surface pattern
101

catalogue of seeds
(five species could not be compared in their optical qualities
either from the comparative collections or from the literature).
While L. nissola is too small, L. sylvestris is more oval in its
general shape and the surface pattern of L. annuus is too
strongly elevated to fit with the ancient. The best fit was with
L. hirsutus, but as the five mentioned species could not be
compared, the prefix ‛cf.’ seems to be reasonable.
CROP LEGUMES
The crop legumes show quite distinct ubiquities in the different
periods. The highest ubiquities are reached in the Late Bronze
Age samples, followed by Post-Bronze Age and Middle
Bronze Age samples. Also in Kumtepe samples the legumes
are very ubiquitous. The crop legumes and their economic
significance in Troy and Kumtepe are discussed in chapter 5.
Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea)
Plate 9 59
Seed length: 4.0-5.2 mm
ID criteria: The typical angular shape and the prominent beak
are the key characteristics for the seeds. As with many other
domesticated legumes (garden pea and lentil) it is almost
impossible to distinguish between the seeds of the wild
progenitors and the cultivated forms, because their
characteristics changed very little over several millennia.
The crop is recorded with higher numbers in Late Bronze Age
samples (15179), and with a few records in the Post-Bronze
Age layers.
Ecology and economy: This species is known as the most
important field legume in traditional Mediterranean agriculture
(Ladizinsky 1980). With a protein content of some 20%, the
seed constitutes an important meat substitute in peasant
communities, already recorded for the Neolithic (Zohary and
Hopf 1993). Although Chickpea has those qualities and is easy
to harvest, because of its specific seed dispersal, it is only
scarcely recorded in prehistoric sites. This may relate to the
small distribution area of the wild progenitor (Cicer
reticulatum) that is restricted today to south-eastern Turkey.
Lathyrus cicera/sativus (grass pea)
Plate 9 60a and 60b
ID criteria: The wild grass pea (L. cicera) and its cultivated
form (L. sativus) have the same elongated, tetragonal seed
morphology, and differ only in size. The measurements of
modern L. sativus lie between 6 and 8 mm in diameter, while
the wild relatives (L. cicera) measure 5-6 mm (Zohary and
Hopf 1993).
The use of such a size difference for identification purposes is
not possible, because the knowledge about the prehistoric size
differences of the wild and the cultivated form are not
available. Additionally a considerable intraspecific variability
of seeds may have existed also in prehistoric times. Finally the
appearance of the finds is obscured by the effects of
carbonisation.
However, measurements of the seeds showed at least the
existence of different populations in Kumtepe and Troy, with
the general characteristic of smaller seeds from Kumtepe
samples (Graph 43). This pattern of size difference occurred
also with other crop legumes (compare bitter vetch), which
shows a process of adaptation in the species, either as
consequence from domestication or as reaction to different
conditions within the habitats.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, with a main ubiquity in
Late Bronze Age (7%) followed by Kumtepe samples (5%).
Number of seeds: 87 with a main proportion in Kumtepe (25).
This rarity, also in all periods of Troy, compared to the
abundance of other legume crops may indicate that Lathyrus
was not an intentional crop. The problems in designation either
to one or the other species in general, and for the samples from
Troy and Kumtepe in specific are discussed in chapter 5.
Ecology and economy: Being aware of the broad spectrum of
ecological habitats in Troy, during the Bronze Age, it is
important to know, that although Lathyrus sativus is suited to
dry climates, it can also tolerate waterlogging and is generally
a strong competitor.
Lens culinaris Medik. (lentil)
Seed length: c. 2.0-4.0 mm
ID criteria: Within the crop species two subspecies are
differentiated (3-6 mm seed diameter: ssp. microsperma, 6-9
mm: ssp. macrosperma), of which the large seeded forms only
appear around the first millennium bc (Zohary and Hopf 1993).
Differentiation between the small-seeded crop and the wild
form is not possible using seed morphology.
Ubiquity in the whole data set 7%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
and Late Bronze Age (11%)
Number of seeds: 697, main proportion in Kumtepe (535)
Ecology and economy: Lentil thrives on warm sandy soils. The
species is thought to be one of the oldest grain legumes. With a
protein content of 25% it belongs to the most nutritious crops.
It is recorded for Turkey from the Neolithic (van Zeist 1988),
but its use (i.e. gathering of wild plants (Lens orientalis)) is
already proved for pre-Neolithic times (e.g. the
Palaeolithic/Mesolithic layers (11000 B.C.) of Franchthi Cave
(Hansen 1991) or Mureybit between 9200 and 7500 B.C.
(Zohary and Hopf 1993). For lentil there is more than one
species which gave rise to domestic derivatives. While Lens
nigricans is the progenitor for domesticates in southern Europe
(including Greece), Lens orientalis was the progenitor for Lens
culinaris farther East. Lentil seems to be a poor competitor
against weeds (Basler 1981), and it appears that many different
legumes have the potential to grow within the lentil crop
(Erskine, Smartt, and Muehlbauer 1994). Seeds that mimic
lentil, as suggested for grass pea, were successful under the
strong selective pressure of crop processing. The ecology of
grass pea contrasts with that of lentil, and the former has
competitive advantages over lentil under specific conditions,
e.g. waterlogged habitats, as they were present close to the
settlements during the early periods of Troy and Kumtepe.
However, grass pea was always found as a weed amongst the
lentil stores.
Pisum sativum L. (garden pea)
Plate 9 61
ID criteria: The well preserved seeds measure in diameter
between 3.5-3.7 mm, and lie within the variability known from
102

catalogue of seeds
other sites (e.g. 3.0-5.0 mm in Arad/IL (Early Bronze Age),
Hopf 1978, p. 64-82)).
The crop is only recorded for the Middle Bronze Age layers,
with a ubiquity of 13%. Number of seeds: 20001
Ecology and economy: The pea is already recorded in Turkey
for the Neolithic period (van Zeist 1988). With the same
nutritional qualities as the other food legumes the crop
occupies a broad range of climatic regions, from warm to cooltemperate.
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. (bitter vetch)
Plate 9 62a-d
ID criteria: The general measurements of the seeds (n= 40) are
between 1.9 mm and 3.5 mm (the longest diameter, which is
measured between the radicular lobe and the opposite side of
the cotyledon) with an average of 2.54 mm and a standard
deviation of 0.187. Besides this, length and width of seeds
from Kumtepe and Late Bronze Age Troy were plotted in a
scatter diagram and showed a more or less clear separation
between smaller Kumtepe seeds and the somewhat larger Troy
seeds (Graph 42). This corresponds to the general difference in
size patterns of crop legumes between Kumtepe and Troy
(compare Lathyrus cicera/sativus). The comparison with other
sites shows generally good correspondence, but with some
restrictions. Kroll (1983) finds in the bitter vetch seed a size
reduction in the course of the time. The smaller Late Bronze
Age seeds from Kastanas are similar to the Kumtepe seeds,
while the larger seeds from Early Bronze Age Kastanas are
very similar to Late Bronze Age Troy seeds of bitter vetch.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 21%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (33%)
Number of seeds: 26511, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(23841)
Ecology and Economy: Bitter vetch was cultivated already in
the preceramic Near East. There it has its primary centre
(Zeven and de Wet 1982, van Zeist 1988). At least since
Roman times the plant was grown mainly as a fodder plant and
was only used for human nutrition in extreme cases of famine
(Ladizinsky 1989). For hay production the plant is cut before
maturity and air dried. In traditional Mediterranean agriculture,
hay supplements the farm animals’ diet, particularly in the end
of the summer until winter. In this case the seeds are unlikely
to be collected for more than for reasons of establishing the
crop in the next year (Ladizinsky 1980). Traverso (1926)
classifies bitter vetch as well suited for “low fertility soils”.
The toxins within the raw fruit (hydrocyanic acidic glycoside)
can be eliminated by cooking. These toxins are harmful for
man, horses and pigs, but are tolerated by ruminants, such as
cows and sheep. Symptoms of toxination are nervous in nature
and can cause spinal paralysis in the final stage. The economic
use of Vicia ervilia in prehistoric times is not known (Zohary
and Hopf 1993).
Because bitter vetch is the crop legume with the highest
ubiquity and counts in all periods of Troy, the question arose if
these enormously abundant grain legumes could have played a
part in human nutrition. From the mode of storage it seemed
not reasonable to interpret bitter vetch exclusively as animal
fodder (see below). Additionally since hay production would
more likely lead to an underrepresentation of the seed of this
legume. In an Late Bronze Age context from Troy (K8), on a
stratum outside an apsidal house, joined to the Troy VI
fortification wall, a mixture of almost 50% barley with the
same amount of Bitter vetch was found (see chapter 3). This
could be a deliberate crop mixture or ‛maslin’, according to
Halstead and Jones (1995). Maslins have an intermediate
position concerning consumption. In good years they may be
fodder, while in bad years they are regarded as human food.
Halstead and Jones (1995) found from ethnographic
observations in Greece, that the commonest maslins where
wheat-barley and common vetch-grass pea mixtures, i.e.
consisting of crops from the same plant family. In other
Mediterranean countries also mixed cropping of grain legumes
and cereals could be observed (pers. com. Ann Butler). In
monocrops the main species has to be above 80-90%.
Reasons for producing maslins are given by a “low risk
agriculture”, which has similar advantages as the
“Dreifelderwirtschaft” in Middle Age temperate Europe
(Forbes 1976). In case of a changing environment (e.g.
drought), one of the two crops at least would not fail. When
harvested, the possibility to shift the boundary between food or
fodder, provides an additional security. There may have been
also crops that were more likely to be exploited as a maslin
than others. The barley-bitter vetch mixture from Late Bronze
Age Troy, may also represent some kind of maslin, open to the
decission of prehistoric man, either to use it as animal fodder
or for human nutrition.
Vicia faba L. (broad bean)
Plate 10 63a-d
Average seed length: 5.78 mm (average seed width: 4.0 mm)
ID criteria: The elongated egg-shaped seeds are much smaller
than the modern equivalents from the comparative collections.
The measurements of the finds from Troy VI are very similar
to those described in the literature (Bertsch and Bertsch 1949:
Troy II: 5.60 mm length, 4.08 mm width; Renfrew 1973: 10
mm in length, 6 mm width). According to Hegi the
terminology for the small seeded form from Troy II is Vicia
faba L. subvar. celtica-nana Heer, which belongs to the
modern Vicia faba L. var. minor Beck.
On field trips in the Troad (1993) a strong variance in seed size
was observed, which varied between 6 mm and more than 20
mm in length.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 22, main proportion in Post-Bronze Age (7)
Ecology and Economy: The wild progenitor is still unknown
(Zohary and Hopf 1993, Zohary 1977). Morphological
similarities with the Vicia narbonensis group could not be
confirmed genetically (Ladizinsky 1975, Ladizinsky 1989).
The primary distribution centre of small seeded types lies in
West Asia. The Mediterranean region with larger seeded types
forms the secondary centre. The broad bean is already recorded
in Neolithic Turkey (van Zeist 1988). In the historical
Mediterranean area the species was cultivated, sometimes in
mixed cultivation with cereals or peas (Hegi 1908 ff.).
The species is salt tolerant and grows well on marshy ground.
The uses for consumption were diverse, e.g. the legume was
also used as an addition to flour for breadmaking, and today
the seed is regarded as a valuable animal feed (Zohary and
Hopf 1993). A curiosity is a genetically caused allergic disease
103

catalogue of seeds
(favism), that results in serological changes and can lead in
severe cases to death. This favism is still common in
Mediterranean populations (Franke 1976).
Already recorded for Troy II, but with only a few remains in
the whole material, it is impossible to assume a large-scale
cultivation of this species in Troy and Kumtepe.
LINACEAE (flax family)
Linum cf. strictum L. (upright yellow flax)
Seed length: c. 1.6-2.0 mm
ID criteria: As there are 18 other species of Linum in the area,
it is not possible to determine the species with absolute
certainty, although the subfossil record and modern
comparative look identical.
This species is only recorded with 9 capsule segments for the
Kumtepe layers.
Ecology: This annual grows on rocky slopes, fallow fields and
in phrygana vegetation.
Linum usitatissimum L. (flax)
Plate 10 64
Seed length: c. 3.5 mm
ID criteria: The outline of the oval, compressed seed with its
distinctive cell pattern was the main characteristic used for
designation.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (15%)
Number of seeds: 107099, which mainly constitute a large
Middle Bronze Age hoard within a building.
Ecology and economy: This crop is already recorded for the
Jordanian Neolithic (Simmons 1988). Later the species is
mentioned in Mycenaean Linear B tablets (Melena 1983).
There the plant is often described in its meaning for textile
production.
The finds of linseed depots in a Middle Bronze Age building in
Troy, imply production and the consumption of the seeds.
Whether the plants these seeds came from were also used for
the production of linen, cannot be said for sure, but can be
taken for granted at least for Homeric times (pers. com. B.
Mannsperger). Weeds of flax are recorded from the already
mentioned depot. It consisted to 45% of Camelina sativa, the
other 44% of Linum usitatissimum and 7% Fumaria officinalis.
C. sativa seeds were not frequent in general, and a cultivation
of it as a pure crop cannot be assumed. It may have grown as a
dominant and even tolerated weed within the flax, because of
its similar qualities as an oil resource. Lolium remotum as a
flax weed was too rarely found to play a major role as a
contaminant of flax harvest.
MALVACEAE (mallow family)
Malva sylvestris L. (common mallow)
Plate 10 65
Seed length: 1.8-2.0 mm
ID criteria: The seeds had parts of the mericarp with a species
specific surface pattern. With a full set of comparative material
of the modern recorded species in the area, it was possible to
differentiate the net type surface structure of M. sylvestris
mericarps from other species (e.g. from M. pusilla).
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 2.5%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of mericarps: 14, main proportion in Middle Bronze
Age (4)
Ecology: The plant is a perennial and biennial in scrub, fields,
and open places and is taken as an indicator for nitrogenous
soils. It was frequently observed near roads and field margins
in the Troad. Considering the large quantities of mallow seeds
in some of the Post-Bronze Age samples a use of the plant may
be indicated. Apart from the use as a legume, the plant contains
compounds, soothing insect bites, which may have been a
problem within the marshy area.
Malva sp. (mallow)
Seed length: c. 1.2-1.8 mm
ID criteria: Most of the records of this genus did not have
fragments of the mericarp, so it was not possible to identify to
the species level.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 27%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (48%)
Number of seeds: 734, main proportion in Post-Bronze Age
(380)
Ecology: Many of the species are growing on waste places,
garrigue or similar vegetation formations.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Malva pusilla Sm. (small mallow), mericarp
MORACEAE (mulberry family)
Ficus carica L. (fig)
Plate 10 66
Seed length: c. 0.8-2.1 mm
ID criteria: It is not possible to differentiate the seeds of the
wild from the cultivated form.
Some of the seeds were preserved mineralised (263), but the
bulk of the remains were carbonised (862). The mineralised
seeds were mainly from pits in the Kumtepe layers. Some
bubbly concretions from Troy VIII features had fig seeds
embedded in them. It is not clear, if these objects may be
remains from food preparation or if they can be coprolites.
Unfortunately no SEM picture could be taken yet.
The ubiquity for the carbonised seeds in the whole data set
was 30%, with the main ubiquity in Kumtepe (43%). The
number of seeds (both, carbonised and uncarbonised) was
1125 with the main proportion in Kumtepe (333), where fig
seems to have been an important crop. The ubiquity for the
mineralised seeds in the whole data set was c. 7%, with the
main ubiquity (17%) and the main proportion (88) again in
Kumtepe. The high abundance in these early contexts evokes
the question of whether the figs that were used at Kumtepe
may have been from wild trees.
Ecology and economy: Wild and cultivated form show very
similar ecological requirements and can be used for human
nutrition in the same way (see van Zeist 1980). Habitats spread
from open places and deciduous woods to river valleys or
104

catalogue of seeds
stony slopes. The plant often grows near water, but the ground
has to be well-drained. Biologically the cultivated fig shows,
like olive and grape vine, a shift from sexual reproduction in
the wild, to vegetative propagation of clones under
domestication. This clonal cultivation, i.e. only quite a few
sexual reproduction cycles, had the effect that the cultivars did
not diverge considerably from the progenitor gene-pools
(Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975). The Mediterranean territory
harbours the closest wild relatives of Ficus carica and is
therefore assumed to be the centre of domestication. The very
nutritious fruits contain, when they are dried, about 50% sugar,
and are already mentioned in Egyptian medical texts for their
laxative effects. They are also known as pig fodder in Classical
Greece (Renfrew 1973).
The seeds are recorded already for the early Neolithic in Tell
Aswad/Syria. At least from Early Bronze Age, the species can
be considered as an important contributor to food production in
eastern Mediterranean, like olive and vine (Zohary and Hopf
1993). In general, fruit cultivation in Near East came after the
firm establishment of grain agriculture. The reasons for the
delay of the introduction of these crops into Mediterranean
crop economy, after the domestication and widespread
cultivation of cereals and legumes, are addressed by Stager
(1985). His main argument is, that horticulture needs a society
advanced well beyond a subsistence economy, because of the
long-term investments in growing, maintaining and processing
the fruits. He assumes fruit-growing to have been of secondary
importance to the overall economy, in contradiction to
Renfrew’s models of the evolution of the Aegean elitarian
societies on the basis of vine and olive oil production (C.
Renfrew 1972). Stager suggests that the three crops mentioned
were the main horticultural elements of the ‛rain-dependent
agriculture’ in the Mediterranean only from classical times
onwards.
OLEACEAE (olive family)
Olea europaea L. (olive)
Plate 10 67
Seed length: 9 mm
ID criteria: The difference in seed length between the wild
Olea europaea var. oleaster, with shorter seeds, and the
cultivated Olea europaea, is sometimes used to distinguish one
from the other, but not only according to Runnels and Hansen
(1986) the overlap is too great to rely on such kind of
separation.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (13%)
Number of seeds: 17, main proportion in Post-Bronze Age
(11), but with some finds from Early Bronze Age levels.
Ecology and economy: The biennial cropping of the olive may
be an adaptation to seasonal low rainfall conditions (< 400 mm
rainfall/year). This is deliberately encouraged today in some
regions within the Mediterranean (Forbes 1992). Wild olives
reproduce from seeds. Cultivated varieties are maintained by
vegetative propagation (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975).
Further information on cultural requirements can be found in
Pansiot and Rebour (1961). Olive is an important crop in the
Troad today, and the luvisol-type soils in the region are good
enough substrate for olive cultivation (pers. com. K.
Pustovoytov).
Early finds of olive in Aegean Early Bronze Age do not prove
intensive olive cultivation for this time, it may not have started
until the Late Bronze Age or even later. The problem of the
starting point of olive cultivation was discussed
comprehensively, e.g. by Amouretti (1992), Forbes (1992),
Runnels and Hansen (1986) and most recently by Hamilakis
(1996). According to the latter Renfrew’s (1972) model, that
the rise of Mycenaean civilisation was only possible, because
of the ‛polycultural triad’ of wheat, vine and olive in the Early
Bronze Age, seems to stand on ambiguous grounds, because
the archaeobotanical evidence does not seem to fulfil the
preconditions of this model, although it cannot be excluded,
that olive cultivation and oil production took place within
plantations farther from the city. The position of Kumtepe and
Troy within the frame of early fruit tree cultivation is discussed
in chapter 5.
PAPAVERACEAE (poppy family)
Fumaria officinalis L.-type (common fumitory)
Plate 10 68
Seed length: 1.8-2.0 mm
ID criteria: There are nine species in the area, and most of the
comparative seeds were not available. These seeds were
designated according to the similarities to F. officinalis,
qualified with the extension-‛type’.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 7%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (21%)
Number of seeds: 146, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(120)
Ecology: Besides its weedy character, the species Fumaria
officinalis was and is cultivated in Europe as a dye and
medicinal plant. But the high number of fumitory seeds in
Middle Bronze Age layers rich in flax suggests it may have
been a weed.
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. (red horned-poppy)
Seed length: 1.0 mm
ID criteria: The seed is broadly ovate with a clearly visible
suture, and a reticulate surface pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 3%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 16 and 40 mineralised, main proportion in
Middle Bronze Age (6). The mineralised seeds are all from
Late Bronze Age layers.
Ecology: The preferred habitats of this annual and biennial are
steppe and fields.
Papaver rhoeas/dubium (common/long-headed poppy)
Plate 11 69
Seed length: 0.5-0.7 mm
ID criteria: Half of the 12 species common in the area could be
compared with the subfossil remains. The cultivated P.
somniferum could be excluded immediately. P. argemone and
P. hybridum had different cell patterns. Separation of P. rhoeas
and P. dubium is difficult, but the arrangement of the cells
make it more likely that P. dubium is represented.
105

catalogue of seeds
The carbonised seeds all originate from the Late Bronze Age
levels, where they had a ubiquity of 4%. The mineralised seeds
were from Early Bronze Age and Post-Bronze Age levels with
a main proportion from Post-Bronze Age.
Ecology: The problems with the differentiation do not affect
the ecological interpretation, because both species have their
habitats on waste ground and fields from sea level and above.
PINACEAE (pine family)
Pinus sp. (pine)
Plate 11 70
Seed length: 5.2 mm
ID criteria: The egg-shaped kernel, with slightly pointed ends
fitted very well to the modern material of P. halepensis and P.
nigra (the most frequent Pinus species in the area), but because
of the lack of comparative material the identification is only of
a probable character.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 5, main portions in Late Bronze Age and
Post-Bronze Age (2)
Ecology: The seeds of the species are edible. More details for a
prehistoric use of the pine species are given in Kislev (1988).
Potential habitats would have been on the high plateau of the
Troad, where today mainly Pinus halepensis is growing.
PLANTAGINACEAE (plantain family)
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit.-type (branched plantain)
Plate 11 71
Seed length: 1.5-1.9 mm
ID criteria: The regular shape with the flat and angular border
is very distinctive.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1.5%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (6%)
Number of seeds: 13, main proportion in Kumtepe (12)
Ecology: The spectrum of the potential habitats is quite broad
and extends from sea coast, sandy places and beaches to
steppe, ruderal and rocky slopes.
Plantago lanceolata L.-type (ribwort plantain)
Plate 11 72
Seed length: c. 1.8 mm
ID criteria: The elliptical seed with broad rim and a ridge on
the back, differs clearly from other Plantago species.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (3%)
Number of seeds: 17, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (15)
Ecology: The species is found in the area on the sea coast, but
is not salt tolerant. Other habitats are sandy beaches, meadows,
marshes, river banks, and spiny scrubs in garrigue vegetation.
The species is a typical ‛follower’ on anthropogenic
disturbance of the landscape.
POLYGONACEAE (rhubarb family)
Polygonum aviculare/patulum (knotgrass/red-knotgrass)
Plate 11 73a and 73b (detail)
Seed length: 1.5-1.8 mm
ID criteria: The triangular seed shape with one side narrower
than the others, was not distinctive enough to designate the
prehistoric finds to one or the other of the two species.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4.5%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (7%)
Number of seeds: 55, main proportion in Early Bronze Age
(23)
Ecology: Both species prefer nitrogenous, cultivated ground
and open vegetation, where they often grow associated with
each other.
Polygonum lapathifolium/salicifolium (pale persicaria)
Plate 11 74
Seed length: 1.2-1.5 mm
ID criteria: The two species could not be distinguished.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1.5%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 8, mainly in Early Bronze Age and Late
Bronze Age Troy (4)
Ecology: Both species have similar habitats in moist places,
like marshes, near streams and swamps.
Rumex conglomeratus Murr.-type (clustered dock)
Plate 11 75
Seed length: 1.8 mm
ID criteria: The triangular, carinate seeds show an obtuse base
with a retraction.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
(12%)
Number of seeds: 28, main proportion in Kumtepe (16)
Ecology: Modern habitats are on dunes, slopes, meadows and
arable land. The plant has moisture and nitrogen indicating
qualities.
Rumex cristatus DC. (Greek dock)
Seed length: 2.1 mm
ID criteria: The seed is very similar to the general shape of R.
conglomeratus, but is larger and without the retraction at the
base.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: smaller than 1%, main ubiquity
in Early Bronze Age (3%)
Number of seeds: 4, main proportion in Early Bronze Age (3)
Ecology: The perennial lives on various habitats up to 400 m.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Polygonum convolvulus L. (black bindweed), Polygonum
rurivagum Jord.-type (cornfield knotgrass), Rumex cf. pulcher
L. (fiddle dock), Rumex cf. sanguineus L. (wood dock)
PORTULACACEAE (purslane family)
Portulaca oleracea L. (common purslane)
Plate 11 76
Seed length: 0.7-0.8 mm
ID criteria: The flat seed is almost circular in its outline. The
surface is concentrically covered with small papillae.
106

catalogue of seeds
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
(6%)
Number of seeds: 24, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (11)
Ecology: The weedy annual P. oleracea grows on cultivated
ground and waste places near sea level. P. sativa is a leaf crop.
PRIMULACEAE (primerose family)
Anagallis sp. (pimpernel)
Plate 11 77
Seed length: 0.8-1.0 mm
ID criteria: The ‛roof-shape’ with several angles could not be
identified to species level, because of the missing epidermis.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 4%, main ubiquity in Early
Bronze Age (7%)
Number of seeds: 33, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(19)
Ecology: This genus is common in open places like waste
ground or fallow fields.
ID criteria: The almost circular seed with a small incision
differs from R. lutea mainly in its size.
The species is recorded only for the Kumtepe and the Early
Bronze Age deposits, which had 7 seeds in all.
Ecology: This weedy biennial is common in fields, on slopes
and rocky places.
RHAMNACEAE (buckthorn family)
Paliurus spina-christi Miller (Christ’s thorns)
Plate 12 80
Fruit width (without the thin-leaved border): c. 5.0 mm
ID criteria: The fruits are unmistakable, although parts of the
circular wrinkled border are missing.
Only recorded with 5 seeds for the Post-Bronze Age samples
with a ubiquity of 4%.
Ecology: The species grows as spiny scrub in gorges, clearings
and waste places around Troy.
RANUNCULACEAE (buttercup family)
Adonis annua L.-type (pheasant’s-eye)
Plate 11 78
Seed length: 1.8-2.2 mm
ID criteria: The ball-shaped seed ends on one side in a small
keel. The net type surface pattern was well preserved.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (6%)
Number of seeds: 11, main proportion in Kumtepe (7)
Ecology: The species is found mainly in arable fields up to
500m.
Thalictrum flavum L. (common meadow-rue)
Plate 11 79
Seed length: 3.0 mm
ID criteria: Of the 3 species recorded for the area, Th.
aquilegifolium had a very different morphology, while Th.
lucidum was slightly smaller. Thalictrum flavum with its
general shape and the quite thick seed coat corresponded the
best.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1.5%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 58, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (57)
Ecology: The species is found in shady and moist places.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Ranunculus aquatilis sensu Post-type (common watercrowfoot),
Ranunculus arvensis L. (corn buttercup),
Ranunculus bulbosus L.-type (bulbous buttercup), Ranunculus
chius/parviflorus (small-flowered buttercup), Thalictrum cf.
lucidum L. (meadow-rue)
RESEDACEAE (mignonette family)
Reseda luteola L. (weld)
Seed length: 0.5-0.7 mm
ROSACEAE (rose family)
Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach (thorny burnet)
Plate 12 81a and 81b
Seed length: 1.2-2.5 mm
ID criteria: The oval fruits, with several longitudinal veins,
have three seed valves.
With 6 fruits, this species is only recorded for the Kumtepe
samples.
Ecology and economy: The species is quite common on rocky
slopes, and phrygana from sea level and above. The spiny bush
is not browsed by animals but is broadly used, e.g. as fuel
(Hepper 1992) or as recorded from a Hellenistic shipwreck at
Serçe Limani (TR) for dunnage, to cushion the cargo (Haldane
1991).
Other species in small seed numbers:
cf. Fragaria sp. (Strawberry), Malus/Pyrus (apple/pear), Rosa
sp. (rose), Rubus cf. caesius L. (dewberry), Rubus fruticosus
L.-type (blackberry), Rubus cf. idaeus L. (raspberry)
RUBIACEAE (bedstraw family)
The shrubs and herbs of the bedstraw family are represented in
Turkey by 170 species in 10 genera, from which most of the
species belong to the genera Galium (bedstraw) (102) and
Asperula (wort) (42).
The distribution in Mediterranean West Anatolia limits the
number of species to c. 64. Whereas most of the species have a
quite limited area of distribution, the weeds within this family
populate a wide territory. Only about 25 of the 64 potential
species were found in the available comparative collections or
in pictures and descriptions from literature (Lange 1979). The
pericarp, which in most cases is covered with spines was
almost never preserved. Sometimes the cells on the surface of
the dorsal part of the seeds were visible. According to Lange’s
identification key, the seeds were mainly identified by their
107

catalogue of seeds
shape and size of the ventral hole, and if preserved their
surfacial cell pattern.
All the species (Asperula arvensis/orientalis, Galium aparine,
Galium spurium and Sherardia arvensis) are described in
literature as typical weeds.
There were not many Rubiaceae in the early periods. Only a
few records were present in the Kumtepe samples, and no
Rubiaceae at all were found in the Early Bronze Age layers of
Troy. Asperula arvensis/orientalis had its highest numbers in
the Middle Bronze Age levels. The unidentifiable Galium sp.
were most present in the Late Bronze Age samples, like most
of the other Galium species.
Asperula arvensis/orientalis (woodruff)
Plate 12 82
Seed length: 1.1-1.5 mm
ID criteria: The seeds had the typical oval shape with a
relatively large hole in which the middle ridge was very
prominent. In Flora Europaea A. orientalis is placed with A.
arvensis to an agglomerate because of their similarities. The
seeds differ only slightly in their size.
With 31 seeds this species is most abundant for the Middle
Bronze Age. The ubiquity is 15%.
Ecology: The species are described as weeds and ruderals. The
plants are found mainly in limestone areas, where they prefer
dry, heavy and stony soils, e.g. in vineyards.
Galium aparine L. (cleavers)
Plate 12 83
Seed length: With 2.5-2.8 mm the only large seeded species in
this group of Rubiaceae.
ID criteria: The spherical seed has a small, almost circular
hole.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 1%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 20, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (17)
Ecology: The morphology of G. aparine is very similar to that
of Galium spurium. Habitats are mainly in cereal fields, with
moist shrubs and woods. This species with its high seed
production (300 to 400 seeds per plant) is today a
cosmopolitan, and a very variable weed in wheat fields in
Turkey.
Galium aparine/spurium L.-type (bedstraw)
Seed length: 1.3-1.5 mm
ID criteria: The seeds had characteristics of G. aparine and of
G. spurium. In size they were comparable to G. spurium, but
from the shape of the hole they had more similarity with G.
aparine.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 3%, main ubiquity in Late
Bronze Age (7%)
Number of seeds: 36, main proportion in Post-Bronze Age
(18)
Galium spurium L. (false cleavers)
Plate 12 84
Seed length: 1.5-2.2 mm
ID criteria: The oval seed has an oval hole, that is in its outline
not parallel to the seeds outline, but 90° turned, so that the
distances from the outer seed wall to the hole differ
considerably.
This species has its largest proportion in the Late Bronze Age
samples (14).
Ecology: Habitats are scrub, hedges, scree, cultivated and
waste ground and sand-dunes.
Sherardia arvensis L. (field madder)
Seed length: c. 1.5 mm
ID criteria: The oval to square shaped seed, with a longitudinal
ridge in the central elongated cavity, differs considerably from
the genera Asperula and Galium.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 2%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (4%)
Number of seeds: 9, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (4)
Ecology: Habitats are open forests and scrub, orchards, fields
and road margins. The species originate in the Mediterranean
region, but is today a cosmopolitan plant.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam.-type (bedstraw)
SCROPHULARIACEAE (foxglove family)
Verbascum sp. (mullein)
Seed length: 0.6 mm
ID criteria: With 228 species in the region, designation to
species level was not attempted.
This species is recorded with 7 seeds only for Kumtepe, with
an ubiquity of 8%.
Ecology: Preferred habitats are rocky and waste places, ruderal
or garrigue vegetation.
Veronica persica Poiret-type (common field-speedwell)
Plate 12 85
Seed length: 1.5-1.8 mm
ID criteria: The rounded, shell type hollowed seed has a very
significant surface pattern of wrinkled flutes.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 2%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (8%)
Number of seeds: 8, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(6)
Ecology: The species grows on cultivated land, banks,
roadsides and waste places up to 700m.
SOLANACEAE (nightshade family)
Hyoscyamus niger L. (henbane)
Plate 12 86
Seed length: 1.0-1.1 mm
ID criteria: The flat seed with its obtuse outline and slightly
prominent radicle has an unmistakable prominent reticulate
surface pattern.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 3%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age and Post-Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 15, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(7)
108

catalogue of seeds
Ecology: This plant grows on stony or rocky places, cereal
fields, roadsides and waste places. It is mentioned by
Dioskurides (4.69) as a drug (Germer 1985, Baumann 1993).
Physalis alkekengi L. (Japanese-lantern)
Plate 12 87
Seed length: 1.5-1.9 mm
ID criteria: The flat, more or less elliptic seed with a reniform
incision at the border, has also a reticulate surface pattern, but
different from Hyoscyamus spp..
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
and Middle Bronze Age (2%)
Number of seeds: 7, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age
(5)
Ecology: The plant is common in woods and on river banks.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Solanum nigrum L. (black nightshade)
THYMELAEACEAE (daphne family)
Thymelaea sp. (thymelaea)
Plate 12 88a and 88b
Seed length: 1.8 mm
ID criteria: The geometrical shape of this seed can be
described as a sphere with attached cone. Because of a lack of
comparative material it was not possible to identify the objects
to the species level.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1.6%, main ubiquity in
Kumtepe (5%)
Number of seeds: 40, main proportion in Kumtepe (27)
Ecology: Thymelaea hirsuta, which is common in phrygana
vegetation and was observed for being browsed by small
ruminants, has very tenacious branches and is still used as
ropes by Near Eastern people (Danin 1983).
TYPHACEAE (reedmace family)
Typha cf. latifolia L. (bulrush)
Plate 13 89
Seed length: 0.5-0.9 mm
ID criteria: The tiny rod-shaped seed is pointed on one end,
and at the opposite end the fruit peduncle is in some cases still
visible.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 3%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (6%)
Number of seeds: 109, main proportion in Late Bronze Age
(92). The bulk of the records originates from a filling within
the Troy VI ditch.
Ecology: The species grows on watersides, lakes, ditches and
canals. The increase in ubiquity of this plant in the later periods
of Troy may relate to the changed water supply in the extended
Troy VI settlement.
UMBELLIFERAE (parsley family)
Berula erecta Hudson (lesser water-parsnip)
Seed length: 1.8-2.0 mm
ID criteria: The oval, thick seed, almost circular in its cross
section has five oil streams on its back, which helped to
differentiate this species from others with generally similar
seed morphology (e.g. Pimpinella sp.).
Ubiquity in the whole data set: smaller than 1%, main ubiquity
in Late Bronze Age (3%)
Number of seeds: 22, main proportion in: Late Bronze Age
(11)
Ecology: The genus contains only this species. Marshy places
along flowing waters are amongst the preferred habitats.
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. and Torilis-type (hedgeparsley)
Plate 13 90a and 90b
Seed length: 3.0 mm
ID criteria: The very long and narrow seed with a deep groove
on the dorsal side is pointed at both ends. The modern
comparative material has spiny appendices on the ridge-shaped
oil streams, which are broken in the prehistoric objects, and
which gives the whole an undulating outline.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (4 and 6%)
Number of seeds: 54 and 23, main proportion in: Middle
Bronze Age (54 and 15)
Ecology: This plant is found today on slopes, scree, cereal
fields and waste places.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Daucus carota L. (wild carrot) The root of this plant was
already known in antiquity for its use as a wild vegetable.
Dioskurides (3.52) mentions the curative effect of the leaves
against cancer-type diseases, but the finding of only one seed
does not justify the assumption of a cultivation of the plant. It
may have grown as a part of the ruderal flora in sand dunes or
arable fields.
URTICACEAE (stinging nettle family)
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. (Roman nettle)
Plate 13 91
Seed length: 1.9-2.0 mm
ID criteria: The seed is broadly ovate with one pointed end,
and an almost flat opposite end. The surface is finely punctate.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2.6%, main ubiquity in Post-
Bronze Age (7%)
Number of seeds: 21, main proportion in Late Bronze Age (11)
Ecology: This annual mainly grows on broken and waste
ground and more rarely on hedge banks.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Urtica dioica L. (common nettle), which grows in the region
on shady rocks and gorges, forests and on the margins of
flowing waters.
VALERIANACEAE (spikenard family)
109

catalogue of seeds
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich (cornsalad)
Plate 13 92
Seed length: 0.8-1.1 mm
ID criteria: The pointed ovate seed shows a porous surface on
the ventral side bordered by a small bulge.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 5%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
(8%)
Number of seeds: 44, main proportion in Kumtepe and Late
Bronze Age Troy (7)
Ecology: The species grows in arable fields and woods and is
recorded since the Neolithic.
Other species in small seed numbers:
Centhrantus sp. (valerian), Valerianella coronata (L.) DC.
(corn salad)
VERBENACEAE (teak family)
Verbena officinalis L. (vervain)
Seed length: 1.0-1.3 mm
ID criteria: The typical rod-shaped seed shows a largely
reticulate surface structure on one half.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: 1%, main ubiquity in Kumtepe
and Late Bronze Age (2%)
Number of seeds: 17; main proportion in Kumtepe and Late
Bronze Age (8)
Ecology: The perennial grows as a ruderal on disturbed
ground, rocky slopes, dry river beds, banks, walls, sand dunes,
woods and scrubland.
VITACEAE (grape family)
Vitis vinifera L. (grape-vine)
Plate 13 93a-d
ID criteria: The problem of the differentiation between the
wild and the cultivated seeds is comprehensively discussed in
the literature, because this aspect is important for solving the
question of economic and cultural evolution in Bronze Age
Aegean. In the beginning of the twentieth century the first
attempt of the differentiation between wild and cultivated
grape by their B/L-indices was published (Stummer 1911).
Stummer was aware of the innerspecific variability and the
resulting overlap between the indices of the wild and the
cultivated grape seeds. Therefore he included a broad spectrum
of indices which can be equally result from wild or from
cultivated grape seeds. These indices that characterise the
‛intermediate types’ were between 54 and 75 (Graph 48).
Because of this overlap and because of factors that change the
morphology of grape seeds during combustion, Stummer’s
method proved to be insufficient. Jones and Smith (1990)
investigated this problem with experimental charring of wild
and domesticated modern grape seeds. They found, that the
factors that change the morphological shape of the seeds
during combustion are the moisture content of the seeds before
charring, the amount of oxygen during charring, and the
temperature and duration of heating. For example when the
seeds of domesticated grape were charred fresh, the B/Lindices
shifted in direction to the indices of wild grapes. This
effect was slightly strengthened under oxidising conditions.
With dried seeds, this effect was negligible. Very high
temperatures (450°C) also resulted in a shift to the shape
typical for wild grape. They found also, that the length of the
seed stalk was not affected in the same way by combustion,
and an alternative index, based on this seed stalk was given. To
summarise the results of Jones and Smith (1990), seeds which
are originally from the domesticated grape can appear as wild
grapes just because of the different carbonisation conditions.
This affects the question of the beginnings of vine cultivation
and Jones and Smith (1990) suggest, that vine cultivation could
already have started earlier than the third millennium B.C..
Mangafa and Kotsakis (1994) propose that any index used
independently is unsuitable for distinguishing between the two
sub-species, and suggest discriminant analyses of numerous
different indices from several parts of the grape seed (fossete,
chalaza, stalk, etc.).
Large amounts of grape seeds never occurred in any of the
periods of Troy and Kumtepe but they were ubiquitous (e.g.
42% in Middle Bronze Age samples and similar in Late Bronze
Age samples). In total 421 grape seeds and 24 stalks from both
sites were found. Because of a high fragmentation only a small
number was complete and suitable for measurements (67
seeds). The resulting data for each category (site or period)
would have been insufficient to conduct statistical analyses as
suggested by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1994) or even to calculate
index diagrams. Instead only length and width of the best
preserved seeds are presented here. In order to compare the
results to the existing hypotheses and measurements from other
sites, index-lines are added in the plot. According to the
literature, which always refers to Stummer’s indices, seeds that
are above index-line 53 are most likely from domesticated
specimens, seeds that are below index-line 76 should be from
wild specimens. The space between these two lines represents
the ‛intermediate types’, or sometimes regarded to be
domesticated (e.g. Janushevich 1976). This is plausible when
we consider Jones and Smith’ (1990) results of the shift in
direction to the wild grape.
Length and width of the grape seeds from Kumtepe and Troy
are more or less evenly distributed within the ‛intermediate
category’ or in other words, tend all to be domesticated.
Looking at the measurements from Troy only, one can
recognise, that the Early Bronze Age grape seeds are slightly
larger than the Late Bronze Age seeds, which is surprising,
because one would expect the opposite. A similar phenomenon
was found by Kroll (1983) with the seed size of the Iron Age
layers from Kastanas. Those seeds were much smaller than
those of all the other layers from his site. He interpreted this
appearance as worse preservation conditions.
This is probably not the case for the remains from Troy. The
grape seeds are similarly bad preserved in the periods. An
alternative explanation could be that the growing conditions
for Late Bronze Age grapes may have been different from
those at Kumtepe and Early Bronze Age Troy. Either the plants
were grown at different localities or because of general
changes of the substrates.
Ecology and economy: Vitis is alongside Olea one of the most
important horticultural crops. The first signs of viticulture are
recognised from Early Bronze Age in Palestine, Syria, Egypt
and from the Aegean region, i.e. the Neolithic on Cyprus and
110

catalogue of seeds
from Crete. The beginnings of vine cultivation are still
contentious because of the above discussed difficulties in
separating the wild and the cultivated seeds from each other by
their morphology.
The cultivated grape is vegetatively propagated. The grape
prefers a warm climate, but not hot climates or dry winds, and
the best vines come from gravely, stony soils. The investments
are high, because young vines yield nothing for five to six
years. The importance of viticulture (as well as cultivation of
olive) is underlined by the clues its economic role provides for
the developmental stage of a society, because complex
societies of the Bronze Age are considered to be capable of the
initial investment in labour and capital necessary for a
production with delayed returns (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1994),
i.e. an investment in land beyond that commensurate with
actual return. A contribution to the ‛ideology of viticulture’
was made by Hanson (1992). He assumes that viticulture
required much more time than the cultivation of any other crop
and that it was a “significant determinant in shortening
community distances between farm and home”. The ideology
behind viticulture stressed on the value of work and time spent
in the fields in contrast to the-according to him-“less labour
intensive” cereal farming.
However, the ubiquities and counts of the grape seeds from
Troy and Kumtepe suggest, that grape was always used, but
only in small amounts. A large wine industry at any given
period, including the Late Bronze Age cannot be proved, but
should not be rejected. Traditional vine production in
Mediterranean countries mainly takes place in the vineyard, i.e.
if practised in prehistory, remains would never have been
found (Hepper 1992). Therefore it is more likely, that the main
proportion of the grape seeds that are found in the settlement
are from consumption of the fresh or the dried fruits.
INSECTS
The identification of the insect remains was conducted by E.
Panagiotakopulu and P.Buckland (both Univ. of Sheffield,
Dept. of Archaeology and Prehistory). The ecological details
are taken from the database BUGS built up in Sheffield (Dept.
of Archaeology and Prehistory).
Plate 13 94
In some of the Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age
samples numerous larvae of the ‛pea beetle’ Bruchus sp. were
found within a concentration of peas. Vicia ervilia was also
infested, in view of the cylindrical holes in the seeds, but these
seeds were never found together with the larvae.
Ubiquity in the whole data set: c. 2%, main ubiquity in Middle
Bronze Age (8%)
Number: 25, main proportion in Middle Bronze Age (23)
Ecology: The genus is recorded from many other sites (e.g.
Kastanas, Tiryns, Akrotiri (Kislev 1991)). As just the thorax of
the larvae were recorded, the species could not be identified.
The beetles are fruit borers. The females of the species lay eggs
on the green pod in the field and each larva enters inside and
develops in a separate seed (Kislev 1991).The larvae of this
beetle live on the endosperm of diverse legumes, which they
eat to a hollow, so that a cylindrical hole is left in the seed.
Bruchus pisorum increases quickly with the intensification of
cultivation (Heitefuss 1987, Kaltenbach 1874, Talhouk 1969,
Aldrige and Pope 1986, Hyman 1992).
Tenebrio cf. melitor
Plate 13 95
A head fragment was found in Troy VII samples (Z8).
Additionally several palaeofaeces of beetles were found,
therefore it can be assumed that this deposit was strongly
infested by the larvae or the beetles themselves.
Ecology: The species is cold-resistant, although it originates
from warm climates. It is found mainly near houses and is
known as a pest of stored crops (Brendell 1975, Soloman and
Adamson 1955, Palm 1959).
A relative of T. melitor, T. obscurus, known earliest in the
Roman period, was bred at least from historic times. There are
ethnographic reports from some coastal areas dealing about the
keeping of larvae depots for fishing (pers. com. P.Buckland).
To summarise again, while Bruchus sp. is a pre-harvest pest,
Tenebrio melitor causes damage in post-harvest storage
(Kislev 1991). Kislev comes to the conclusion that in ancient
times post-harvest infestation of the crops contributed less to
the loss of the harvest than it does today.
Bruchus sp. (‛pea beetle’)
111

eferences
Akman, Y. (1986). “Vue ensembles des unites
phytosociologiques en Turquie.” 5th OPTIMA Meeting,
Istanbul, 1986, pp. 155-167
Akman, Y., M. Barbéro, P. Quézel, O. Ketenoglu, and M.
Aydogdu (1991). La végétation des steppes, pelouses
écorchées et xérophytes épineux de l’Antitaurus dans la partie
sud-ouest de L’Anatolie. Phytocoenologia 19: 391-428.
Aldrige, R. J. W., and Pope, R. D. (1986). The British species
of Bruchidius Schilsky (Coleoptera: Bruchidae).
Entomologist’s Gazette 37: 181-193.
Alex, M., and Burry, M. (1982). Temperatur- und
Niederschlagswerte von Stationen des Vorderen Orients.
Computerausdrucke. Bd. 4: Türkei. Institut für Geographie,
Universität Tübingen.
Allaby, R. G., Brown, T. A., Brown, K. A. and Jones, M. K.
(1993). Biomolecular archaeology of wheat: past, present and
future. World Archaeology 25: 64.
Allen, S. H. (1990). Northwest Anatolian Grey Wares in the
Late Bronze Age: Analysis and distribution in the eastern
Mediterranean, Brown University.
Amouretti, M.-C. (1992). “Oléiculture et viticulture dans la
Grèce antique,” in Agriculture in Ancient Greece, Proceed. of
the 7th Intern. Symposium at the Swedish Inst. at Athens, 16-
17 May, 1990. B. Wells, ed. Athens.
Anderberg, A.-L. (1994). Atlas of seeds and small fruits of
Northwest-European plant species with morphological
descriptions. Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. Vol. 4. Stockholm.
Anderson, S. M. (1995). Fuel, fodder and faeces: An
ethnographic and botanical study of dung fuel use in Central
Anatolia. M.Sc.dissertation, University of Sheffield.
anonymous (1992). “Ethnoarchäologische Forschungen zur
Wirtschaftlichkeit und Umwelt bei der frühen
Nahrungsproduktion,” Seminar WS92/93, Universität
Tübingen.
Arnold, G. W. (1964). “Factors within plant communities
affecting the behaviour and performance of grazing animals,”
in Grazing in terrestrial and marine environments. (A
symposium of the British Ecological Society, 11-14 April
1962: 133-154. D. J. Crisp, ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
Publications.
Asch, D. L. (1975). “On sample size problems and the uses of
nonprobablistic sampling,” in Sampling in Archaeology: 170-
191. J. W. Mueller, ed. Tucson, Arizona: University of
Arizona Press.
Ascherson, P., von Heldreich, T., and Kurtz, F. (1881).
“Verzeichnis der bis jetzt aus der Troas bekannten Pflanzen.
Nach den Sammlungen von R. Virchow und J. Schmidt und
den literarischen Quellen,” in Ilios, Stadt und Land der
Trojaner: 804-813. H. Schliemann, ed.
Aslan, R. (1997a). “Settlements in the Troad,” (Map).
Tübingen.
Aslan, R. (1997b). Troia und seine Siedlungskammer vom
Neolithikum bis zur Gründung des Nationalparks.
Magisterarbeit, Universität Tübingen.
Atkeson, F. W., Hulbert, H. W. and Warren, T. R. (1934).
Effect of bovine digestion and of manure storage on the
viability of weed seeds. American Journal of Agronomy 26:
390-397.
Badham, K., and Jones, G. (1985). An experiment in manual
processing of soil samples for plant remains. Circaea 3: 15-
26.
Barker-Webb, P. (1822). Untersuchungen über den
ehemaligen und jetzigen Zustand der Ebene von Troia.
Weimar.
Barton, M. (1990). Domestic olive. Nature 446.
Basler, F. (1981). “Weeds and their control,” in Lentils.
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux: 143-154. C. Webb and
G. Hawtin, eds. Farnham, U.K.
Baumann, H. (1993). Die griechische Pflanzenwelt in Mythos,
Kunst und Literatur. München: Hirmer.
Baxter, M. J. (1994). Exploratory multivariate analysis in
archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Becker, H., and Jansen, H. G. (1994). Magnetische
Prospektion 1993 der Unterstadt von Troia und Ilion. Studia
Troica 4: 105-114.
Becker, H., Faßbinder, J. and Jansen, H. G. (1993).
Magnetische Prospektion in der Untersiedlung von Troia
1992. Studia Troica 3: 117-134.
Behre, K.-E. (1990). Ackerbau-Experimente in der unbedeichten
Salzwassermarsch. Experimentelle Archäologie in
Deutschland, Beiheft 4, pp.139-142.
Behre, K.-E., and Jacomet, S. (1991). “The ecological
interpretation of archaeobotanical data,” in Progress in old
world palaeoethnobotany: 81-108. W. van Zeist, K.
Wasylikowa, and K.-E. Behre, eds. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Beijerinck, W. (1947). Zadenatlas der Nederlandsche Flora.
Wageningen.
Berggren, G. (1969). Atlas of seeds and small fruits of
Northwest-European plant species with morphological
descriptions. Cyperaceae. Vol. 2. Stockholm.
Berggren, G. (1981). Atlas of seeds and small fruits of
Northwest-European plant species with morphological
descriptions. Salicaceae-Cruciferae. Vol. 3. Arlöw.
Bertram, J. (1995). Vorläufige Datierung der botanischen
Proben vom Kumtepe, Grabung 1994 in F28. Troia-Projekt.
Bertsch, K., and Bertsch, F. (1949). Geschichte unserer
Kulturpflanzen, Second edition. Stuttgart.
Beug, H.-J. (1967). Probleme der Vegetationsgeschichte in
Südeuropa. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 80: 682-689.
Bilgin, T. (1969). Biga yarimadasi güneybati kisminin
jeomorfolojisi. Istanbul Üniv. Cogr. Enst. yay. 55.
113

eferences
Bintliff, J. L. (1977). Natural Environment and Human
Settlement in Prehistoric Greece. Vol. 28. British
Archaeological Reports, Suppl. Series. Oxford.
Bintliff, J. L. (1982). “Palaeoclimatic modelling of
environmental changes in the East Mediterranean region since
the last glaciation,” in Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments
and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean
Region in Later Prehistory, vol. 133 (I/II): 485-531, BAR,
Intern. Series. J. L. Bintliff, and W. van Zeist, eds. Oxford.
Bintliff, J. (1991). “Troja und seine Paläolandschaften,” in
Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des
Altertums, vol. 2, 1984 und 3, 1987, Geographica Historica 5,
pp. 83-131. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
Blegen, C. W. (1950a). Troy I-IV. Excavations conducted by
the University of Cincinnati 1932-1938. Princeton.
Blegen, C. W. (1950b). Troy I: The First and Second
Settlements. Troy I-IV. Excavations conducted by the
University of Cincinnati 1932-1938. Princeton.
Blegen, C. W. (1951). Troy II: The Third, Fourth, and Fifth
Settlements. Troy I-IV. Excavations conducted by the
University of Cincinnati 1932-1938. Princeton.
Blegen, C. W. (1963). Troy and the Troians. London.
Blegen, C. W., Boulter, C. G., Caskey, J. L., and Rawson, M.
(1958). Troy IV: The Seventh Settlement. Vol. 4. Troy I-IV.
Excavations conducted by the University of Cincinnati 1932-
1938. Princeton.
Blegen, C. W., Caskey, J. L., and Rawson, M. (1953). Troy
III: The Sixth Settlement. Princeton.
Bloedow, E. F. (1995). “Human and environmental interaction
in the emergence and decline of Mycenaean state and society,”
in Politeia. Society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age, vol.
12, Aegaeum : 639-647. R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier,
eds. Austin.
Boardman, S., and Jones, G. (1990). Experiments on the
effects of charring on cereal plant components. Journal of
Archaeological Science 17: 1-11.
Bodner, C. C., and Rowlett, R. M. (1980). Separation of bone,
charcoal, and seeds by chemical flotation. American Antiquity
45: 110-116.
Boserup, E. (1970). Evolution Agraire et Pression
Démographique. Paris.
Boissier, G. (1867 – 1888). Flora orientalis.
Bottema, S. (1982). Palynological investigations in Greece
with special reference to pollen as an indicator of human
activity. Palaeohistoria 24: 257-289.
Bottema, S. (1984). “The composition of modern charred seed
assemblages,” in Plants and ancient man. Studies in
palaeoethnobotany: 207-212. W. van Zeist and W. A.
Casparie, eds. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Bottema, S., and Woldring, H. (1990). “Anthropogenic
indicators in the pollen record of the eastern Mediterranean,”
in Man’s role in the shaping of the eastern Mediterranean
landscape: 231-264. S. Bottema, G. Entjes-Nieborg and W.
van Zeist, eds. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Bottema, S., and Woldring, H. (1995). The prehistoric
environment of the Lake Iznik Area. A palynological study.
(unpublished manuscript)
Bottema, S., and van Zeist, W. (1981). Palynological evidence
for the climatic history of the Near East 50000-6000 BP.
Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S. 589: 111-132.
Bottema, S., Entjes-Nieborg, G., and van Zeist, W. (1990).
Man’s role in the shaping of the eastern Mediterranean
landscape. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Bottema, S., Woldring, H., and Aytug, B. (1986).
“Palynological investigations on the relation between
prehistoric man and vegetation in Turkey: The Beysehir
occupation phase.” 5th OPTIMA Meeting, Istanbul, 1986, pp.
315-328.
Bräker, O. U. (1979). Angewandte Holzanalyse. Beitrag zur
Rekonstruktion der Umwelt neolithischer Ufersiedlungen in
Feldmeilen-Vorderfeld. Vol. 3. Academica Helvetica.
Bremness, L. (1995). Kräuter, Gewürze und Heilpflanzen.
Singapore: Ravensburger Buchverlag.
Brendell, M. J. D. (1975). Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae. Vol.
10. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects: Royal
Entomological Soc. of London.
Brisson, J. D., and Peterson, R. L. (1976). A critical review of
the use of scanning electron microscopy in the study of the
seedcoat. SEM VII: 477-496.
Brookefield, H. C. (1972). Intensification and
disintensification in Pacific agriculture: a theoretical approach.
Pacific Viewpoint 13: 211-238.
Brothwell, P. (1969). Manna und Hirse. Kulturgeschichte der
Antiken Welt. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.
Brouwer, W., and Stählin, A. (1955). Handbuch der
Samenkunde für Landwirtschaft, Gartenbau und
Forstwirtschaft. Frankfurt/M.
Brown, T. A., Allaby, R. G., Brown, K. A., O’Donoghue, K.,
and Sallares, R. (1994). DNA in wheat seeds from European
archaeological sites. Experientia 50: 571-575.
Brückner, H. (1990). “Changes in the Mediterranean
ecosystem during antiquity. A geomorphological approach as
seen in two examples,” in Man’s role in the shaping of the
eastern Mediterranean landscape: 127-137. S. Bottema, G.
Entjes-Nieborg and W. van Zeist, eds. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Brückner, H. (1997). Coastal changes in Western Turkey;
rapid delta progradation in historical times. Bulletin de
l’Institut Oceanographique 18: 63-74.
Bryce, T. R. (1989). The Nature of Mycenaean Involvement in
Western Anatolia. Historia 38: 1-21.
Bryson, R., Lamb, H., and Donley, D. (1974). Drought and
the decline of Mycenae. Antiquity 48: 46-50.
114

eferences
Burton, G. W., and Andrews, J. S. (1948). Recovery and
viability of seeds of certain southern grasses and Lespedeza
passed through the bovine digestive tract. Journal of
Agricultural Research 76: 95-103.
Butler, A. (1991). “The Vicieae: Problems of identification,”
in New light on ancient farming: recent developments in
palaeoethnobotany: 61 - 73. J. M. Renfrew, ed. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Carpenter, R. (1966). Discontinuity in Greek civilization.
Cambridge: University Press.
Casper, S. J., and Krausch, H.-D. (1980). Pteridophyta und
Anthophyta. Vol. 23. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa.
Stuttgart, N.Y.: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Chadwick, J. (1976). The Mycenaean world. Cambridge.
Charles, M. P. (1984). Introductory remarks on the cereals.
Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 17-31.
Charles, M. P., and Hillman, G. C. (in press). “Crop
husbandry in a desert environment: evidence from the charred
plant macro-remains,” in Jeitun revisited. New archaeological
discoveries and palaeoenvironmental investigations (in
Russian), Proceedings of the Turkmenian Academy of
Sciences. V. M. Masson and D. R. Harris, eds. Ashkabad.
Cherry, J. F. (1981). Pattern and process in the earliest
colonization of the Mediterranean Islands. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 47: 41-68.
Chisholm, M. (1962). Rural settlement and land use. London.
Clason, A. T., and Clutton-Brock, J. (1982). “The impact of
domestic animals on the vegetation during the first phases of
animal husbandry in the Mediterranean and Near East,” in
Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human
Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later
Prehistory, vol. 133 (I/II): 145-148, B.A.R. Intern. Series. J. L.
Bintliff and W. van Zeist, eds. Oxford.
Cline, E. H. (1994). Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International
trade and the Late Bronze Age. Vol. 591. BAR Intern. Series.
Oxford.
Cohn, D. F., and Kislev, M. E. (1987). Human
neurolathyrism. Adler Museum Bulletin 13: 5-8.
Cook, J. M. (1973). The Troad-an archaeological
topographical study. Oxford.
Costin, C. L. (1991). Craft specialisation: issues in defining,
documenting and explaining the organization of production”,
in Archaeological method and theory: vol. 3: 1-56. M. B.
Schiffer, ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Danin, A. (1983). The desert vegetation of Israel and Sinai.
Jerusalem: Cana Publishing House.
Davis, P. H., (1965-1988). Flora of Turkey and the East
Aegean Islands. Vol. 1-10. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Deichmüller, J. (1967). Die Bedeutung der Pflanzensoziologie
für die Aufklärung der archäologischen Bodenfunde.
Pflanzensoziologie und Palynologie.
Dennell, R. (1972). “The interpretation of plant remains:
Bulgaria,” in Papers in economic prehistory: 149-160. E. S.
Higgs, ed. Cambridge.
Dennell, R. (1976). The economic importance of plant
resources represented on archaeological sites. Journal of
Archaeological Science 3.
Dickinson, O. T. P. K. (1974). Drought and the decline of
Mycenae: some comments. Antiquity 48: 228-230.
Dickinson, O. (1994). The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge
World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörpfeld, W. (1902). Troja und Ilion. Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen
Schichten von Ilion-1894. Athens.
Easton, D., and Weninger, B. (1993). Troia VI Lower Town-
Quadrats I8 and K8: A test case for dating by pottery
seriation. Studia Troica 3: 45-96.
Ellenberg, H. (1953). Physiologisches und ökologisches
Verhalten derselben Pflanzenarten. Berichte der Deutschen
Botanischen Gesellschaft 65.
Erinç, S. (1954). The Pleistocene history of the Black Sea and
adjacent countries with special reference to the climatic
changes. Review of the Geographic Institute, University of
Istanbul 1: 84-133.
Erinç, S. (1967). Afyonkarahisar kayaliginin tesekülü
hakkinda. Istanbul Üniv. Cogr. Enst. Derg. 16: 156-159.
Erol, O. (1968a). Çanakkale bogazi cevresinin jeomorfolojisi
hakkinda ön not. Cogr. Aras. Derg. 17: 53-89.
Erol, O. (1968b). A preliminary report on the geomorphology
of the Çanakkale Area. Cografya Arastirmalari Dergisi (Univ.
Ankara).
Erol, O., and Nuttal, C. P. (1972). Çanakkale yöresinin bazi
denizel kuaterner depolari. Cogr. Aras. Derg. 5-6: 27-92.
Erskine, W., Smartt, J., and Muehlbauer, F. J. (1994).
Mimicry of Lentil and the domestication of Common Vetch
and Grass Pea. Economic Botany 48: 326-332.
Fenton, A. (1985). The shape of the past 1: Essays in Scottish
ethnology. Edinburgh: John Donald Publisher Ltd.
Fishwick, V. C. (1952). Dairy farming theory and practice, 3
edition. London: Crosby, Lockwood & Son Ltd.
Flannery, K. V. (1986). “Food procurement area and
preceramic diet at Guila Naquitz,” in Guila Naquitz, Archaic
foraging and early agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. pp. 303 –
317. K. V. Flannery, ed.
Forbes, H. A. (1976). We have a little of everything: The
ecological basis of some agricultural practices in Methana,
Trizinia. Annals of the N.Y. Academy of Sciences 268: 236-
250.
Forbes, H. (1992). “The Ethnoarchaeological Approach to
Ancient Greek Agriculture. Olive Cultivation as a Case
Study,” in Agriculture in Ancient Greece, Proceed. of the 7th
Intern. Symposium at the Swedish Inst. at Athens, 16-17 May,
1990. B. Wells, ed.
115

eferences
Foxhall, L., and Davies, J. K. (1984). The Trojan War: Its
Historicity and Context. Bristol.
Franke, W. (1976). Nutzpflanzenkunde. Stuttgart.
French, D. H. (1966). Anatolian Pottery in the Aegean Area.
Anatolian Studies 16: 49-53.
French, D. H. (1971). An experiment in water-sieving.
Anatolian Studies 21: 59-64.
Gallant, T. W. (1991). Risk and survival in ancient Greece.
Reconstructing the rural domestic economy. Stanford,
California: Polity Press.
Gardener, C. J., McIvor, J. G., and Jansen, A. (1993). Passage
of legume and grass seeds through the digestive tract of cattle
and their survival in faeces. Journal of Applied Ecology 30:
63-74.
Gauch, H. G. (1982a). Multivariate statistics in community
ecology. Cambridge.
Gauch, H. G. (1982b). Noise reduction by eigenvector
ordinations. Ecology 63: 1643-9.
Gennett, J. A., and Gifford, J. A. (1982). “Pollen analysis,” in
Troy-The Archaeological Geology: 105-115. G. R. Rapp and
J. A. Gifford, eds. Cincinnati.
Germer, R. (1985). Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten. Vol.
14. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo,
Sonderschrift. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Gimbutas, M. (1974). “The destruction of Aegean and East
Mediterranean urban civilisation around 2300 BC.” Bronze
Age migrations in the Aegean, London, 1974, pp. 129-139.
Proceedings of the First International Colloquium.
Goldberg, P., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1990). “The effect of man
on geomorphological processes based upon evidence from the
Levant and adjacent areas,” in Man’s role in the shaping of
the eastern Mediterranean landscape: 71-86. S. Bottema, G.
Entjes-Nieborg and W. van Zeist, eds. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Grigg, D. B. (1974). The agricultural systems of the world: an
evolutionary approach. Cambridge.
Grime, J. P. e. a. (1990). Comparative plant ecology. London:
Chapman and Hall.
Güldalı, N. (1979). Geomorphologie der Türkei:
Erläuterungen zur geomorphologischen Übersichtskarte der
Türkei 1: 2000000. Vol. 4. TAVO (Tübinger Atlas des
Vorderen Orients), Reihe A, Naturwiss. Wiesbaden: Dr.
Ludwig Reichert.
Gumerman, G. (1993). Dietary variation between socioeconomic
groups: A peruvian comparison. (unpublished
manuscript).
Gunn, C. R. (1981). Seed topography in the Fabaceae. Seed
Science. & Technology 9: 737-757.
Haas, J. N. (1994). First identification key for charophyte
oospores from central Europe. Eur. J. Phycol. 29: 227-235.
Haldane, C. (1991a). Organic goods from the Ulu Burun
wreck. Institute of Nautical Archaeology-Newsletter 18: 11.
Haldane, C. (1991b). “Recovery and analysis of plant remains
from some Mediterranean shipwreck sites,” in New light on
ancient farming: recent developments in palaeoethnobotany:
213-223. J. M. Renfrew, ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Haldane, C. (1993). Direct evidence for organic cargoes in the
Late Bronze Age. Word Archaeology 24: 348-360.
Halstead, P. (1987a). Man and other animals in later Greek
prehistory. Annual of the British School in Athens 82: 71-83.
Halstead, P. (1987b). Traditional and ancient rural economy in
mediterranean Europe: plus ça change Journal of Hellenistic
Studies CVII: 77-87.
Halstead, P. (1992). “Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean:
towards a model of palatial economy,” in Agriculture in
ancient Greece, vol. 42: 105-117, Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska
Institutet i Athen. B. Wells, ed. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i
Athen.
Halstead, P. (1994). “The North-South divide: regional paths
to complexity in prehistoric Greece,” in Development and
decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age: 195-219. C.
Mathers and S. Stoddart, eds. Sheffield: J.R. Collis.
Halstead, P., and Jones, G. (1980). Early Neolithic Economy
in Thessaly-Some Evidence from Excavations at Prodhromos.
Anthropoloyika 1: 93-117.
Halstead, P., and Jones, G. (1995). Maslins, mixtures and
monocrops: on the interpretation of archaeobotanical crop
samples of heterogeneous composition. Journal of
Archaeological Science 22.
Hamilakis, Y. (1996). Wine, oil and the dialectics of power in
Bronze Age Crete. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15: 1-32.
Hanf, M. (1990a). Ackerunkräuter Europas mit ihren
Keimlingen und Samen. München: BLV.
Hanf, M. (1990b). Farbatlas Feldflora: Wildkräuter und Unkräuter.
Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer Verlag.
Hansen, J. M. (1991). The palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi
Cave. Vol. 7. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hanson, V. D. (1992). “Practical aspects of grape-growing
and the ideology of Greek viticulture,” in Agriculture in
ancient Greece, Proceed. of the 7th Intern. Symposium at the
Swedish Inst. at Athens, 16-17 May, 1990. B. Wells, ed.
Hareuveni, N. (1980). Nature in our biblical heritage. Israel:
Neot Kedumim.
Hareuveni, N. (1984). Tree and shrub in our biblical heritage.
Israel: Neot Kedumim.
Harris, D. R., and Limbrey, S. (in press). “The present day
environmental setting of Jeitun (in Russian),” in Jeitun
revisisted. New archaeological discoveries and
palaeoenvironmental investigations, Proceedings of the
Turkmenian Academy of Sciences. V. M. Masson and D. R.
Harris, eds. Akshabad.
116

eferences
Hayden, B. (1995). “Pathways to power: Principles for
creating socioeconomic inequalities”, in Foundations of social
inequality. T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, eds. New York
Plenum Press.
Hegi, G. e. a. (1908ff.). Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa.
München/Berlin.
Heitefuss, R. e. a. (1987). Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Schädlinge im Ackerbau.
Helbaek, H. (1972). Samarran irrigation agriculture at Choga
Mami in Iraq. Iraq 34.
Helbling, J. (1987). Theorie der Wildbeutergesellschaft:
Campus Verlag.
Henry, D. O. (1989). From foraging to agriculture: the Levant
at the end of the Ice Age. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Hepper, F. N. (1992). Pflanzenwelt der Bibel. Eine illustrierte
Enzyklopädie. London/Stuttgart: Three’s Company
London/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart.
Hiller, S. (1991). “The Mycenaeans and the Black Sea,” in
Thalassa: L’Égée Prehistorique et la Mer, vol. 7: 207-216,
Aegaeum. R. e. a. Laffineur, eds. Liège: Université de Liège.
Hillman, G. C. (1973a). Agricultural productivity and past
population potential at Asvan - An excercise in the calculation
of carrying capacities. Anatolian Studies 23: 225-240.
Hillman, G. C. (1973b). Agricultural resources and settlement
in the Asvan Region. Anatolian Studies 23: 217 - 224.
Hillman, G. C. (1973c). Crop husbandry and food production:
modern basis for the interpretation of plant remains. Anatolian
Studies 23: 241 - 244.
Hillman, G. C. (1981). “Reconstructing crop husbandry
practices from charred remains of crops,” in Farming practice
in British prehistory: 123-162. R. Mercer, ed. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Hillman, G. C. (1983). Determination of thermal histories of
archaeological cereal grains with Electron Spin Resonance
Spectroscopy. Science 222.
Hillman, G. C. (1984a). “Interpretation of archaeological plant
remains: the application of ethnographic models from
Turkey,” in Plants and ancient man. Studies in
palaeoethnobotany: 1-41. W. van Zeist and W. A. Casparie,
eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Hillman, G. C. (1984b). Traditional husbandry and processing
of archaic cereals in modern times: Part I, the glume-wheats.
Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 114-152.
Hillman, G. C. (1985). Traditional husbandry and processing
of archaic cereals in modern times: Part II, the free-threshing
cereals. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2: 1-31.
Hillman, G. C. (1991). “Phytosociology and ancient weed
floras: taking acount of taphonomy and changes in cultivation
methods,” in Modelling ecological change: Perspectives from
neoecology, palaeoecology and environmental ecology. D. R.
e. a. Harris, eds. London: UCL, Institute of Archaeology.
Hillman, G. C. e. a. (1995). Identification of archaeological
remains of wheat: the 1992 London workshop.
Höhfeld, V. (1989). Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsgang im
ländlichen Raum der Troas. Tübinger geographische Studien
102: 337-352.
Hopf, M. (1962a). “Bericht über die Untersuchungen von
Samen und Holzkohlenresten von der Argissa-Magula aus den
Präkeramischen bis Mittelbronzezeitlichen Schichten,” in
Argissa-Magula I: Das Präkeramische Neolithikum sowie die
Tier- und Pflanzenreste: 101-109. V. Milojcic e. a., eds. Bonn.
Hopf, M. (1962b). Nutzpflanzen vom lernäischen Golf.
JRGZM 9: 1-19.
Hopf, M. (1975). Beobachtungen und Überlegungen bei der
Bestimmung von verkohlten Hordeum-Früchten. Folia
Quaternaria 46: 83-92.
Hopf, M. (1978). “Plant remains, Strata V-I,” in Early Arad:
64-82. R. Amiran, ed.
Hopf, M. (1983). “Appendix B. Jericho plant remains,” in
Jericho. Volume V. The pottery phases of the tell and other
finds: 576-621. K. Kenyon and T. A. Holland, eds. London:
British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Hopf, M., and Willerding, U. (1988). “Pflanzenreste,” in
Bastam II, Teheraner Forschungen 5: 263-318. W. Kleiss, ed.
Houérou, H. N. le (1981). “Impact of man and his animals on
mediterranean vegetation,” in Ecosystems of the world-
Mediterranean-type shrublands, vol. 11: 479-520. F. di Castri,
ed.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B. (1979). “Ancient Agriculture and
ecology at Servia,” in Rescue excavations at Servia 1971-
1973: a preliminary report, vol. 74: 226-228, Annual of the
British School at Athens. C. Ridley and K. A. Wardle, eds.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B. (1980). Development of agriculture in
Europe and the Near East: evidence from quantitative studies.
Economic Botany 34: 51-67.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B., and al Azm, A. (1990). Quantifying
preservation and distortion in carbonized seeds; and
investigating the history of Friké production. Journal of
Archaeological Science 17.
Huber, J. K., and Rapp, G. J. (1987). Results of a preliminary
pollen study from Troy Megaron II A. Archaeometry
Laboratory, University of Minnesota-Duluth.
Hütteroth, W.-D. (1982). Türkei. Vol. 21. Wissenschaftliche
Länderkunden. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Hyman, P. S. (1992). A review of the scarce and threatened
coleoptera of Great Britain. Vol. 1. Petersborough: UK Joint
Nature Conservation Comitee.
Ilhan, E. (1971). “Earthquakes in Turkey,” in Geology and
History of Turkey: 341-442. A. S. Campbell, ed. Veneto
(Italy).
117

eferences
Inandik, H. (1961). Formation et évolution de la mer de
Marmara pendant le Quaternaire. Review of the Geogr. Inst.
Univ. of Istanbul 7.
Inandik, H. (1972). Truva cevresinin foto-geomorfolojik
haritasi. Jeomorf. Derg. 4: 9-21.
Isager, S., and Skydsgaard, J. E. (1992). Ancient Greek
agriculture. London: Routledge.
Izmir-Region-Project-Team (1996). “Prehistoric news from
Western Anatolia” (email 06/12/96).
Jablonka, P., König, H., and Riehl, S. (1994). Ein
Verteidigungsgraben in der Unterstadt von Troia VI.
Grabungsbericht 1993. Studia Troica 4: 51-73.
Jacomet, S. (1987). Prähistorische Getreidefunde. Eine
Anleitung zur Bestimmung prähistorischer Gersten- und
Weizenfunde: Botan. Inst. d. Univ. Basel.
Jacomet, S., and Schlichtherle, H. (1984). “Der kleine
Pfahlbauweizen Oswald Heer’s - Neue Untersuchungen zur
Morphologie neolithischer Nacktweizen-Ähren,” in Plants
and ancient man. W. v. Zeist and W. A. Casparie, eds., pp.
153 – 176. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Jacomet, S., Brombacher, C., and Dick, M. (1989).
Archäobotanik am Zürichsee. Vol. 7. Berichte der Zürcher
Denkmalpflege, Monographien. Zürich: Orell Füssli.
Jansen, H. G. (1992). Geomagnetische Prospektion in der
Untersiedlung von Troia. Studia Troica 2: 61-70.
Janushevich, Z. V. (1976). Kulturnije rastenija jugo-zapada
SSSR pa paleobotanitscheskim issledovanijam. Kitschinev.
Jarman, H. N., Legge, A. J., and Charles, J. A. (1972).
“Retrieval of plant remains from archaeological sites by froth
flotation,” in Papers in economic prehistory: 39-48. E. S.
Higgs, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, D. I. H., and Wilson, A. D. (1987). “Nutritive quality of
forage,” in The nutrition of herbivores: 65-90. J. B. Hacker
and J. H. Ternouth, eds. Academic Press Australia.
Jones, G. (1983a). The ethnoarchaeology of crop processing:
seeds of a middle-range methodology. Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 2: 17-26.
Jones, G. (1983b). The use of ethnographic and ecological
models in the interpretation of archaeological plant remains:
case studies from Greece. unpubl. Ph.D. Diss.
Jones, G. (1984). “Interpretation of archaeological plant
remains: ethnographic models from Greece,” in Plants and
ancient man: studies in palaeoethnobotany: 43-61. W. van
Zeist and W. A. Casparie, eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Jones, G. (1987a). Agricultural practice in Greek history.
Annual of the British School at Athens 82: 115-123.
Jones, G. (1987b). A statistical approach to the archaeological
identification of crop processing. Journal of Archaeological
Science 14: 311-323.
Jones, G. (1991). “Numerical analysis in archaeobotany,” in
Progress in old world palaeoethnobotany: 63-80. W. v. Zeist,
K. Wasylikowa, and K.-E. Behre, eds. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema.
Jones, G. (1992). Weed phytosociology and crop husbandry:
identifying a contrast between ancient and modern practice.
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73.
Jones, G. e. a. (1994a). FIBS in archaeobotany: functional
interpretation of weed floras in relation to crop husbandry
practices. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.
Sheffield.
Jones, G. e. a. (1994b). Towards the archaeobotanical
recognition of winter-cereal irrigation of modern weed
ecology in Northern Spain. Department of Archaeology and
Prehistory. Sheffield.
Jones, G., and Smith, H. (1990). Experiments on the effects of
charring on cultivated grape seeds. Journal of Archaeological
Science 17: 317-327.
Jones, G., and Halstead, P. (forthcoming). Charred grain from
the Late Bronze Age storerooms at Gla/Boeotia.
Jones, G., Wardle, K., Halstead, P., and Wardle, D. (1986).
Crop storage at Assiros. Scientific American 254: 96-103.
Jones, M. (1984). “Regional patterns in crop production,” in
Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain. B.
Cunliffe and D. Miles, eds. Oxford.
Jones, M. (1991). “Sampling in palaeoethnobotany,” in
Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. W. van Zeist, K.
Wasylikowa and K.-E. Behre, eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Kaltenbach, I. H. (1874). “Die Pflanzenfeinde aus der Klasse
der Insekten”.
Kaplan, L., and Maina, S. L. (1977). Archaeological Botany
of the Apple Creek Site. Journ. of Seed Technology 2.
Kayan, I. (1991). Holocene Geomorphic Evolution of the
Besik Plain and Changing Environment of Ancient Man.
Studia Troica 1: 79-92.
Kayan, I. (1996). The Troia Bay and supposed harbour sites in
the Bronze Age. Studia Troica 5.
Keeley, H. C. M. (1978). The cost-effectiveness of certain
methods of recovering macroscopic organic remains from
archaeological deposits. Journal of Archaeological Science 5:
179-183.
Keepax, C. (1976). A Brief Experiment on the Recovery of
Seeds from Modern Soils. Ancient Monuments Lab. 2130.
Keepax, C. (1977). Contamination of archaeological deposits
by seeds of modern origin with particular reference to the use
of flotation machines. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:
221-229.
Kehl, H. (1986). “Syndynamic and floristic composition of
macchie and their derivates along a disturbance gradient
caused by a rural Turkish settlement.” 5th OPTIMA Meeting,
Istanbul, 1986, pp. 609-617.
Kilian, N. (1997). “Archaeobotanisches Originalmaterial aus
Troia,” (email from 13/02/97).
118

eferences
Kiliç, S. (1995). Zeytin Damlalari. Bilim Teknik 4.
Kintigh, K. W. (1989). “Sample size, significance, and
measures of diversity,” in Quantifying diversity in
archaeology, New directions in archaeology: 25-36. R. D.
Leonard and G. T. Jones, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kislev, M. E. (1980). “Contenu d’un silo à blé de l’époque du
fer ancien,” in Tell Keisan (1971-1976), vol. 1, Series
Archaeologica. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert.
Kislev, M. E. (1986). “Archaeological remains of
Mediterranean floras.” 5th OPTIMA Meeting, Istanbul, 1986,
pp. 307-314.
Kislev, M. E. (1988). “Pinus pinea in agriculture, culture and
cult,” in Der prähistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt: 73-79.
H.-J. Küster, ed. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.
Kislev, M. E. (1989). Origins of the cultivation of Lathyrus
sativus and L. cicera (Fabaceae). Economic Botany 43: 262-
270.
Kislev, M. E. (1991). “Archaeobotany and storage
archaeoentomology,” in New light on ancient farming: recent
developments in palaeoethnobotany: 121-136. J. M. Renfrew,
ed. Edinburgh: University Press.
Körber-Grohne, U. (1979). “Einige allgemeine Bermerkungen
zu einer pflanzensoziologischen Zuordnung subfossiler Floren
des Postglazials,” in Werden und Vergehen von
Pflanzengesellschaften, Bericht des Internationalen
Symposiums der Internationalen Vereinigung für
Vegetationskunde. O. Wilmanns, ed. Cramer.
Körber-Grohne, U. (1990). Gramineen und
Grünlandvegetationen vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter in
Mitteleuropa. Vol. 139. Bibliotheca Botanica. Stuttgart.
Korfmann, M. (1986). Wo lag der Hafen von Troia-Neue
Tübinger Ausgrabungen. Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie
3: 8-14.
Korfmann, M. (1991a). Einhundert Jahre nach Schliemann-
Erste Ergebnisse der neuen Ausgrabungen in Troia.
Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 7: 44-48.
Korfmann, M. (1991b). Troia-Reinigungs-und
Dokumentationsarbeiten 1987, und Ausgrabungen 1988 und
1989. Studia Troica 1: 1-29.
Korfmann, M. (1992a). Die prähistorische Besiedlung südlich
der Burg Troia VI/VII. Studia Troica 2: 123-146.
Korfmann, M. (1992b). Troia-Ausgrabungen 1990 und 1991.
Studia Troica 2: 1-41.
Korfmann, M. (1993). Troia-Ausgrabungen 1992. Studia
Troica 3: 1-38.
Korfmann, M. (1994). Troia-Ausgrabungen 1993. Studia
Troica 4: 1-50.
Korfmann, M. (1995). Troia-Ausgrabungen 1994. Studia
Troica 5: 1-38.
Korfmann, M. (1996). Troia-Ausgrabungen 1995. Studia
Troica 6: 1-63.
Korfmann, M., and Kromer, B. (1993). Demircihüyük, Besik-
Tepe, Troia-Eine Zwischenbilanz zur Chronologie dreier Orte
in Westanatolien. Studia Troica 3: 135-172.
Korfmann, M., Girgin, Ç., Morçöl, Ç., and Kiliç, S. (1995).
Kumtepe 1993. Bericht über die Rettungsgrabung. Studia
Troica 5: 237-289.
Korfmann, M., Gabriel, U., Bertram, J., and Karul, N. (1996).
Bericht zu den Rettungsgrabungen am Kumtepe in den Jahren
1994 und 1995. Troia Projekt.
Kraft, J. C., Kayan, J., and Erol, O. (1980). Geomorphic
Reconstructions in the environs of ancient Troy. Science 209:
776-782.
Kraft, J. C., Kayan, J., and Erol, O. (1982). “Geology and
paleogeographic reconstructions of the vicinity of Troy,” in
Troy-The archaeological geology: 11-41. G. R. Rapp and J. A.
Gifford, eds. Cincinnati.
Kroll, H. (1983). Kastanas. Die Pflanzenfunde. Vol. 2.
Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Berlin: Volker
Spiess.
Kroll, H. (1979). “Kulturpflanzen aus Dimini,” in Festschrift
Maria Hopf, vol. 8, Archaeo-Physika: 173-189. U. Körber-
Grohne, ed. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag.
Kroll, H. (1981). Thessalische Kulturpflanzen. Zeitschrift für
Archäologie 15: 97-103.
Kroll, H. (1982). Kulturpflanzen von Tiryns. Archäologischer
Anzeiger: 467-485.
Kroll, H. (1984). Zum Ackerbau gegen Ende der
Mykenischen Epoche in der Argolis. Archäologischer
Anzeiger: 211-222.
Kroll, H. (1995/1996). Literature on archaeological remains of
cultivated plants. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4; 5:
51-66; 169-200.
Krönneck, P. (1995). Die prähistorische Vogelwelt um Troia
und ihre Ökologie. Magisterarbeit, Tübingen.
Kulak, Y. (1968). Die türkische Agrarwirtschaft ihre
Probleme und Ziele.
Kuniholm, P. I. (1990). Archaeological evidence and nonevidence
for climatic change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A
330: 645-655.
Kürschner, H., T. Raus, and J. Venter (1995). Pflanzen der
Türkei. Ägäis-Taurus-Inneranatolien. Wiesbaden: Quelle &
Meyer.
Küster, H. (1991). “Phytosociology and archaeobotany,” in
Modelling ecological change: Perspectives from neoecology,
palaeoecology and environmental ecology: 17-26. D. R.
Harris e. a., eds. London: UCL (Institute of Archaeology).
Ladizinsky, G. (1975). On the origin of the broad bean, Vicia
faba L. Israel Journal of Botany 24: 80-88.
119

eferences
Ladizinsky, G. (1980). Seed dispersal in relation to the
domestication of Middle East legumes. Economic Botany 33:
284-289.
Ladizinsky, G. (1989). “Origin and domestication of the
Southwest Asian grain legumes,” in Foraging and Farming.
The evolution of plant exploitation, vol. 13, One World
Archaeology. D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, eds. London:
Unwin Hyman.
Lamb, H. H. (1967). Review of Rhys Carpenter,
“Discontinuity in Greek civilisation”. Antiquity 41: 233-234.
Lang, G. (1962). Über die Geschichte von
Pflanzengesellschaften auf Grund quartärbotanischer
Untersuchungen. Pflanzensoziologie und Palynologie .
Lange, A. G. (1990). De Horden near Wijk bij Duurstede.
Plant remains from a native settlement at the Roman frontier:
a numerical approach. Amersfoort: ROB.
Lange, E. (1979). “Verkohlte Pflanzenreste aus den
slawischen Siedlungsplätzen Brandenburg und Zirzow
(Kr.Neubrandenburg),” in Festschrift M. Hopf, vol. 8,
Archaeophysika.
LaSota, L. R., Link, C. B., and Gunn, C. R. (1979). SEM in
study of comparative testa morphology. SEM III: 231 - 238.
Latacz, J. (1990). Homers Ilias und die Folgen-Wie der
Mythos Troia entstand. Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 7:
38-43.
Leaf, W. (1912). Troy: A Study in Homeric Geography.
London.
Levey, M. (1954). The early history of detergent substances.
Journal of Chemical Education 31: 521-524.
Lindau, G. (1922). Fossile Samen von Troja. Prähistorische
Zeitschrift XIII and XIV.
Madaus, G. (1938). Lehrbuch der biologischen Heilmittel.
Hildesheim: Olms.
Maier, U. (1995). Moorstratigraphische und
paläoethnobotanische Untersuchungen in der
jungsteinzeitlichen Moorsiedlung Ödenahlen am Federsee.
Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte in
Baden-Württemberg 46: 143-253.
Malo, J. E., and Suárez, F. (1995). Cattle dung and the fate of
Biserrula pelecinus L. (Leguminosae) in a Mediterranean
pasture: seed dispersal, germination and recruitment.
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 118: 139-148.
Mangafa, M., and Kotsakis, K. (1994). “A new method for the
identification of wild and cultivated charred grape seeds”.
“Map of Türkiye Cumhuriyeti” (1970). “Troya Tarihi Milli
Park. Bitki Örtüsü”.
Margaris, N. S. (1981). “Adaptive strategies in plants
dominating mediterranean-type ecosystems,” in
Mediterranean-type shrublands, vol. 11: 309-315, Ecosystems
of the world. F. di Castri, ed.
Mason, S. L. R. (1992). Acorns in Human Subsistence.
unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
Mason, S. (1995). “Acornutopia Determining the role of
acorns in past subsistence,” in Food in antiquity: 12-24. J.
Wilkins, D. Harvey, and M. Dobson, eds. Exeter: University
of Exeter Press.
McLaughlin Smith, K. (1990). Traditional fuels of the Outer
Hebrides: The modern charred seed assemblages. Unpublished
Masters Dissertation, University of Sheffield.
Meiggs, R. (1982). “Mediterranean forests,” in Trees and
timber in the ancient Mediterranean world: 39-48. R. Meiggs,
ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Melena, J. L. (1983). Olive oil and other sorts of oil in the
Mycenaean tablets. Minos 18: 89-123.
Mellink, M. J. (1983). Archaeological Comments on
Ahhiyawa-Achaians in Western Anatolia. American Journal
of Archaeology 87: 138-141.
Mellink, M. J. (1986). Troy and the Trojan War. Bryn Mawr.
Meurers-Balke, J. (1980). Experimenteller Getreideanbau im
Hambacher Forst, Gemeinde Elsdorf, Kr. Bergheim /
Rheinland. Bonner Jahrbücher 180.
Miller, N. F. (1984). The use of dung as fuel: An ethnographic
example and an archaeological application. Paléorient 10: 71-
79.
Miller, N. F. (1991). “The Near East,” in Progress in old
world palaeoethnobotany: 133-160. W. van Zeist, K.
Wasylikowa, and K.-E. Behre, eds. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema.
Miller, N. F., and Smart, T. L. (1984). Intentional burning of
dung as fuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred
seeds into the archaeological record. Journal of Ethnobiology
4: 15-28.
Morrison, K. (1994). “The intensification of production:
archaeological approaches”, in Journal of archaeological
method and theory, vol. 1, no. 2. M. B. Schiffer, ed. New
York. Plenum publishing corporation.
Mueller, J. W. (1975). Sampling in archaeology. Tucson,
Arizona: University of Arizona Press.
Mulholland, S. C. and Rapp, G. J. (1987). Preliminary
phytolith analysis of sediment samples from Troy.
Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Minnesota-Duluth.
Mulholland, S. C., Rapp, G. J., and Gifford, J. A. (1982).
“Phytoliths,” in Troy-The Archaeological Geology: 117-137.
G. R. Rapp and J. A. Gifford, eds. Cincinnati.
Murphy, P. L., and Wiltshire, P. E. J. (1994). A proposed
scheme for evaluating plant macrofossil preservation in some
archaeological deposits. Circaea 11.
Neef, R. (1989). “III.a Plants,” in Picking up the threads... A
continuing review of excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan: 30-37.
G. v. d. Kooij and M. M. Ibrahim, eds. Leiden: University of
Leiden, Archaeological Centre.
Neef, R. (1990). “Introduction, development and
environmental implications of olive culture: The evidence
from Jordan,” in Man’s role in the shaping of the eastern
120

eferences
Mediterranean landscape, vol. 23, Proceedings of the
INQUA, pp. 295-306. Rotterdam/Brookfield: A. A. Balkema.
Nesbitt, M. (1992). Early Bronze age crops and dung from
Dilkaya Höyük. British Institute of Archaeology.
Nesbitt, M. (1996). “B-Chalcolithic crops from Kuruçay
Höyük: an interim report,” in Kuruçay II, pp. 134 –144. R.
Duru, ed. Ankara: Türk Tahrih Kurumu.
Nesbitt, M., and Samuel, D. (1989). “The recovery of ancient
botanical remains from Near Eastern excavations: a practical
guide.” (unpublished manuscript, pp. 36)
Neumann, J. (1993). Climatic changes in Europe and the Near
East in the second millenium BC. Climatic Change 23: 231-
245.
Nezadal, W. (1989). Unkrautgesellschaften der Getreide-und
Frühjahrshackfruchtkulturen im mediterranen Iberien. Vol.
143. Dissertationes Botanicae.
Nišanci, A. (1973). Studien zu den Niederschlagsverhältnissen
in der Türkei unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer
Häufigkeitsverteilung und ihrer Wetterlagenabhängigkeit.
Inaugural-Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-
Universität.
Oybak, E. (1997). “(On the archaeobotanical work in the
Izmir Region Project),” (email from 21/01/97).
Öztürk, M., and Seçmen, Ö. (1986). “Autecological studies in
Turkey.” 5th OPTIMA Meeting, Istanbul, 1986, pp. 147-154.
Page, D. L. (1959). History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley.
Palm, T. (1959). Die Holz-und Rindenkäfer der süd-und
mittelschwedischen Laubbäume. Opuscula Entomologica
Suppl. 16.
Palmer, R. (1995). “Wine and viticulture in Linear A and B
texts,” in The origins and ancient history of wine: 269-285. P.
E. McGovern, S. J. Fleming and S. H. Katz, eds. Luxembourg:
Gordon and Breach Publishers.
Pansiot, F. P., and Rebour, H. (1961). Improvement in olive
cultivation. Rome: FAO.
Pascher, A. (1980). Süsswasserflora Mitteleuropas. Vol.
23/24.
Pearsall, D. M. (1989). Paleoethnobotany: a handbook of
procedures. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Penck, W. (1917). Bau und Oberflächenformen der
Dardanellenlandschaft. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Erdkunde : 30-49.
Penck, W. (1918). Die tektonischen Grundzüge Westkleinasiens,
Beiträge zur anatolischen Gebirgsgeschichte auf
Grund eigener Reisen. Stuttgart.
Penck, W. (1919). Grundzüge der Geologie des Bosporus.
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Meereskunde N.F., Heft 4.
Pendleton, M. W. (1979). Flotation Methodology. Paper
presented at the 78th Annual Meetings of the American
Anthropological Association, Cincinnati.
Pendleton, M. W. (1983). A comment concerning “Testing
flotation recovery rates”. American Antiquity 48: 615-616.
Pernicka, E., Begemann, F., Schmitt-Strecker, S., and
Grimanis, A. P. (1990). On the composition and provenance
of metal artefacts from Poliochni on Lemnos. Oxford Journal
of Archaeology 9: 263-298.
Pfannenstiel, M. (1944). Die diluvialen Entwicklungsstadien
und die Urgeschichte von Dardanellen, Marmarameer und
Bosporus. Geologische Rundschau 34: 342-424.
Pfannenstiel, M. (1955). Die pleistozänen klimatisch
bedingten Spiegelschwankungen des Mittelmeeres und des
Schwarzen Meeres. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen
Gesellschaft.
Pfannenstiel, M. (1956). Das Quartär der Levante. T.III.
Rezente Froststrukturböden und Karst des Uludag (West-
Türkei). Mainz.
Piening, U. (1981). Die verkohlten Kulturpflanzenreste aus
den Proben der Cortaillod-und Horgener-Kultur. Vol. 14. Die
neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Bern.
Podzuweit, C. (1979a). Neuere frühtrojanische Funde in
Nordwestanatolien und Griechenland. Jahrbuch RGZM 26:
131-153.
Podzuweit, C. (1979b). Trojanische Gefässformen der
Frühbronzezeit in Anatolien, der Ägäis und angrenzenden
Gebie-ten. Mainz.
Polunin, O. (1987). Flowers of Greece and the Balkans. A
field guide. Oxford: University Press.
Pons, A., and Quézel, P. (1985). “The history of the flora and
vegetation and past and present human disturbance in the
Mediterranean region,” in Plant Conservation in the
Mediterranean Area: 25-43. C. Gomez-Campo, ed. Dordrecht:
Junk.
Popper, V. S. (1988). “Selecting quantitative measurements in
paleoethnobotany,” in Current paleoethnobotany. Analytical
methods and cultural interpretations of archaeological plant
remains: 53-71. C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, eds. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pustovoytov, K. E. (1995). Einige Entwürfe zur
Landschaftsrekonstruktion der Trockenlandumgebung von
Troia-Kurzbericht über die ersten Ergebnisse der
Bodenuntersuchung 1995. RAS, Institute of Geography.
(unpublished manuscript)
Pustovoytov, K. E. (in prep.). Die Bodendecke der Troas:
Resultat des Wechselspiels von Natur und Mensch. Studia
Troica 8.
Quézel, P. (1978). L’interpretation phytosociologique des
groupements forestiers dans le bassin mediterranéen oriental.
Documents phytosociologiques 2: 329-352.
Quézel, P. (1981a). “Floristic composition and
phytosociological structure of sclerophyllous matorral around
the Mediterranean,” in Mediterranean-type shrublands, vol.
11: 107-121, Ecosystems of the world. F. di Castri, ed.
121

eferences
Quézel, P. (1981b). “The study of plant groupings in the
countries surrounding the Mediterranean: some
methodological aspects,” in Mediterranean-type shrublands,
vol. 11: 87-93, Ecosystems of the world. F. di Castri, ed.
Rackham, O. (1982). “Land-use and the Native Vegetation of
Greece,” in Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology,
vol. 146, B.A.R. Intern.Series: 177-198. M. e. a. Bell, ed.
Oxford.
Rackham, O. (1983). Observations on the Historical Ecology
of Boeotia. Annual of the British School at Athens 78: 291-
351.
Rademacher, B. (1948). Gedanken über Begriff und Wesen
des “Unkrautes”. Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 55:
3-10.
Rapp, G. R., and Gifford, J. A. (1982). Troy-The
Archaeological Geology. Cincinnati.
Rapp, G. (1982). “Earthquakes in the Troad,” in Troy-The
archaeological geology: 43-61. G. R. Rapp and J. A. Gifford,
eds. Cincinnati.
Raus, T. (1992). “Archäobotanisches Material der
Schliemann-Grabungen” (pers.com.).
Renfrew, C. (1972). The emergence of civilisation: the
Cyclades and the Aegean in the third Millennium BC. London:
Methuen & Co.Ltd.
Renfrew, J. M. (1966). A report on recent finds of carbonised
cereal grains and seeds from prehistoric Thessaly. Thessalika
5: 21-36.
Renfrew, J. M. (1972). “The plant remains,” in Myrtos. An
Early Bronze Age settlement in Crete: 315-317. P. Warren, ed.
Renfrew, J. M. (1973). Palaeoethnobotany. London: Methuen.
Renfrew, J. M. (1977). “Seeds from Area K,” in Keos 1.
Kephala: 127-128. J. E. Coleman, ed. Princeton/New Jersey.
Reynolds, P. J. (1992). “Crop yields of the prehistoric cereal
types emmer and spelt: the worst option,” in Préhistoire de
l’agriculture, vol. 6, Monographie du Centre de Recherches
Archéologiques. P. C. Anderson, ed., pp. 383-393. Paris:
Éditions du CNRS.
Richter, W. (1968). “Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen
Zeitalter,” vol. 2, Archaeologia Homerica: 1-149. F. Matz and
H.-G. Buchholz, eds. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Riddle, J. M. (1985). Dioscorides on pharmacy and medicine.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Riehl, S. (in prep.). Unkraut, Futterpflanze oder was sonst
Die Gramineen-Funde aus Troia/TR.
Rose, C. B. (1991). The theater of Ilion. Studia Troica 1: 69-
78.
Rose, C. B. (1992). The 1991 Post-Bronze Age excavations at
Troia. Studia Troica 2: 43-60.
Rose, C. B. (1993). The 1992 Post-Bronze Age excavations at
Troia. Studia Troica 3: 97-116.
Rose, C. B. (1994). The 1993 Post-Bronze Age excavations at
Troia. Studia Troica 4: 75-104.
Rose, C. B. (1995a). The 1994 Post-Bronze Age excavations
at Troia. Studia Troica 5: 81-105.
Rose, C. B. (1995b). “Negative result of the inquiry for the
macroremains from Blegen’s excavations, in the museums of
Çanakkale and Istanbul” (pers. com.).
Runnels, C. N. (1995). Environmental degradation in ancient
Greece. Scientific American March: 72-75.
Runnels, C., and Hansen, J. (1986). The olive in the
prehistoric Aegean: the evidence for domestication in the
Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5: 299-
308.
Russi, L., Cocks, P. S., and Roberts, E. H. (1992). The fate of
legume seeds eaten by sheep from a Mediterranean grassland.
Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 772-778.
Sakamoto, S. (1987). Origin and dispersal of common millet
and foxtail millet. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 21:
84-89.
Sallares, R. (1991). The ecology of the ancient Greek world.
London: Duckworth.
Sallares, R., Allaby, R. G., and Brown, T. A. (1994). PCRbased
identification of wheat genomes.
Schaaf, J. M. (1981). A method for the reliable and
quantifiable subsampling of archaeological features for
flotation. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 6: 219-
248.
Schiemann, E. (1951). Emmer in Troja. Neubestimmung aus
den trojanischen Körnerfunden. Berichte der Deutschen
Botanischen Gesellschaft 64: 155-170.
Schiemann, E. (1951). New results on the history of cultivated
cereals. Heredity 5: 305-320.
Schlichtherle, H. (1977/1978). “Vorläufiger Bericht über die
archäobotanischen Untersuchungen am Demercihüyük
(Nordwestanatolien),” in Demircihüyük, vol. 27/28, Teil 1,
Istanbuler Mitteilungen: 45-53. M. Korfmann, ed.
Schliemann, H. (1881). Stadt und Land der Trojaner.
Forschungen und Entdeckungen in der Troas und besonders
auf der Baustelle von Troja. Leipzig.
Schliemann, H. (1884). Troia. Ergebnisse meiner neuesten
Ausgrabungen auf der Baustelle von Troia, in den
Heldengräbern, Bunarbaschi und anderen Orten der Troas im
Jahre 1882. Leipzig.
Schliemann, H. (1890). Trojanische Alterthümer. Bericht über
die Ausgrabungen in Troja in den Jahren 1871-1873.
München-Zürich.
Schliemann, H. (1891). Bericht über die Ausgrabung in Troja
im Jahr 1890. Leipzig.
Schlüter, C. (1985). Arbeits-und betriebswirtschaftliche
Verhältnisse in Betrieben des alternativen Landbaus. Agrarund
Umweltforschung in Baden-Württemberg 10.
122

eferences
Schultze-Motel, J. (1974-1978, 1981-1983). Literatur über
archäologische Kulturpflanzenreste. Kulturpflanze XXII-31.
Seçmen, Ö., and Leblebici, E. (1978). Gökçeada ve Bozcaada
adalarinin vejetasyon ve florasi. Bitiki 5: 195-269.
Shay, J. M., Anderson, S. M., and Shay, C. T. (1982).
“Carbonized seeds and wood,” in Troy-The archaeological
geology: 189-190. G. R. Rapp and J. A. Gifford, eds.
Cincinnati.
Sherratt, A. (1980). Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal
cultivation. World Archaeology 11: 313-330.
Siebler, M. (1994). Troia. Geschichte, Grabungen,
Kontroversen, 1 edition. Vol. 17. Zaberns Bildbände zur
Archäologie. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Sigaut, F. (1992). “Rendements, semis et fertilité: signification
analytique des rendements,” in Préhistoire de l’agriculture,
nouvelles approches expérimentales et ethnographiques, vol.
6, Monographie du CRA. P. C. Anderson, ed.
Simmons, A. H. e. a. (1988). Ain Ghazal: A major Neolithic
settlement in central Jordan. Science 240: 35-39.
Simmons, I. G. (1993). Interpreting nature. Cultural
constructions of the environment. New York: Routledge.
Sinos, S. (1971). Die vorklassischen Hausformen in der Ägäis.
Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Small, E., and Jomphe, M. (1989). A synopsis of the genus
Medicago (Leguminosae). Canadian Journal of Botany 67:
3260-3292.
Smilauer, P. (1992). “CanoDraw,” , 3.0 edition. Ithaca, New
York, USA: Microcomputer Power.
Soloman, M. E., and Adamson, B. E. (1955). The powers of
survival of storage and domestic pests under winter conditions
in Britain. Bulletin of Entomological Research 46: 311-355.
Sperling, J. W. (1976). Kum Tepe in the Troad. Trial
excavation 1934. Hesperia 45: 305-364.
Stace, C. (1991). New flora of the British Isles. Cambridge:
University Press.
Stager, L. E. (1985). “The Firstfruits of Civilization,” in
Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honour of
Olga Tufnell. J. N. Tubb.
Struever, S. (1968). Flotation techniques for the recovery of
small-scale archaeological remains. American Antiquity 33:
353 - 362.
Stummer, A. (1911). Zur Urgeschichte der Rebe und des
Weinanbaues.
Talhouk, A. m. i. S. (1969). Insects and mites injurions to
crops in Middle Eastern countries. Vol. 21. Monographien
zur angewandten Entomologie.
Ter Braak, C. J. F. (1987-1992). “Canoco-a Fortran program
for canonical community ordination,” , 3.1 edition. Ithaca,
New York, USA: Microcomputer Power.
Thompson, D. (1963). Troia. The Terracotta Figurines of the
Hellenistic Period. Vol. 3. Supplementary Monograph.
Princeton.
Trabaud, L. (1970). Quelques valeurs et observation sur la
phytodynamique des surfaces incendiées dans le Bas
Languedoc. Nat. Monspel., Ser. Bot. 21: 231-242.
Traverso, O. (1926). Botanica Orticola. Pavia.
Tüxen, J. (1958). Stufen, Standorte und Entwicklung von
Hackfrucht-und Garten-Unkrautgesellschaften und deren
Bedeutung für die Ur-und Siedlungsgeschichte. Angewandte
Pflanzensoziologie 16.
Uerpmann, H.-P. (1995). Bioprofil in F28 am Kumtepe. Troy
Project.
Uerpmann, H.-P., Köhler, K., and Stephan, E. (1992).
Tierreste aus den neuen Grabungen in Troia. Erster Bericht.
Studia Troica 2: 105-121.
UNESCO/FAO (1970). “Vegetation distributions in the
northeastern Aegean area”.
van Andel, T., Zangger, E., and Demitrack, A. (1990). Land
use and soil erosion in prehistoric and historical Greece.
Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 379-396.
van Andel, T., and Zangger, E. (1990). “Landscape stability
and destabilisation in the prehistory of Greece,” in Man’s role
in the shaping of the eastern Mediterranean landscape: 139-
157. S. Bottema, G. Entjes-Nieborg, and W. van Zeist, eds.
Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
van der Veen, M. (1983). “Sampling for seeds,” , 6th
Symposium Palaeoethnobotany.
van der Veen, M. (1992). Crop husbandry regimes: an
archaeobotanical study of farming in northern England 1000
BC-AD 500. Vol. 3. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs.
Sheffield: J.R. Collis.
van der Veen, M., and Fieller, N. (1982). Sampling seeds.
Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 287-298.
van Waateringe, G. (1979). The origin of crop weed
communities composed of summer annuals. Vegetatio 41.
van Zeist, W. (1969). “Reflections on prehistoric
environments in the Near East,” in The domestication and
exploitation of plants and animals: 35-46. P. J. Ucko and G.
W. Dimbleby, eds. London: Duckworth.
van Zeist, W. (1980). Aperçu sur la diffusion des végétaux
cultivés dans la région méditerranéenne. Naturalia
Monspeliensia.
van Zeist, W. (1984). Lists of names of wild and cultivated
cereals. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 8-15.
van Zeist, W. (1988). Some aspects of early Neolithic plant
husbandry in the Near East. Anatolica 15: 49-67.
van Zeist, W., and Buitenhuis, H. (1983). Palaeobotanical
study of Neolithic Erbaba, Turkey. Anatolica 10: 47-89.
123

eferences
van Zeist, W., and Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H. (1985).
Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 4. Bronze Age sites on
the north Syrian Euphrates. Palaeohistoria 27: 247-316.
van Zeist, W., and Bottema, S. (1982). “Vegetational history
of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the last
20000 years,” in Palaeoclimates, palaeoenvironments and
human communities in the eastern Mediterranean region in
later prehistory, vol. 133, BAR, Intern. Series: 277-319. J. L.
Bintliff and W. van Zeist, eds. Oxford.
van Zeist, W., and Bottema, S. (1991). Late Quaternary
vegetation of the Near East. Vol. 18. Beihefte zum Tübinger
Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe A. Wiesbaden: Ludwig
Reichert.
van Zeist, W., Timmers, R. W., and Bottema, S. (1968).
Studies on modern and Holocene pollen precipitation in
southeastern Turkey. Palaeohistoria 14: 19-39.
Vickery, K. F. (1936). Food in early Greece. Illinois Studies
in Social Sciences. Illinois: The University of Illinois.
Virchow, R. (1879). Beiträge zur Landeskunde der Troas.
Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin. Physikalische Klasse, Abhandl.III. Berlin.
Vita-Finzi, C. (1969). The Mediterranean Valleys. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, G. E. (1982). Testing flotation recovery rates.
American Antiquity 47: 127-132.
Wagner, G. E. (1988). “Comparability among recovery
techniques,” in Current paleoethnobotany. Analytical methods
and cultural interpretations of archaeological plant remains:
17-35. C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, eds. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wagstaff, J. M. (1981). Buried assumptions: Some problems
in the interpretation of the “Younger Fill” raised by recent
data from Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 247-
264.
Warren, P. (1985). Minoan Palaces. Scientific American 252:
94-103.
Watson, P. J. (1976). In pursuit of prehistoric subsistence: a
comparative account of some contemporary flotation
techniques. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 1: 77-99.
Weiss, B. (1982). The decline of late Bronze Age civilization
as a possible reponse to climatic change. Climatic Change 4:
173-198.
Whitehouse, D., and Whitehouse, R. (1975). Archaeological
Atlas of the World. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Wilkinson, T. J. (1990). Town and Country in southeastern
Anatolia. Settlement and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and
Other Sites in the lower Karababa Basin. Vol. 109. The
University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Willerding, U. (1971). Methodische Probleme bei der
Untersuchung und Auswertung von Pflanzenfunden in vorund
frühgeschichtlichen Siedlungschichten. Nachrichten aus
Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 40: 180-198.
Willerding, U. (1973). “Bronzezeitliche Pflanzenreste aus Iria
und Synoro,” in Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte, vol. 6:
221-240. H. B. Siedentopf e. a., eds. Mainz: D.A.I. Athen.
Willerding, U. (1979). “Paläoethnobotanische
Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung von
Pflanzengesellschaften,” in Werden und Vergehen von
Pflanzengesellschaften, Bericht des Internationalen
Symposiums der Internationalen Vereinigung für
Vegetationskunde. O. e. a. Wilmanns: Cramer.
Willerding, U. (1988). “Zur Entwicklung von
Ackerunkrautgesellschaften im Zeitraum vom Neolithikum bis
in die Neuzeit,” in Der prähistorische Mensch und seine
Umwelt. Festschrift für U. Körber-Grohne. H. Küster, ed.
Winnefeld, H. (1902). “The tumuli in the Troad,” in Troja und
Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen
und historischen Schichten von Ilion-1894. W. Dörpfeld.
Athens.
Wittenburg, A. (1980). Zur Qualität des Olivenöls in der
Antike. ZfPE 38: 185-189.
Wittmack, L. (1881). Antike Sämereien aus der alten und
neuen Welt in ihren Beziehungen zur Gegenwart. Nachrichten
aus dem Klub der Landwirthe zu Berlin 115.
Wittmack, L. (1886). Unsere jetzige Kenntniss
vorgeschichtlicher Samen. Berichte der Deutschen
Botanischen Gesellschaft 4: 31-35.
Wittmack, L. (1890). Samen aus den Ruinen von Hissarlik.
Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 22.
Wittmack, L. (1905). Our knowledge of ancient plants.
Transactions of the Academy of Science of St.Louis XV.
Wood, M. (1985). In search of the Trojan war, 1 edition.
Warwickshire (England): Book Club Associates.
Wood, R. D., and Imahori, K. (1965). A revision of the
Characeae. Monograph of the Characeae. Vol. 1. Weinheim:
J. Cramer.
Wright, H. E. (1985). “Palaeoecology, Climatic Change and
Aegean Prehistory,” in Contributions to Aegean Archaeology:
Studies in honor of William A. McDonald: 183-195. N. C.
Wilkie and W. D. E. Coulson, eds. Minnesota: Center of
Ancient Studies.
Zangger, E. (1991). Prehistoric coastal environments in
Greece: The vanished landscapes of Dimini Bay and Lake
Lerna. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 1-15.
Zangger, E. (1992). “Prehistoric and historic soils in Greece:
Assessing the natural resources for agriculture,” in Agriculture
in ancient Greece, vol. XLII, Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni
Sueciae: 13-19. B. Wells, ed. Stockholm.
Zeven, A. C., and de Wet, J. M. J. (1982). Dictionary of
cultivated plants and their regions of diversity, 2 edition.
Wageningen: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and
Documentation.
Zohary, D. (1977). Comments on the origin of cultivated
broad bean Vicia faba L. Israel Journal of Botany 26: 39-40.
124

eferences
Zohary, D., and Hopf, M. (1993). Domestication of plants in
the old world. The origin and spread of cultivated plants in
West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley, Second edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zohary, D., and Spiegel-Roy, P. (1975). Beginnings of Fruit
Growing in the Old World. Science 187: 319-327.
Zohary, M. (1962). Plant life of Palestine: Israel and Jordan.
New York.
Zohary, M., and Orshan, G. (1965). An Outline of the
Geobotany of Crete. Israel Journal of Botany 14: 1-49.
125

illustrations
Table of illustrations
Figures
Figure 1 Flotation machine
Figure 2 Working area in F29 at Kumtepe
Figure 3 ’Bioprofile’ in F28 at Kumtepe
Figure 4 Schliemann’s Trench with layer older than Troy I
Figure 5 Troy II buildings outside the fortification wall
Figure 6 Troy IV building
Figure 7 Different corner of the Troy IV building
Figure 8 Troy VI ditch around the Lower City
Figure 9 Troy VIIa buildings
Figure 10 Troy VIIb buildings
Figure 11 The PBA Sanctuary
Figure 12 Phrygana near Çiplak, with Sarcopoterium spinosum in the foreground
Figure 13 Pine wood relic near Gökçali
Figure 14 Scamander delta with a flock of sheeps
Figure 15 Slope with Asphodeline lutea and Hypecoum procumbens
Figure 16 Overgrazed palaeo – sand dune
Graphs
Graph 1 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of species and samples
Graph 2 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of samples
Graph 3 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of a part of the samples
Graph 4 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of a part of the samples (with reduced species participation)
Graph 5 Kumtepe B and Early Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of samples and species
Graph 6 Numbers of species categories in each eco – group
Graph 7 Kumtepe – Scatter plot of species
Graph 8 Kumtepe – Scatter plot of sample classes for wild plants
Graph 9 Kumtepe – Scatter plot of sample classes (sample types)
Graph 10 Kumtepe – Species abundance for species classes (for wild plants) in each sample
Graph 11 Kumtepe – Species presence for species classes (for wild plants) in each sample
Graph 12 Kumtepe – Participation plot: Percentage participation of members of the crops and the typical weeds in each sample
Graph 13 Kumtepe – Presence plot: Species presence of members of the crop and the weed group in each sample
Graph 14 Kumtepe and Troy – Presence and proportions of crop species in each period
Graph 15 Early Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of species
Graph 16 Early Bronze Age Troy – Species abundance for species classes in each sample
Graph 17 Early Bronze Age Troy – Percentage participation of members of the crops in each sample
Graph 18 Early Bronze Age Troy – Percentage participation of members of the waterplants in each sample
Graph 19 Number of seed remains per 100 litre sediment
Graph 20 Early Bronze Age Troy – Percentage participation of members of the weeds in each sample
Graph 21 Early Bronze Age Troy – Presence plot: Species presence of members of eco – groups in each sample
Graph 22 Middle Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of species
Graph 23 Middle Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of sample classes
Graph 24 Middle Bronze Age Troy – Species abundance for species classes in each sample
Graph 25 Middle Bronze Age Troy – Species abundance for species classes in each sample
Graph 26 Middle Bronze Age Troy – Percentage participation of members of the crops, weeds, and waterplants in each sample
Graph 27 Middle Bronze Age Troy – Presence plot: Species presence of members of eco – groups in each sample
Graph 28 Late Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of species and sample classes
Graph 29 Late Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of species and sample classes
Graph 30 Late Bronze Age Troy (VI) – Species abundance for species classes in each sample
Graph 31 Late Bronze Age Troy (VIIa) – Species abundance for species classes in each sample
Graph 32 Late Bronze Age Troy (VIIb) – Species abundance for species classes in each sample
Graph 33 Late Bronze Age Troy (VI) – Percentage participation of members of the eco – groups in each sample
Graph 34 Late Bronze Age Troy (VIIa) – Percentage participation of members of the eco – groups in each sample
Graph 35 Late Bronze Age Troy (VIIb) – Percentage participation of members of the eco – groups in each sample
Graph 36 Late Bronze Age Troy (VI) – Presence plot: Species presence of members of eco – groups in each sample
Graph 37 Late Bronze Age Troy (VIIa) – Presence plot: Species presence of members of eco – groups in each sample
Graph 38 Late Bronze Age Troy (VIIb) – Presence plot: Species presence of members of eco – groups in each sample
Graph 39 Percentage occurrences of the eco – groups
Graph 40 Ubiquity of the Hordeum taxa during the different periods
125

illustrations
Graph 41 Ubiquity of the crop legumes
Graph 42 Length and width of bitter vetch at Kumtepe and Troy
Graph 43 Length and width of Lathyrus spp. at Kumtepe and Troy
Graph 44 Crop – processing stages at Kumtepe and Troy
Graph 45 Percentage occurrence of the crops
Graph 46 Ratio of Chenopodietea to Secalietea species for the different periods
Graph 47 Scatter distribution of Lolium spp.
Graph 48 Scatterplot of length and width of Vitis spp.
Maps
Map 1 Palaeogeographical reconstruction of the Karamenderes plain
Map 2 Map of Troy and sample location
Map 3 Environmental reconstruction for Kumtepe A
Map 4 Environmental reconstruction for Kumtepe B, EBA and MBA Troy
Map 5 Environmental reconstruction for LBA Troy
Tables
Table 1 Chronological table for the developments in the Troad
Table 2 Medicinal use of some frequent wild species
Table 3 Some indices of emmer grain
Figure 1 Flotation machine at Troy
126

illustrations
Figure 12 Phrygana/batha near Çiplak, with Sarcopoterium spinosum in the foreground
Figure 13 Pine wood relic near Gökçali (transition area to the High Plateau)
137

illustrations
Figure 14 Scamander delta (dominated by Juncus spp.) with a flock of sheep in the background
Figure 15 Picture from the slope down to the coast with Asphodeline lutea and Hypecoum
procumbens in the foreground
138

illustrations
Figure 16 Overgrazed palaeo – sand dune
Graph 1 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of species and samples (axes I – II)
139

illustrations
Graph 2 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of samples (axes I – III)
Graph 3 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of a part of the samples (axes I – II)
140

illustrations
Graph 4 Kumtepe and Troy – Scatter plot of a part of the samples (with reduced species participation) (axes I – II)
141

illustrations
Graph 5 Kumtepe B and Early Bronze Age Troy – Scatter plot of samples and species (axes I – II)
60
50
40
30
CROPS (categories!)
FRESHWATER HABITATS
MAQUIS
MARINE WATER
OPEN VEGETATION
20
10
0
Kumtepe EBA MBA LBA PBA
"grass"
OPEN VEGETATION
(DRY)
WEEDS
WOODLAND
Graph 6 Numbers of species categories in each eco – group
142

illustrations
Graph 8 Kumtepe – Scatter plot of sample classes for wild plants (axes III – IV)
Graph 9 Kumtepe – Scatter plot of sample classes (sample types) (axes III – IV)
144

illustrations
Graph 12 Kumtepe – Participation plot: Percentage participation of members of the crops and the typical
weeds in each sample (axes III – IV)
147

illustrations
Graph 13 Kumtepe – Presence plot: Species presence of members of the crop and the weed group in each sample (axes III –
IV; for the whole species data set)
148

illustrations
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Kumtepe EBA MBA LBA PBA
Cicer arietinum L. Lens culinaris Medik. Pisum sativum L.
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. Vicia faba L.
Graph 41 Ubiquity of the crop legumes
width 3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
Kumtepe
Troy (LBA)
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 length
Graph 42 Length and width averages of bitter vetch in some samples at Kumtepe and Troy (n= 10 – 50)
180

illustrations
5.5
5
4.5
length
4
3.5
3
2.5
EBA Troy
LBA Troy
Kumtepe
modern Lathyrus
2
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5
width
Graph 43 Length and width of Lathyrus spp. at Kumtepe and Troy
(’Length’ refers to the acute – angled edge, where the two cotyledons meet, ’width’ refers
to the cross – sectional distance (having the hilum in its centre).)
Canonical Discrimination of processing groups using weed seed categories
4
Group 2
2
Group 1
0
Group 4
Processing Groups
Group Centroids
-2
-4
Group 3
Ungrouped Cases:
Troy samples
Group 4: fine sieve
product
Group 3: fine sieve
by-product
Function 2
-6
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Group 2: coarse
sieve by-product
Group 1: winnowing
by-product
Function 1
Plot of Kolofana samples (group 1 - 4) and TROY samples
(possible weed species (n=78) with more than 5 occurences in the data)
Graph 44 Crop – processing stages at Kumtepe and Troy
181

illustrations
Secalietea
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Chenopodietea
1:1
relation of weed classes
Kumtepe A
Kumtepe B
Kumtepe (sum)
EBA
MBA
LBA (VI)
LBA (VIIa)
(LBA VIIb)
LBA (sum)
Graph 46 Ratio of absolute numbers of Chenopodietea to Secalietea species for the different periods
5
4.5
4
length
3.5
3
Lolium persicum
2.5
Lolium rigidum
Lolium remotum
2
Lolium perenne
Lolium multiflorum
1.5
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 width
Graph 47 Scatter distribution of Lolium spp.
length
Index 53
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.1
5.9 6
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.9 5
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9 4
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4
Index 76
Kumtepe
EBA Troy
LBA Troy
Graph 48 Scatterplot of length and width of Vitis spp.
183

illustrations
Map 1 Palaeogeographical reconstruction of the Karamenderes plain according to I. Kayan (Brückner 1997)
184

Number of
patterns 3 settlements in the
Troad 4
Period Chronology Material Culture 1 Affinities to Aegean Socio-political
Cultures (Crete only) 2 developments in the
Aegean 2 Climate Landscape development Destruction Population
Kumtepe A ca. 4800 - 4500 BC Neolithic sequence (including the "grave horizon" in A3) no con- a possible settlement
(Besik) ca. 6.5 km south
of Kumtepe, Çiplak ca. 2
km south
Kumtepe B ca. 3400 - 3200 BC Maritime Troia Culture (older than Troy I) EM I siderable of the later Troy,
separated from Kumtepe
by the sea
Troia I ca. 2920 BC Maritime Troia Culture (time equal with Kumtepe C) EM I Prepalacial Period change 6 fire five other settlements
between 4.5 and 6.5 km
from Troy, encircling it (2
settlements on the
northern coast, one
Troia II 2600-2450 BC Maritime Troia Culture EM II fire Elitarian Society on the western coast,
fire & Lower City Kumtepe in front of Troy
and the fifth in the
hinterland
Troia III 2390-2200 BC Maritime Troia Culture EM II / III
Troia IV 2200-2000 BC Anatolian Troia Culture EM III / MM IA 6 conflagrations
Biggest Upper
City of the
whole
settlement
history
6 small settlements in
differing position (3
elevated fortifications
south of Troy, 2
settlements at the northern
coast, 1 at the western
coast)
Troia V 2000-1870 BC Anatolian Troia Culture MM IA / II 1. Palace Period
Troia VI 1700-1250 BC Troian High Culture (Mycenaean) MM III / LM I - IIIB 2./3. Palace Period
Big Lower City,
Social
differences; new
population
Trojan War
Earthquake 9
Troia VIIa 1250-1190 BC Troian High Culture LM IIIB
By Sea
Postpalacial
People
Troia VIIb -1050 BC Troian Culture with the Imprint of Balkan Influences LM IIIC Period, with fire
slight increase of
settlements in almost the
same positions as in Troy
VI/VII
Troia VIII 700-480 BC Archaic depopulation of the
centres
480-331 BC Classical
331-200 BC Early Hellenistic dense settlement pattern (9
clearing of the central part of the low plateau
7 agriculture & erosion of the low plateau
7
continuous reduction of woodland
8
EBA
5
gradual shift of the coast-line in direction to the sea
MBA
LBA
settlements, 2 - 6 km
200-85 BC Late Hellenistic apart from each other)
PBA
Troia IX 85 BC-14 AD Early Roman I ca. 15 settlements
14-150 AD Early Roman II
150-267 AD Mid Roman
267-500 AD Late Roman I
500-670 AD Late Roman II
13. cent. Byzantine
1 Korfmann (1996); 2 Dickinson (1994); 3 Korfmann (1991ff.); 4 Aslan (1997); 5 Kayan (1996); 6 Bottema (1981); 7 Pustovoytov (in prep.); 8 Uerpmann et al. (1992); 9 Rapp (1982); 10 Carpenter (1966)
Table T1 Chronological table for the developments in the Troad (based on the most recent, calibrated radiocarbon dates)

illustrations
Species
Anchusa officinalis L.
Anthemis cotula L.
Artemisia annua L.
Calendula officinalis L.
Cistus sp.
Fumaria officinalis L.
Galium aparine L.
Heliotropium europaeum L.
Hyoscyamus niger L.
Lithospermum spp.
Malva sylvestris L.
Origanum vulgare L.
Portulaca oleracea L.
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner
Solanum nigrum L.
Stellaria media (L.) Vill.
Urtica dioica L.
Verbena officinalis L.
Medicinal use
root extract cleansing of the inner organs
antispasmodic and abortifacient effect
important medicinal plant; styptic, muscular build – up after injuries, malaria prophylaxis
antiseptic effect
resin for various medicinal purposes (labdanum)
antispasmodic and antiseptic effect
broad spectrum medicinal plant, esp. dermatologic indication, liver and bladder suffers
a pyrrolidizine alkaloid assists (when drunken with vine) against poisonous bites
contains high concentration of alkaloids, antispasmodic effect
contraception
against insect bites, also preventive as an ointment
antispasmodic effect
in East Asia seeds against pulmonary diseases
important antitoxic plant, esp. for the protection of the liver, e.g. from chronic jaundice; promotes
lactation
contains the neurotoxine Solanin, analgesic
dermatologic indication
circulatory preparation and for wound healing
support of the liver functions
Table 2 Medicinal use of some frequent wild species
Wittmack (1890) Schiemann (1951) Shay, Anderson and Shay
(1982)
Troy 1994 (Late Bronze
Age; n=56)
L/W – Index 1.74 2.11 2.22 1.53 – 2.37
W/H – Index 0.88 1.08 0.90 0.83 – 1.38
L/H – Index 1.54 2.27 2.00 1.5 – 2.78
Table 3 Some indices (1890 – 1982 averages; 1994 minimum/maximum) of emmer grain
190

plates
Table of plates
Plate 1 1 Alisma cf. gramineum, 2 Echium sp., 3 Heliotropium europaeum, 4 Spergularia marina, 5 Stellaria media, 6 Chara
sp., 7 Chenopodium album, 8 Chenopodium ficifolium, 9 Chenopodium murale, 10 Polycnemum cf. majus, 11 Salsola kali
Plate 2 12 Cistus sp., 13 Anthemis cf. arvensis, 14 Anthemis cotula, 15 Carthamus creticus, 16 Silybum marianum, 17a-c Camelina
sativa, 17d Camelina sativa (modern), 17e Camelina microcarpa (modern)
Plate 3 18 Carex divulsa, 19 Cyperus longus, 20 Eleocharis uniglumis/palustris (a and b mineralised, c and d carbonised), 21
Scirpus maritimus, 22 Euphorbia helioscopia, 23 Quercus sp.
Plate 4 24 Geranium cf. dissectum, 25 Aeluropus cf. litoralis, 26 Alopecurus aequalis, 27 Alopecurus arundinaceus, 28 Alopecurus
geniculatus, 29 Bromus hordaceus, 30 Bromus intermedius, 31 Bromus tectorum
Plate 5 32 Eragrostis cf. minor, 33 Eragrostis pilosa, 34 Hordeum cf. geniculatum, 35 Hordeum murinum, 36 Lolium persicum,
37 Phalaris aquatica/paradoxa, 38 Phalaris arundinacea, 39 Phalaris minor, 40 Phleum phleoides, 41 Phragmites sp.
Plate 6 42 Poa trivialis, 43 Hordeum vulgare (a and b rachis segments, c-h grains), 44 Triticum aestivum/durum (rachis), 45
Triticum dicoccum (a-c grains)
Plate 7 45 Triticum dicoccum (d-f grains, g-i spikelet forks, j spikelet forks of emmer (top) and einkorn (bottom)), 46 Triticum
monococcum, 47 Isoëtes duriei, 48 Isoëtes histrix
Plate 8 49 Juncus spp., 50 Teucrium cf. botrys, 51 Astragalus sp., 52 Medicago sp. (seed and capsules), 53 Medicago orbicularis,
54 Medicago turbinata (capsule), 55 Onobrychis sp., 56 Securigera securidaca, 57 Trigonella cf. monspeliaca
Plate 9 58 Trifolium spp., 59 Cicer arietinum, 60 Lathyrus cicera/sativus, 61 Pisum sativum, 62 Vicia ervilia
Plate 10 63 Vicia faba, 64 Linum usitatissimum, 65 Malva sylvestris, 66 Ficus carica, 67 Olea europaea, 68 Fumaria officinalis
Plate 11 69 Papaver rhoeas/dubium, 70 Pinus sp., 71 Plantago arenaria, 72 Plantago lanceolata, 73 Polygonum aviculare/patulum,
74 Polygonum lapathifolium/salicifolium, 75 Rumex conglomeratus, 76 Portulaca oleracea, 77 Anagallis sp., 78
Adonis annua, 79 Thalictrum flavum
Plate 12 80 Paliurus spina-christi, 81 Sarcopoterium spinosum, 82 Asperula arvensis/orientalis, 83 Galium aparine, 84 Galium
spurium, 85 Veronica persica, 86 Hyoscyamus niger, 87 Physalis alkekengi, 88 Thymelaea sp.
Plate 13 89 Typha cf. latifolia, 90 Torilis leptophylla, 91 Urtica cf. pilulifera, 92 Valerianella dentata, 93 Vitis vinifera, 94
Bruchus sp., 95 Tenebrio cf. melitor
192

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · · · · · 18 · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · 5 4 6 2 · 5 3 · · 1 7 · · 11 · · 14 13 2
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · · · 1 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 3 ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Boraginaceae , indet. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · 58 · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · 1 · · 1 1 1 2 6 · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Caryophyllaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · · · 2 8 · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type 18 7 · 4 · 10 2 1 1 4 2 1 · 2 · 1 19 · · · · ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 1 ·
Salsola kali L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · 2 · 1 ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) 2 8 · 5 · · · · 4 4 3 · · 4 · · 11 · · · · 10
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · 3 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · 12 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · 3 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz 20 11 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 29 · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · · · · · 2 3 · · · · · · 5 · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes 1 · · · · · · 1 3 · · 1 · · · · 311 1 · · 1 ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · 9 · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 37 1 1 6 5 ·
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. 16 · · 4 4 6 4 · · 3 1 1 · 133 · · 11 · 1 · 1 ·
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · 5 · 1 · 2 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 ·
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 5 · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. · 4 · · · · · · · 4 1 · · 7 · · 1 · · · 1 ·
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · 2 · · · 1 5 28 · · · 6 · · 51 · 1 · 1 1
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 41 · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · 8 · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 5 · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · · · · · 3 · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Avena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 25 · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · · · ·
Bromus sp. · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · 3 1 · 1 2 1
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · · · 1 · · 4 · · 2 · · · · · · · · 4 · · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. 8 4 · 11 · 4 6 · · 1 · 2 · 9 · · · · 3 · · ·
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 24 · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. 44 · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 2 · · · · 2

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · 2 · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · 5 · · 1 · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type 2 1 · · · · 1 · · 4 · · · · · 2 · · 1 · · 1
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. 8 2 · · 4 · · · · 2 · · · · · 1 9 · 1 · 4 6
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · 31 · · · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · · 1 · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 3 5
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus 4 · · 1 9 · · · · 8 1 2 1 · · · 2 · 1 5 · ·
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · 2 11 23 · · · 5 · · · · · · · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · 2 · 13 2 10 · · 3 · · · · · · · ·
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 175 · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 4 · · 4 · · · · ·
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 180 47 2 18 5 8 6 · 5 13 6 6 1 6 · · 31 · 1 · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (small) · · · 2 · · · 11 10 25 16 · 3 17 · · · · 1 · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) 274 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 6 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) 9 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) 78 32 · 3 · · 7 1 1 5 · 3 1 · · · · · 4 · · 1
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) 105 10 · · · · · · 1 2 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) 190 19 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) 16 23 4 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) 4 2 · 1 · · · · 1 3 · · · · · · 22 · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) 49 25 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) 14 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) 8 3 · 1 · · · 1 · 93 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) 60 10 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 338 42 · 4 4 · 4 · · · · 1 · · 13 18 · 1 · · 4 1
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) 63 13 · · · · 3 · · 3 · · · · 1 · 1 · · 1 · 11
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 44 15 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 4 6 · · · 1 4 1
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) 16 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 4
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) 208 21 · 5 3 1 2 · · · · 1 · · 4 3 · · · · 5 ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 3 1
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) 58 17 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) 10 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 · 2
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) 27 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 230 38 · 5 6 · 3 · · · · · · · · 7 · · · 3 10 1
Triticum sp. (FR) 126 9 · 1 · · 2 · 2 · 1 · · · · · · · · 6 17 9
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 104 19 · 2 2 1 6 3 2 39 · · · · · 2 · · 2 2 5 ·
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) 62 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 1 ·
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. 32 8 · · 4 · 1 · 3 2 · · · · · · 10 · · · · ·
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. 2 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 13
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) · 1 · · · 2 1 · · 2 · 8 · 2 · · 1608 7 · · · ·
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 32 7 7 1273 71 28 4 · 23 37 17 29 9 38 · · 3620 35 6 6 2 5
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 1 · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Leguminosae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. 16 8 · · 1 1 · · 2 3 · · · · · · · · · · 1 192
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) 1 · · 5 1 · · · 1 13 · 1 1 3 · 1 · · 1 · 1 5
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · 1 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. 2 8 1 13 3 6 3 4 58 232 57 · 3 96 · · 2 · 3 1 · 5
Ficus carica L. · 1 · 2 5 · · · 1 19 · · · 82 · 4 38 1 1 · 1 ·
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) 2 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Olea europaea L. · 1 · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · 1 · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · · 5 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 21 · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · 7 · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 2 1 · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · · · 2 · 2 · · · 1 · · · · · · 12 · · · 1 ·
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 1 ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rosa sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium spurium L. · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Galium aparine L. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. 6 8 2 2 · 3 · · · 3 · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 79 · · · · 2 · · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Daucus carota L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · 1 8 · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A8 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A8/9 A29 D3 D3 D5 D5 D7 D7 D7 D7
Botanical Sample No. BP05 BP06 BP07 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP04 BP02 BP04 BP13 BP14 BP18 BP20 BP03 BP05 BP10 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP12 BP13 BP14
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · 2 · · 2 · · · · ·
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. 4 2 · 1 1 2 · 1 1 1 · 2 1 22 · · 8 · 1 1 · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Absolute counts 2499 473 22 1388 144 104 87 29 174 663 127 66 21 655 23 45 6261 49 45 74 118 280

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Echium sp. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. 3 36 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 29 5 1 · 16 · 4 · · ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · 1 · · ·
Boraginaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Caryophyllaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 387 · 4513 · · ·
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type 1 1 · · · · · · · · 3 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · 1 · · · 5 · 3 · 2 ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · 2 · · 3 · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · 2 · · ·
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 1 2 2 · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 1 · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · 1 · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · 1 · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 · · · · ·
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · 27 · · · 5 · 1 · · · · 1 5 · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. · · · · · · 1 · · · 1 · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 1 · · 1 ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · 67 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Avena sp. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Bromus sp. · · · · · 2 · · · · 1 · 4 · 1 · 1 · · · 3 ·
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · · · · · · · · · · 45 · · · · · 3 · 1 · · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. · · · · · 19 · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · 3 · ·
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · 70 1 · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · · 0 · · · · · · · · · 17 · · · · · · 1 · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 18 · · ·
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type · · 1 · 1 · · · · 1 · 1 31 · · · 66 2 105 · · ·
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 3 · 8 · · ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. · · · · · 4 · · · · 12 26 37 3 12 · 144 15 162 21 2 ·
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 15 · · · 15 · · · 3 ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 5 1 7 · · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa 3 · · · · 14 · · · · 1 · 2 · · · 3 4 4 · · ·
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris sp. 6 · · · · 9 · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus · · 5 2 2 · · · · 1 · · · 1 · · 2 · · 2 4 ·
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) · · 5 3 · 10 5 · 1 1 · 1 7 2 3 · 9 2 7 3 5 ·
Gramineae , indet. (small) · · · · · 1 1 · · · 13 · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) 1 · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) · · 1 · 1 · · · · 1 2 3 109 3 1 · 19 1 26 8 · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · 9 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · 1 · · · · 4 · 10 · · · · 1 · 2 · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9 1 · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · · · · 2 1 · · · · · · 1 · · 5 1 · · 2 ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 2 · 16 5 2 12 · · 1 · 3 3 20 3 10 · 117 108 295 14 4 ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · 9 2 2 ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) · · 3 1 · 4 · · · · · · · · 12 · 5 3 50 · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 1 3 · 1 2 12 3 9 4 · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) · · 5 1 1 5 · · · · · 1 6 · 5 · 2 2 16 2 · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) · · 1 2 · 3 · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · 3 · · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 6 · 18 24 3 36 · · · · · · 4 · · · 17 7 37 5 · ·
Triticum sp. (FR) 1 · · 1 · 1 1 · · · · 1 3 · 2 · 28 · 15 6 · ·
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · 32 · 4 · · · · ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 1 · 2 1 1 19 7 24 13 · ·
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) · · · 2 · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 2 3 · 1 · ·
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. · · · · 2 2 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 5 · ·
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · 2 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) · · · 1 · 1 · · · · 3 · 4 · · · 1 · · 1 1 ·
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 9 · · · · 11 4 · · · 46 1 36 3 4 · 37 5 11 16 7 ·
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Leguminosae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. 1 · · · · 2 · · · · · · 7 · · · 4 · 6 · · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · 546 137 479 18767 · · · · 72 · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · 21 · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · 3 · 25 · · · · · 3 · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · 8 · · · · 3 5 1 26 1 1 · 2 7 1 55 · ·
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) 1 · 2 · 3 · · · · 3 · · · 4 2 · 16 4 13 · 1 ·
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 156 23 · · 2 · · · · 106392
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11 · · · · · · · ·
Linum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. · · · · · 2 · · · 1 9 1 3 · · 11 5 4 5 3 3 ·
Ficus carica L. 2 · · 2 · 2 · · · · 5 1 6 · · · 6 3 2 11 · ·
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Olea europaea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · 1 · · 28 · · 1 · · 3 3 1 · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · 1 · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rosa sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · · · · · · 1 · · 13 · 4 · · · 2 1 · · · ·
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 1 · 2 · · ·
Galium spurium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 3 · 5 1 · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 5 · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Daucus carota L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D7 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8
Botanical Sample No. BP18 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP24 BP01 BP02 BP07 BP09 BP15 BP17 BP18 BP23 BP24 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP31 BP32 BP33 BP34
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. · · · · · · · · · 2 9 1 4 3 · 4 6 11 6 3 2 ·
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 3 1 7 1 · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · 1 5 · 17 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Absolute counts 38 40 67 46 26 234 42 549 144 500 19048 46 716 71 88 92 1046 207 5396 190 44 106392

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · 1 · · 2 · · · · · · · · · 18 · · ·
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · · · 1 · · 1 · 1 · 5 2 · 1 · · · · · ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Boraginaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · 2 · 1 · · · · 4 · · 1 2 · · · · · 4 · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · · · · · 4 1 · · · 5 · · · · · · · ·
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · · · · 20 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Caryophyllaceae , indet. · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Chara sp. (oogonium) · · · · · · 4 · · · · · 1 1 · 1 · · · 56 8 3
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type · · · · · · 1 · 50 4 · 2 1 4 · · · · 7 1 · 5
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 3 · · · · 1 · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. 2 1 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 17 · · ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) 2 · · · · 8 27 · 21 7 · · · 10 · 1 · · 16 · · ·
Cistus sp. · · · 41 421 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · 1 16 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 2 1 · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz · 168 356 · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · ·
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · · 8 4 · · 14 · 1 1 18 · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · · 1 1 · · · · 1 6 2 3 · 11 1 · · · · · 1 ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 3 · · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · 1
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 24 · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · 2 · 5 118 225 · 3 · · · · · ·
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. · · 1 · 4 1 · · 10 · 11 · 1 3 · 1 · 1 1 · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · 1 · · 1 · · · · 1 · · 3 · · · · · · · 1
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. · · · · · · · · 8 · · 3 · 4 · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · · · 16 10 · · 11 · 9 2 13 1 · 1 · · · 8 ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · 2 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · · · · · 292 6 1 24 24 · · · 7 · · · · · · · 1
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · 2 12 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Avena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · 2 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. 7 1 · · · · · · · · · 4 · 1 · · · · · · · 3
Eragrostis cf. minor Host 184 · · · · 40 · · · 28 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Eragrostis sp. · · · · 16 · 138 48 4 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 5
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 2 · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · 1
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type 20 2 · 1 · · 4 · · 2 39 42 · 15 20 2 · · 21 8 · 10
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · 1 · · 1 1 3 · 6 3 · · · 1 · · ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · 2 · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. 51 · 3 10 24 3 11 · 4 17 63 76 26 45 24 · · · 8 · · 7
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) 68 · · · · · 1 · · · 4 15 · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) 12 · · · · · · · 2 · · 8 · 3 · · · · 3 2 · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · · · · · 1 1 · 2 1 2 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · 25 · 1 · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris sp. 11 · · · · 1 2 · · 2 · 3 · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus · · · · 8 · · · 5 · · · · · 1 2 1 · 24 18 18 49
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · 2 · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · 3
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · · 2 2 · · · · 1 · 5 · · · · · · · ·
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 11 2 1 6 162 33 21 4 8 · 5 1 · 1 1 2 1 3 74 29 5 44
Gramineae , indet. (small) · · · · · 15 48 · 12 7 · · · 9 · · · · · · · 8
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) 946 · · 12 8 15 · · 12 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) 111 1 · · · 5 · · · 6 4 9 5 4 3 7 · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) 105 · · · · 7 · · · · 6 4 · 3 · · · · 1 · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) 39 · · · · 5 · · 15 · · · · 7 · · 1 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) 26 1 · · 44 · 2 · · · · 2 1 · · · 1 · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · 2 · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · 3 2 · 5
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · 6 44 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · 4 26 32 · 7 3 · · · · · · ·
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) · · · 23 100 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) 1 · · 2 7 · · · · · · 5 1 3 · · · · 1 1 · 1
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 2 11 · 1042 6255 39 201 23 45 · 3 97 11 3 3 1 2 7 73 33 3 129
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · · 6 14 · · · · · · 6 2 7 1 · · 2 4 1 · 8
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) · · · 773 2834 6 51 6 17 · · 6 · · 2 · · · 12 18 2 70
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) · · · · · 2 1 2 2 · 4 11 7 4 3 · · 2 2 · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) · 2 · 66 592 3 11 5 4 1 20 21 3 · 3 · · · 33 62 · 76
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · 3 6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) · · · 97 94 · 15 · 5 · · · · · · · · · 9 18 · 21
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 3 · · · · 4 1 · · 1
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) · · · 3 22 · · · · · · 34 4 2 · · · · · 1 · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) · 2 · 2069 8536 50 102 12 25 · 1 7 1 · · · · · 181 174 · 431
Triticum sp. (FR) · 2 · 16 60 3 · · · 2 · · 7 14 3 2 5 8 14 8 · 11
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · 16 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · 1
Cerealia , indet. (FR) · 7 · 19 42 · · · · 1 · 39 11 11 · 4 · 6 6 6 1 12
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) · · · 226 867 2 4 2 10 · · · · · · · · 4 1 16 · 26
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. 4 · · · · 162 40 1 8 15 · · · 3 · 1 · · 2 · · 3
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · ·
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 2 · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) 2 · · · · 1 · · · 3 · · · 1 2 · · · 3 1 · ·
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 17 · · 2 3 46 2 1 8 20 2 7 4 8 7 5 3 · 5 10 · 5
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Leguminosae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · 5 · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · 1 · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · 2 · 3 · 3 4 1 11 5 · · · · 1
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · · 1 · 2
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) 1 · · 1 3 · 1 · · · · 1 · 1 · 3 · 1 5 3 · 6
Linum usitatissimum L. 3 156 360 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. 3 · · · · 9 5 · 1 13 2 3 · 5 · · · · · · 1 ·
Ficus carica L. · 3 · 8 · 14 18 · 29 · · 3 2 · · · · · 9 4 50 14
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 103 · · 4
Olea europaea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type 1 77 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · · · 20 · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 2
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · 2 1 · · 1 · 2 · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · 1
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · 1
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · ·
Anagallis sp. 16 · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rosa sp. · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula sp. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium spurium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · 1 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type 2 · · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · · · · · · 1 · 2 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · 1 · · 2 · · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Daucus carota L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. 51 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type 10 · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · · 1 · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · · · · 3 1 1 3 3 · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D8 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D9 D20 E3 E3 E3 E3
Botanical Sample No. BP35 BP37 BP41 BP43 BP44 BP45 BP47 BP48 BP50 BP01 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP06
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Verbena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. · 1 · 2 · 3 13 · 13 1 1 2 2 4 1 · 1 · 41 1 · 1
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · 4 · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · 19 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Absolute counts 1725 443 731 4503 20196 820 800 108 401 207 210 481 236 507 91 73 22 45 797 494 99 979

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Boraginaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Caryophyllaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) 2 2 2 5 6 · · · · 47 6 17 · · · 12 · 16 · 16 · 16
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type · 4 4 6 1 · · 1 · · 1 · · · · 1 · · 3 · 16 ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · 3 · · · · · 1 · 2 · · 24 4 · 8 · · · ·
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · 1
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 2 · · · · ·
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 1 · 3 1 11 7 1 · · 16
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · 2 · ·
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Avena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · 3 1 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. 4 · 1 4 · · · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · 32
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 1 · · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type 4 4 3 1 4 5 · · 3 2 · · 5 · 6 8 · 5 1 · · ·
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. 10 · · 9 5 · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 32 ·
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris sp. · · · 10 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus · 6 4 · 1 · · · · 1 4 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 15 11 4 10 3 3 · 3 4 3 15 3 3 1 · · 11 29 · 7 8 ·
Gramineae , indet. (small) · 4 2 1 1 · · · · · 7 · · · · 1 · · · · 16 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) 2 · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · 2 1 1 7 · 3 8 7
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · 2 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · 2 · 1 · · · 1 · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · 2 · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) 2 2 3 · 1 · · · 1 · · · 1 · 1 1 · 4 · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 61 37 26 48 45 4 5 49 14 6 54 4 1 5 7 6 20 4 5 · 54 20
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) 1 3 · · 2 · · · · · · · · 1 · · 2 3 · 2 2 1
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 24 12 7 25 17 1 4 24 7 3 40 2 · 2 · · 8 1 · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) · 1 · 2 1 1 · · 1 · · · · 3 · · · 1 · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) 39 14 18 20 13 · 2 3 3 2 44 3 · 25 3 15 2 32 1 · 12 ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · 1 4 2 2 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) 12 12 4 8 2 · · 2 · 1 8 1 · 5 · · 10 · · · 4 ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · · 1 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) 4 · 1 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 255 86 53 102 70 · 6 40 7 15 115 8 1 4 1 3 9 · 2 8 4 8
Triticum sp. (FR) 8 2 3 4 9 3 2 2 2 · 5 1 · 4 5 3 · 18 · 2 6 8
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 4 4 2 · 4 · 1 · · 1 · 1 2 6 8 · · 9 1 2 2 7
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) 12 4 4 14 8 · · 5 1 · 19 · · 6 · · · · · · 4 ·
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · 1 · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · 1 · 1 1 · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · 16 ·
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 1 1 · · · ·
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 6 4 · 4 6 · · · 2 · 1 · · · · 9 8 · · · · ·
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Leguminosae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · 20 ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 2 · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · 1 · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · 14 8 24 1 1 18 53
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) 4 · · 1 · · 1 2 1 · 3 2 1 1 · 1 2 8 · 2 5 1
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Linum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 · · · · 8 ·
Ficus carica L. 12 3 1 1 3 4 · · · · · 1 · · · 1 · · · · · 8
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) 2 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 16 · · · ·
Olea europaea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · 8 · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 4 ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rosa sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium spurium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Galium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Daucus carota L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E4 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E8
Botanical Sample No. BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP13 BP14 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP20 BP23 BP01 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. 1 1 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · 1 1 · · 4 1
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Absolute counts 491 228 152 292 211 22 22 134 50 83 331 52 27 67 63 101 126 216 22 63 269 188

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · · · · 1 · · 1 1 1 · 2 · · · · · · 4 · ·
cf. Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Boraginaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Caryophyllaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · 8 · 8 48 · · 8 · · · 88 · 9 4 268 13 62 32 · 22 48
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type 4 · 4 16 · · · 6 1 · 1 2 · · · 18 4 7 1 · 1 ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) · 8 · 16 · · · 14 · · · · 8 · 8 26 5 · · · · 4
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz 1 · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Cruciferae , indet. 6 4 · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 12 · 2 · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · · · · · · 9 6 · · · 1 · · 4 · 8 13 · · · ·
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. 5 6 1 8 56 · · 1 2 5 1 3 · · 4 51 9 26 4 4 5 4
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · 8 7 · 4 · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. · · · · 4 2 · · · · · · · · 5 · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 4 12 · · · ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · 1 5 1 · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 46 · 6 · · · ·
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Avena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 1 · · · · ·
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · 8 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. · · · 40 2 · 8 16 · · · 8 · · 2 · 3 · · · · ·
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · · 1 1 1 · · 1 · 1 · · 3 · 5 · · · · · · 4
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type 1 4 2 2 1 · · 3 1 · 1 5 2 5 2 · · 6 · · 5 1
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. · · 7 3 1 1 · · · · 1 · · · · 26 · · · · · 4
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · · · 1 1 · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type · · · 9 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus 4 4 · · · · 2 3 2 1 1 · 8 · · · 4 · · · 1 ·
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 9 4 14 6 16 · 6 15 6 1 1 3 1 5 7 9 9 5 3 9 4 3
Gramineae , indet. (small) · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 · · · · · 12 · 5 4
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) 11 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) 10 2 7 8 2 · 3 5 3 4 5 4 6 18 6 6 6 4 5 · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) 6 1 6 · · · · 2 · · · · · 5 3 1 3 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) 21 5 12 · · 1 · 5 · · · · · 18 · 3 7 · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) 1 · 1 · 1 3 · · · 2 · 1 2 1 1 · · 3 3 · · ·
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · 29 · 8 · 1 2 · · · 5 · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) 1 1 · · · · · 15 · · · · · · 1 · 15 2 · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 1 1 · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 15 7 24 22 39 · · 4 · 1 1 · · 5 · 19 1 16 4 2 7 2
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) 4 2 2 · · · · · · · · · · 3 · 1 2 7 · 1 · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · 1 · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) 8 2 16 24 5 · · 3 · · · 6 · 1 4 16 6 14 4 2 10 2
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 1 2 · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · · 1 · · · · 1 · · 1 · · 3 · · 1 2 · · · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) · · 1 · 1 · · · · · 1 · · · · 2 1 4 · 2 · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 2 · 36 24 · · 1 · · · · · · 1 2 3 · · 2 · 6 ·
Triticum sp. (FR) 6 1 6 1 2 1 · 5 · 5 5 3 4 2 6 3 14 6 2 2 · 2
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 9 · 8 3 · · 7 · · · · · · 4 4 · · 4 · 3 3 ·
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Cerealia (culms) 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. 24 · 24 32 16 · · 16 · · · · 12 1 2 54 1 58 36 · 6 8
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · · 4
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 1 ·
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 1 · 9 19 1 1 · · · 1 · 2 4 · 1 60 10 23 · 1 5 ·
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · 1 ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Leguminosae , indet. · · · · · · · 2 · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · 1 1 · · 1 16 · 13 · 1 3 1 · · 3 · · · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · 1 · 2 · · · · · · 1 · 1 · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · 2 10 2 3 3 6 29 3 12 6 15 92 11 29 2 7
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. 13 14 11 178 78 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) · · 5 · · 1 · · 1 1 1 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · 1 · 3 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · ·
Linum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. · 2 · 1 · 1 · 10 · 2 · 1 12 2 1 2 5 · · · 3 4
Ficus carica L. · 4 · · 2 3 · · · · · · · 2 · 5 · · · · · ·
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) · 1 · 1 8 · · · · · 1 · · 2 · · 5 · 6 · 8 3
Olea europaea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · 30 · 4 · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · 16 · · · 2 · · · · 8 · · · 14 · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · 8 · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · 4 · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · · 1 · · 12 · · · · · · · 2 5 1 · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · · 1 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · 1 · · ·
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · 4 · · · · · · · · 1 · 4 · · · · · · · · ·
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · 1 ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Rosa sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium spurium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · ·
Galium aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11 · 1 · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. 1 1 · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 2 1 · 1 · · ·
Galium sp. (mineral.) 1 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Daucus carota L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E8 E8 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9 E9
Botanical Sample No. BP11 BP12 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP04 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP10 BP11 BP12 BP13 BP14 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. 1 3 · 2 2 4 1 1 3 · · · · · · 6 1 1 1 · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Absolute counts 171 105 210 463 317 33 42 235 26 55 29 143 162 94 96 699 189 402 136 61 100 105

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 · · · ·
cf. Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · 4 20 2 · · · · 1 1 · 2 · · 1
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · 4 · 5 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · 3 · 23 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Boraginaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Caryophyllaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · 16 46 · 1 · · 7 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type · 9 · · 5 1 · 2 · 2 · 1 · · · 1 · 1 · 4 · 25
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · 1
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 2 14 · · 1 ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 1 60
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Compositae indet. · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · · · · 2 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · · · · 3 · · 1 215 41 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. · 3 · · 3 · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · 1 · 8 · 8
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. · · · · 2 · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · ·
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 10
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Avena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. 2 · · · 3 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · 7 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · 8
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type 7 2 · · 28 · · · 8 1 1 8 · 42 · 2 8 · · · 2 ·
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · 15 · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. 7 11 · · 78 17 · · · · · · · 14 · · · · · 3 · ·
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · 1 ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) · · · · 10 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · 2 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · 1 1 3 · ·
Phalaris sp. · · · · 19 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus · 6 · · · 1 · 3 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · 1
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 1 36 2 · 39 · · 11 · · · · · · · · 6 · · 6 7 8
Gramineae , indet. (small) · 8 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) · · 2 6 20 155 2 6 1 · 28 5 304 5063 1837 · · · 1 1555 7 14
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) 3 · · 17 3 26 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) 11 · · 21 11 45 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 42 11 · · · · 5 · 11
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) 1 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 9
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 13 · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) 7 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) 20 · · · · · · · 4 1 · 90 · 2 · · · · · 33 24 17
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 473 61 1 · 14 · · 4 6 2 3 27 · · · · 19 · 1 2 2 2
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) 21 · · · 9 · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 30 51 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) 32 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) 2 · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) 51 53 2 · 1 · · 1 · · · 1 · · · · 9 · 1 · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) · 18 · · · · · · 3 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) 11 1 · · 15 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) 77 4 · · 10 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 54 176 1 · · · · · · · · 7 · · · · 6 · · 1 · ·
Triticum sp. (FR) 61 4 · 4 58 · · 2 5 · · · · · · · 4 · · 9 11 11
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · 2 · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 40 · 1 · 35 66 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 72 29 9
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. · · · · 2 · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) 4 1 · · 15 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 14
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 4
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. · 10 · · 10 2 · 4 · 1 · · · 1 · 13 3 80 36 18 4 248
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Leguminosae , indet. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · 3 · · 8 · 3 · · · 3 1 277 · · 13 5 · · 10 3 18
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · 1 3 · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) · 5 · · 6 1 · 1 · 7 3 1 · 1 · · · 1 · 1 · 7
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum sp. · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. · · · · 3 3 · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 21 5 6 12
Ficus carica L. · 16 · · 30 · · 2 · 4 · · · · · · 1 · · 3 · 1
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Olea europaea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 4
Polygonum aviculare / patulum 2 · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type 7 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. 1 · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · 2
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Adonis annua L. - type 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Rosa sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · ·
Galium spurium L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 4 · 18
Galium aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. · · · · · 2 · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 15
Galium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 5
Daucus carota L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench E10 F3 g28 H17 I9 I17 I17 K4 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 K8 w28 y29 z/A7 z/A7 Z6/7 Z6/7 Z6/7
Botanical Sample No. BP04 BP01 BP01 BP07 BP02 BP07 BP16 BP02 BP01 BP02 BP04 BP05 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP03 BP05 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · 3 · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. 16 1 · · 9 · · · 3 8 · · · · · · · 2 3 1 · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Absolute counts 948 505 64 48 553 326 33 54 261 91 48 149 581 5180 1848 35 84 115 71 1785 118 574

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Alisma cf. gramineum Lej. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alisma sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · · ·
Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · 46 · · · 3 · 3 13 10 4 · 1 · · · · · · ·
cf. Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
cf. Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · 1 · 1 · · · 2 · · · 1 · · · 1 1 ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Boraginaceae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Spergularia marina (L.) Gris. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Stellaria media (L.) Vill · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Caryophyllaceae , indet. 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · · · 3 · · · · · · · · 8 · · · 1 · 16 ·
Beta vulgaris L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Chenopodium album L. - type 2 1 · · · · 1 2 · · · · 16 · · · 1 · · ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium murale L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · · ·
Suaeda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Chenopodium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodiaceae , indet. (endosperm) 7 · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · ·
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. (capsule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Anthemis sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Artemisia annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Calendula officinalis L. · · · · · 2 · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Centaurea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Onopordum acanthium L. - type · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Picris cf. hieracioides L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner - type · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Convolvulus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 10 2 ·
Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brassica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Capsella sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cardamine - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Cruciferae , indet. 51 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ·
Carex divulsa Stokes - type (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex punctata Gaudin - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (bikonvexe) · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 8 4 · · 24 · ·
Cyperus longus L. - type · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 96 48 ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 24 8 ·
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris - type (mineral.) · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · 1 16 · 1
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. 2 · · 23 · · · · · · · · 3 151 4 · 54 440 128 1
Scirpus maritimus L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 2
Scirpus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae, indet. 6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Cyperaceae , indet. (endosperm) 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · 60* 43* 93* 58* 124* 34* · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 25 9 · · · · · ·
Quercus sp. (cupule) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Aeluropus cf. litoralis (Gouan) Parl. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Agrostis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. - type 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus geniculatus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Alopecurus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Avena sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus intermedius Guss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · ·
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ·
Festuca sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. 1 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Hordeum marinum Hudson - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum murinum sensu Boiss. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · 1 · · 1 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type · · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · 1 7 · · 3 127 48 ·
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
Lolium temulentum L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. · · · 14 · · · · · · · · · · · · 32 522 298 ·
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 · ·
Milium - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · · · · · · · 8 · · 1 · · · · 1 32 32 ·
Phalaris arundinacea L. - type · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ·
Phalaris brachystachys Link - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · · ·
Phalaris sp. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 16 · · · 5 40 48 ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum arenarium L. - type · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum pratense L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 21 · · ·
Poa palustris (Seenus) Grossh. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa pratensis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa trivialis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type 1 · · 3 · · · · 8 · · · · · · · 1 · · 1
Polypogon maritimus Willd. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Setaria sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 3 1 5 15 · 4 2 · 7 6 8 2 80 6 5 3 4 27 · ·
Gramineae , indet. (small) 2 · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · · · 5 96 · 2
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · 2 · 3 · 7 2 2 · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 1 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) 4 1 7 2 · · · 1 · · 1 · 9 2 · · 198 21 13 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted, hulled) · · 3 · · · · · · · · · 7 · 3 · 76 17 12 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, hulled) · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 · 7 · 185 20 14 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Panicum miliaceum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · 2 · · · 2 ·
Triticum aestivum / durum (RS) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Triticum aestivum / durum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 · ·
Triticum cf. aestivum / durum (FR) · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 4 · · · · 5 · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · · 3 · · · · · · · · 6 3 · · · 265 131 ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) · · · 9 · · · · · · · · 5 8 · · 12 1695 802 ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · · 3 · · · · · · · 2 · 20 2 · 3 279 206 ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR, drop shaped) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 75 68 ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 168 16 ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) · · · 4 · · · · · · · · 1 4 1 · 31 132 46 ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 114 ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) · · · 28 · · · · · · · · · · · · 53 198 96 ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 170 15 ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · 6 180 59 ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) · · · 1 · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · 448 296 ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) · · · 14 · · · · · · · · · 2 · · 5 260 32 ·
Triticum sp. (FR) · · 1 · · · · · · 1 1 · 5 7 · · 16 190 26 ·
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 22 · 1 8 · · 3 4 · 3 · · 3 9 4 · · 17 3 ·
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) · · · 2 · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · 3 56 · ·
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · 1 5 2 ·
Isoetes histrix Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. · · · 29 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 24 · ·
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Origanum vulgare L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium / Ajuga · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Hymenocarpus circinnatus (L.) Savi · · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 5 · · 2 2 ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago turbinata (L.) All. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) 6 · · 20 · · 1 2 2 · · · 25 · · · · 8 1 ·
Onobrychis hypargyrea Boiss. - type · · · · · · 6 · · 2 · · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · 1 · 1 6 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scorpiurus muricatus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Securigera securidaca (L.) Dege & Dörf. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 138 3 2 15 · 6 · 4 12 26 24 2 32 1 · · · 8 · 2
Trigonella monspeliaca L. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Leguminosae , indet. · · · 2 · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Cicer arietinum L. · · · · 19 · · · · · · 589 8571 1296 4552 94 16 15 20 ·
Cicer arietinum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pisum sativum L. (hilum) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Pisum sativum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · 5 · 2 · · · · 1 1 15 116 344 29 · · 14290 8450 ·
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · 1 · · · · · 4 · 11 · · · 1131 · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) · 1 · 5 · · 2 1 3 · 1 · 1 · 3 · · · · 1
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum cf. usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva pusilla Sm. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. 6 · · · · · 1 · 2 1 · · · · · · 3 · · 14
Ficus carica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 2 · · 1 16 32 ·
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Olea europaea L. · · · · · · 3 1 2 2 · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Fumaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver rhoeas / dubium · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Papaver sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pinus sp. · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. 4 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum lapathifolium / salicifolium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum rurivagum Jord. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cristatus / conglomeratus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Rumex cristatus DC. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. pulcher L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex cf. sanguineus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonaceae (endosperm) · · · · · · 4 · · · 1 · 9 · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus arvensis L. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus bulbosus L.- type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus chius / parviflorus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Ranunculus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thalictrum flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 12 9 · · 9 19 ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Paliurus spina-christi Miller · · · · · 4 · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rosa sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula arvensis / orientalis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium spurium L. 1 · · · · · · · · · · 2 · 1 3 · · 1 · ·
Galium divaricatum Pourr. ex Lam. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Galium cf. aparine L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Galium sp. 3 · · · · · · · 16 · · · 3 3 5 · · · · ·
Galium sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium / Asperula · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sherardia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica persica Poiret - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Veronica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanum nigrum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Solanaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · 4 · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
cf. Typha sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Berula erecta Hudson 5 · · · · · · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Daucus carota L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis leptophylla (L.) Reichb. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Torilis - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica dioica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Urtica cf. pilulifera L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 1 - species table for Troy samples
Trench Z6/7 Z7 Z7 Z7 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z8 Z29
Botanical Sample No. BP06 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP18 BP19 BP20 BP21 BP11
Urtica sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Centhrantus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella coronata (L.) DC. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 8 · ·
cf. Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbena sp. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. · 2 · 3 · · 3 1 1 1 1 · 3 4 1 · · 19 6 2
Vitis vinifera L. (mineral.) · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
fruit stone, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bruchus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Tenebrio cf. melitor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 · ·
beetle · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Larvae, indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Absolute counts 288 57 26 226 23 34 34 27 98 70 45 621 9029 1935 4646 100 762 21270 11161 29

appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples
Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28
Botanical Sample No. BP02 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP28 BP29 BP30 BP31 BP32
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Echium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 18 · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 1 2 · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · 2 · · 1 1 · 1 3 2 · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · · · 10 4 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Silene cf. gallica L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 1 · ·
Silene sp. (calyces) · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · · 1 · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · · · 1 1 1
Chenopodium album L. - type · 3 · · · 1 · · · · · 1 · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Suaeda maritima L. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · 4
Anthemis cotula L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · 1 · 5 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (receptacle) · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carthamus creticus L. - type · · · · · 1 1 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carthamus sp. · · · · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Leontodon sp. · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Carex remota L. - type · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 13 · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. · · 1 · · · 5 · 2 · · 1 · · · · · · 2 · · 1
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · 1 · ·
Eragrostis sp. · · · · 1 · · · · · · 5 · · 1 · 3 2 6 2 3 4
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · · 2 · 1 · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples
Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28
Botanical Sample No. BP02 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP28 BP29 BP30 BP31 BP32
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type · 1 6 5 · 33 10 · 2 6 · · · · 3 · 9 5 2 7 · 3
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. 9 9 31 63 4 · 52 1 18 24 · · · · · · 80 27 55 1 · 19
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · · · 3 · · · 2 2 · · · · · · · 1 3 · · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) 2 · 6 · 2 · 19 · 21 4 · · · · · · 7 2 6 5 · 9
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · · 4 · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Phalaris sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
Phalaris / Alopecurus · 2 3 · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 7 1 · · · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Poa - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 13 18 35 15 9 17 42 17 7 · · 1 1 · 8 5 33 64 22 42 17 65
Gramineae , indet. (small) · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · 2 3 1 · 4 6
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · 8 · 2 2 5 · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) · 8 · 6 6 5 8 2 5 6 1 · · · · · 2 1 · · 1 ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · 2 · · · · 1 · · 2 · · · 1 2 1 · · · 1 · 1
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · 5 · · · · · · 1 · · · · 2 · · 3 · · · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) · · 4 3 · · 3 2 · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 8 3 9 1 4 4 13 · 1 5 · 1 · 4 5 1 86 84 34 24 8 28
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) · 2 18 31 3 6 3 · 8 7 · · · · · · 3 2 · · · 2
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) · · 5 · · · 4 · 2 · · 2 1 2 2 · 19 14 18 7 3 15
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) · 1 · 1 1 4 12 · · 2 · · · · · · 4 4 · 1 5 2
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · 3 · · · 29 · 3 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 2 · 38 53 27 16 6 26
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) 1 1 · · · 1 8 2 6 · · · · · 4 · 20 37 16 7 · 17
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · · 14 12 · · 2 · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · 5 · 2 1 · 1
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 8 5 · · · · 18 · 2 2 · 2 15 11 14 1 155 204 184 103 27 134
Triticum sp. (FR) 4 12 91 162 6 24 26 11 34 50 · · · · · 4 33 18 10 9 · 5
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) 1 · 2 · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 8 10 86 138 11 25 34 10 39 45 1 2 3 6 · · 8 25 12 4 · 8
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) · 1 · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · 4 17 · 7 · 1 5
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 1 3 1
Juncus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 2 4 · · 2 1 8 4 · 2
Juncus sp. (fruit) · 1 · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium flavum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lathyrus cf. hirsutus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples
Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28
Botanical Sample No. BP02 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP28 BP29 BP30 BP31 BP32
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · 1 2 · · · 22 · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · 2 · · · · · · ·
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · 4 · · 525 · 1 2 · · 1 · · · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · 1 5 8 22 · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · 1 · · · · · · · 2 582 · · · 2 · · 1 · · · ·
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · · · 85 · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · 1 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) · 1 · · 1 5 5 4 1 4 86 · 2 1 1 · · · 2 2 · 3
Linum cf. strictum L. (capsule segment) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · ·
Ficus carica L. · 2 · · · 10 22 9 2 2 · 2 6 9 1 · 13 3 7 · · 3
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · · · · 42
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · 1 3 · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · 1 · 8 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · · 1 1 · 1 1
Rumex sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · 1
Anagallis sp. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 · · 1
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
cf. Fragaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. caesius L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach (fruit) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach (thorns) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples
Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28
Botanical Sample No. BP02 BP05 BP06 BP07 BP08 BP09 BP13 BP15 BP16 BP17 BP20 BP21 BP22 BP23 BP25 BP26 BP27 BP28 BP29 BP30 BP31 BP32
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Verbascum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · · 1 · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · 3 1 · · · 1
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. · · 7 1 · 2 2 · 1 2 · 1 · · · · 1 · · 1 · ·
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
beetle · 1 1 1 · · 2 · · · · · · · 1 · 2 2 38 55 4 3
Absolute counts 54 93 335 459 58 143 348 74 175 189 1326 25 39 52 55 37 563 576 489 304 86 425

Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 G28
Botanical Sample No. BP33 BP35 BP36 BP37 BP40 BP41 BP42 BP43 BP44 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP02
Anchusa officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · ·
Echium sp. · 1 · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Heliotropium europaeum L. · · · · · 1 · · · 3 · · · · · ·
Lithospermum arvense L. · · · · · 1 · · · 13 · · · 1 · ·
Lithospermum cf. tenuifolium L. · 1 1 · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Silene cf. gallica L. · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · ·
Silene sp. (calyces) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · 1 ·
Chenopodium album L. - type · · · · 2 2 · 1 · 118 · · · · · ·
Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Polycnemum cf. majus A.Braun · · · · · · · · · 111 1 · · · · ·
Suaeda maritima L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chenopodium sp. · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 ·
Cistus sp. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Cistaceae · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cf. arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis cotula L. · · 19 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anthemis sp. (receptacle) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carthamus creticus L. - type 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carthamus sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Leontodon sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Compositae indet. · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · · · ·
Cruciferae , indet. · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex cf. caryophyllea Latourr. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Carex divulsa Stokes · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · 1
Carex remota L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Carex sp. (trigonal) · · · · · · · · · 7 · · · · · ·
Carex sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl · · · · 1 · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Schoenus nigricans L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
cf. Scirpus maritimus L. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Cyperaceae (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Euphorbia helioscopia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Geranium cf. dissectum L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Bromus hordaceus L. - type · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · · ·
Bromus rigidus / sterilis · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Bromus tectorum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bromus sp. · 1 · · · 1 · · · 30 · · · · · ·
Eragrostis cf. minor Host · 19 · · · 11 · · · · · · · · · ·
Eragrostis sp. 2 2 3 4 7 · · 7 5 69 · · · · 2 ·
Hordeum cf. geniculatum All. · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · ·
Hordeum cf. spontaneum C.Koch (FR) · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · ·
Hordeum sp. (weedy) · 1 · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Lolium perenne L. - type · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · 2 ·
appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples

Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 G28
Botanical Sample No. BP33 BP35 BP36 BP37 BP40 BP41 BP42 BP43 BP44 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP02
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. - type 2 1 5 · · · · · · 61 · · · 4 · 7
Lolium remotum Schrank - type · · · · · · · · · 5 · · · · · ·
Lolium sp. 5 10 · · · · · · · 334 6 3 2 15 11 ·
Lolium sp. (multiflorum - type) · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · ·
Lolium sp. (rigidum - type) 4 12 2 · 1 · · · · 26 1 · · 3 · ·
Phalaris aquatica / paradoxa · · · · · 4 · · · 22 · · · · 1 ·
Phalaris sp. · · · · · · · · · 41 · · · · 1 ·
Phalaris / Alopecurus 1 8 · · 1 · · · · · 1 · 1 15 · ·
Phleum sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Poa - type · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) 30 88 35 6 8 12 · 7 7 1430 4 2 3 111 25 8
Gramineae , indet. (small) 4 16 · · 6 4 · · · 42 · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · 4 · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight, cf. naked) · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, hulled) · · · · · · 4 · 1 1 · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, twisted) · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (FR, straight) · · · · · · · · · 13 · · · · · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · 2 2 · 2 · 9 · · · · · 3
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (FR) · · · · · · · 1 · 23 · · · 2 · ·
cf. Hordeum vulgare L. (RS) · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (FR) 2 · · · · · · · · 29 · · · 1 2 4
Triticum dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 25 4 3 · · · · 2 1 653 4 2 7 59 16 17
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (FR) 3 1 · · · · · 2 2 66 3 · 1 13 11 ·
Triticum cf. dicoccum Schrank (HSBR) 10 6 3 · · · · 2 1 322 2 1 4 28 7 4
Triticum monococcum L. (FR) 3 · · · · · · 1 · 21 · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. (FR, two grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10
Triticum monococcum L. (HSBR) 22 3 2 · 1 1 · · 3 465 4 3 3 33 10 ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR, two-grained) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (HSBR) 7 3 · · · 1 · 1 · 190 1 1 2 18 2 7
Triticum cf. monococcum L. (FR) · 1 1 · · · · · · 29 · · · 2 3 ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (FR) 1 · · · · · · · · 18 · · · 1 · ·
Triticum monococcum / dicoccum (HSBR) 109 39 33 3 4 6 2 11 12 1701 4 4 5 187 45 16
Triticum sp. (FR) 2 2 2 2 1 · 2 · · 141 · · · 13 20 ·
Triticum sp. (RS/BR) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3
Cerealia , indet. (FR) 7 4 6 · 14 3 · · 5 72 · 3 1 10 6 ·
Cerealia , indet. (HSBR/RS) 4 1 2 · · 2 · · · 62 · · 1 15 4 ·
Cerealia (culms) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Isoetes duriei Bory · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Juncus sp. · 3 1 3 8 6 1 1 2 · · · · 2 38 ·
Juncus sp. (fruit) · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Teucrium cf. botrys L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Teucrium flavum L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Teucrium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamiaceae · · · · · · · · · 5 · · · · · ·
Astragalus sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Lathyrus cf. hirsutus L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples

Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 G28
Botanical Sample No. BP33 BP35 BP36 BP37 BP40 BP41 BP42 BP43 BP44 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP02
Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 · ·
cf. Lathyrus sativus / cicera · · · · · · · · · 11 · · · · 1 ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (pod) · · · · · · · · · 13 · · · · · ·
Medicago orbicularis (L.) All. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. (seed) · · · · · · · · · 72 · · · · · ·
Onobrychis sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. 1 · · · · · · 2 · 166 1 1 · 13 · 2
Trigonella monspeliaca L. · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia / Lathyrus · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Vicia sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Lens culinaris Medik. · · · · · · · · · 16 · · · · 1 ·
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. 1 · · · · · · · · 36 · · 1 2 1 ·
cf. Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. · · · · · · · · · 18 · · · · · ·
Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
cf. Vicia faba L. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Leguminosae , indet. (cultivated) 2 1 · · · 2 · · · 45 · · · 5 4 ·
Linum cf. strictum L. (capsule segment) · · · · · · · · · 9 · · · · · ·
Linum usitatissimum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sylvestris L. (mericarp) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malva sp. · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ficus carica L. 2 3 4 1 29 97 28 8 · 56 · · · 3 3 ·
Ficus carica L. (mineral.) 1 2 · · 4 14 8 4 1 · 1 · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. - type · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · 2 · ·
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. - type · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · ·
Plantago lanceolata L. - type · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Plantago sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · ·
Polygonum aviculare / patulum · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Polygonum convolvulus L. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
Polygonum sp. · 2 · · · · · · · 94 · · · 2 · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. - type · · · · · · 1 · · 7 · · · · · ·
Rumex sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Anagallis sp. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Adonis annua L. - type · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · ·
Thalictrum cf. lucidum L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Reseda luteola L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
cf. Fragaria sp. (mineral.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Malus / Pyrus · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · ·
Rubus cf. caesius L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Rubus fruticosus L. - type · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rubus cf. idaeus L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Rubus sp. · · · · · · · · · 10 · · · · · ·
Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach (fruit) · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · ·
cf. Sarcopoterium spinosum (L.) Spach (thorns) · · · · · · · · · 14 · · · · · ·
appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples

Trench F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F28 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 F29 G28
Botanical Sample No. BP33 BP35 BP36 BP37 BP40 BP41 BP42 BP43 BP44 BP01 BP02 BP03 BP04 BP05 BP06 BP02
Asperula sp. · · · · · · · · · 4 · · · · · ·
Galium aparine / spurium · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · ·
Galium sp. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sherardia arvensis L. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · 1 ·
Verbascum sp. · 1 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Physalis alkekengi L. · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · ·
Thymelaea sp. · · · · · · · · · 25 · · · · · ·
Typha cf. latifolia L. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Umbelliferae, indet. · · · · · · · · · 3 · · · · · ·
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich · · · · · · · · · 11 · · · · · ·
Verbena officinalis L. · · · · · · · · · 8 · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. 1 · · · · · · · · 68 2 · · 1 1 1
Vitis vinifera L. (stalks) · · · · · · · · · 4 · 1 · · · ·
buds, indet. · · · · · · · · · 2 · · · · · ·
beetle 1 2 1 1 · · · · · · · · 1 1 · ·
Absolute counts 254 239 125 22 98 174 46 55 41 6913 37 22 33 565 220 83
appendix 2 - species table for Kumtepe samples

appendix 3 - Sample classification for Kumtepe and Troy (chronological - contextual order)
sample number dating sample type / context code main botanical components
F28-22 A () not defined 0 hulled Wheat chaff, Fig
F28-23 A () not defined 0 Fig, hulled Wheat chaff
F28-43 A Bioprofile 0 Gramineae , hulled Wheat chaff, Fig
F28-44 A Bioprofile 0 Gramineae , hulled Wheat chaff, Fig
F28-21 A4 unclear; possibly content of pottery 4 open vegetation; (small seed numbers)
F28-20 A2 unclear; possibly wall 5 Bitter vetch - Lentil - storage
F28-40 A Bioprofile; upper layer of pit 6 Fig, Gramineae
F28-41 A Bioprofile; layer in the same pit as F28-40 6 Fig, Eragrostis
F28-42 A Bioprofile; layer in the same pit as F28-41 6 Fig, Barley
F28-37 Hiatus Bioprofile 0 open vegetation; (small seed numbers)
F28-02 B1 (Anfang) unclear 0 Emmer chaff, Lolium
F28-13 B1/(B2) not defined; below F28-15 0 Gramineae , Einkorn
F28-16 B2 unclear; underneath F28-15 0 weeds (Lolium ), Wheat
F28-17 B2 unclear; underneath F28-15 0 weeds (Lolium ), Wheat
F28-33 B Bioprofile 0 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
F28-35 B Bioprofile 0 Gramineae , hulled Wheat chaff
G28-02 B1 not defined 0 hulled Wheat chaff, Einkorn
F28-25 B Bioprofile; surface layer 1 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
F28-26 B Bioprofile; surface layer 1 Bromus , Barley
F29-02 B3 floor 1 Lolium , hulled Wheat chaff
F29-03 B3 floor inside a building 1 hulled Wheat chaff
F29-04 B3 floor inside a building 1 hulled Wheat chaff
F29-05 B3 unclear; oven, area surrounding a pit 3 Gramineae , hulled Wheat chaff
F28-15 B1 wall 5 Gramineae , Wheat, Fig
F28-05 B2 upper shell layer from pit next to the building 6 Gramineae , weeds, Wheat
F28-06 B2 upper intermediate layer; same pit as F28-05 6 Wheat, weeds, Gramineae
F28-07 B2 upper intermediate layer; same pit as F28-06 6 Wheat, weeds
F28-08 B2 lower shell layer from pit next to the building 6 Gramineae , weeds, Wheat
F28-09 B1 unclear; possibly from pit inside a building 6 Lolium , Wheat
F28-27 B Bioprofile; pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff, Lolium
F28-28 B Bioprofile; pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff
F28-29 B Bioprofile; pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff, Lolium
F28-30 B Bioprofile; pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff; beetles
F28-31 B Bioprofile; pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
F28-32 B Bioprofile; pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae , Fig
F28-36 B Bioprofile; above Hiatus 6 Gramineae , hulled Wheat chaff, Anthemis
F29-01 B3 pit inside a building 6 hulled Wheat chaff; extremely broad species spectrum
F29-06 B3 pit 6 hulled Wheat chaff, Juncus, Gramineae
D5-08 older I burnt layer, near oven, hearth 0 open vegetation (small seeded legumes, Poa, Carex divulsa)
E3-23 I (late) floor, underneath E3-20 1 hulled Wheat chaff

appendix 3 - Sample classification for Kumtepe and Troy (chronological - contextual order)
sample number dating sample type / context code main botanical components
E3-04 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 Fig, small seeded grasses
E3-06 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
E3-08 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff
E3-09 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
E3-10 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
E3-11 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
E3-13 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff
E3-17 I (late) fill outside the wall 2 Emmer chaff
E3-20 I (late) fill; evt. accumulation 2 Chara ; Emmer chaff
E3-18 I (late) wall 5 Emmer chaff
F3-01 II floor 1 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae
E3-01 IIa fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff, open vegetation, Fig
E3-02 IIa fill outside the wall 2 hulled Wheat chaff, Gramineae ; Chara
D7-21 II pot content in building 4 hulled Wheat chaff
D7-24 II pit in building 6 freshwater, hulled Wheat chaff, open vegetation
E4-01 II (early) ditch 6 Chara ; hulled Wheat chaff, open vegetation
D8-27 IV unclear 0 Emmer chaff, weeds
D7-14 IV floor, reddish burnt 1 Bitter vetch
D8-02 IV storage in the entrance of a building 1 Pea storage
D8-18 IV burnt layer, floor near storage bin 1 weeds, Flax, Barley
D8-31 IV floor in entrance hall of a building 1 Chara ; Emmer chaff, weeds
D8-43 IV burnt layer; near storage bins 1 hulled Wheat chaff
D8-44 IV burnt layer; near storage bins 1 hulled Wheat chaff
D7-12 IV horizon (accumulation) 2 weeds, open vegetation
D7-13 IV horizon (accumulation) 2 weeds, hulled Wheat chaff, open vegetation
D8-15 IV burnt layer, outside the house 2 Pea storage
D8-32 IV burnt layer; near storage bin 2 Bitter vetch, weeds, Emmer chaff
D8-37 IV burnt layer in front of an entrance of a building 2 Gold of pleasure, Flax, weeds
D8-26 IV burnt layer; oven inside a building 3 Chara ; Emmer chaff, weeds
D8-45 IV near oven 3 Alopecurus, Juncus, Gramineae, Trifolium
D8-47 IV near oven 3 hulled Wheat chaff, Eragrostis, weeds
D8-48 IV near oven 3 Eragrostis, hulled Wheat chaff, weeds
D8-50 IV oven; evt.accumulation 3 Chenopodietea weeds, hulled Wheat chaff
D8-07 IV burnt layer with pot 4 Pea storage
D8-09 IV burnt layer with pot 4 Pea storage
D8-25 IV burnt layer; content of pot, outside the building 4 Pea storage, (Malva )
D8-34 IV burnt layer; pot 4 Flax storage
D8-35 IV content of pot 4 Barley storage, weeds
D8-41 IV content of a pot 4 Gold of pleasure, Flax
D8-23 IV unclear; near storage bin; possibly pit 6 Flax, weeds
sample number dating sample type / context code main botanical components

appendix 3 - Sample classification for Kumtepe and Troy (chronological - contextual order)
D8-24 IV unclear; near storage bin; possibly pit 6 Emmer chaff remains, weeds
K8-09 V oven 3 Barley
D9-01 VI not defined 0 Eragrostis, Aeluropus, Malva, Juncus, Trifolium
D9-03 VI not defined 0 weeds (Lolium ), hulled Wheat chaff, Panicum
I9-02 VI not defined 0 weeds (Lolium ), Gramineae
Z8-19 VI unclear, layer on the street 0 Barley, Einkorn chaff, weeds, Scirpus
K8-01 VI floor inside apsidal house 1 Eleocharis , weeds
K8-02 VI floor inside apsidal house 1 Eleocharis , weeds, Grape
K8-07 VI outside apsidal building 1 Barley, Bitter vetch storage
K8-08 VI not defined 1 Barley
E10-04 VI fill 2 Emmer chaff
Z7-04 VI fill inside of house; evt. accumulation 2 Juncus, Scirpus, Trifolium, Gramineae, Einkorn chaff
E8-06 VI (late) wall, inside a building 5 Gramineae , Einkorn chaff, Bitter vetch, freshwater habitats
A29-03 VI lower city ditch; accumulation 6 water plants, open vegetation
D9-08 VI burnt layer; unclear, possibly in relation with burial 7 Bitter vetch, open vegetation, Barley, Bread wheat
K8-05 VI grave 7 Emmer chaff and grain, weeds
E8-08 VI/VII floor, underneath E8-03 1 Chenopodium, Chara; hulled Wheat chaff
K4-02 VI/VII walls 5 Gramineae , Barley; Chara
D9-04 VIIa not defined 0 weeds (Lolium ), Emmer chaff
D9-05 VIIa not defined 0 Eleocharis , weeds (Lolium )
D9-06 VIIa not defined 0 Eleocharis , weeds (Lolium )
D9-07 VIIa not defined 0 weeds (Lolium ), Emmer chaff
E8-03 VIIb2 unclear; possibly inside house 0 Chenopodiaceae, Emmer chaff
E8-04 VIIb2 unclear; possibly inside house 0 freshwater habitats, Bitter vetch, Einkorn chaff, weeds
E9-12 VIIb2 "rubble"; underneath E9-07, 09 0 Gramineae , weeds (Fumaria), Bitter vetch
E9-13 VIIb2 (late) not defined; near to walls 0 Barley, Gramineae; Chara
E9-14 VIIb "rubble"; underneath E9-07, 09 0 Chenopodiaceae, freshwater habitats, Bitter vetch
E9-18 VIIb2 deposition outside a building 0 Chara; Juncus, Gramineae, Bitter vetch
E9-19 VIIb2 (early) deposition outside a building; underneath E9-18 0 Bitter vetch, open vegetation
A7-05 VIIa burnt layer from floor inside a house 1 Barley (FR), hulled Wheat chaff
A7-06 VIIa burnt layer from floor inside a house 1 Barley (FR), hulled Wheat chaff
A7-11 VIIa burnt layer from floor inside a house 1 Trifolium sp.
A7-12 VIIa Kerpic between two burnt layers 1 Trifolium sp.
A7-13 VIIa burnt layer from floor inside a house 1 Trifolium sp.,weeds, freshwater habitats
E8-02 VIIb2 floor 1 Einkorn chaff
E8-05 VIIb2 floor; evt. accumulation 1 freshwater habitats, hulled Wheat chaff
E8-09 VIIb2 floor; evt. accumulation 1 Emmer chaff, weeds (Lolium ), Gramineae
E8-10 VIIb2 floor; evt. accumulation 1 Bitter vetch, Eragrostis, freshwater habitats
E8-11 VIIb2 floor; evt. accumulation 1 Barley, freshwater habitats, Gramineae
E8-12 VIIb2 floor; evt. accumulation, underneath E8-11 1 freshwater habitats, Bitter vetch
sample number dating sample type / context code main botanical components
E8-15 VIIb1 floor; evt. accumulation; same area E8-05 - 12 1 Bitter vetch, Eragrostis, freshwater habitats
E8-16 VIIb2 floor; evt. accumulation, underneath E8-15 1 freshwater habitats, Bitter vetch, Emmer chaff

appendix 3 - Sample classification for Kumtepe and Troy (chronological - contextual order)
E9-11 VIIb / VIII (archaic) floor 1 Chara; Eragrostis, Lolium
E9-15 VIIb2 (late) floor 1 freshwater habitats, open vegetation (Trifolium ), Aeluropus
E9-16 VIIb / VIII (archaic) floor; underneath E9-07, 09, 11, 15 1 open vegetation (Glaucium , min.), Bread wheat; Chara
E9-17 VIIb2 (late) floor 1 Chara; Juncus, Bitter vetch
E9-20 VIIb2 (early) floor; partially overlap with E9-13 1 Chara ; Gramineae , Einkorn chaff, Fig
E9-21 VIIb2 (early) floor; partially overlap with E9-18 1 Chara ; open vegetation
z/A7-01 VIIa burnt layer, floor, next to A7-09, 10, 11 1 Trifolium, Echium, Chenopodium
z/A7-02 VIIa Kerpic between two burnt layers, next to A7-12 1 Trifolium, Malva
Z7-02 VIIa burnt layer; floor in building, next to A7-05, 06 1 Echium
Z8-13 VIIa burnt layer, floor 1 Chick pea storage
Z8-15 VIIa burnt layer, floor within building 1 Chick pea storage, weeds
Z8-16 VIIa burnt layer, floor 1 Chick pea, Bitter vetch, Scirpus
Z8-17 VIIa burnt layer, within building, close to Z8-15 1 Chick pea storage
Z8-20 VIIa burnt layer, floor inside house, next to Z8-16 1 Bitter vetch, Emmer chaff, Scirpus
Z8-21 VIIa burnt layer; floor, underneath Z8-16, 20 1 Bitter vetch, Emmer chaff
E8-13 VIIb2 oven, next to E8-04 3 hulled Wheat chaff, Juncus
Z8-18 VIIa pot content, close to Z8-17, 15 4 Chick pea storage
E9-07 VIIb3 evt. wall 5 open vegetation, Bread wheat, Barley
E9-09 VIIb2 wall 5 Lentil, Bread wheat, freshwater habitats
Z6/7-03 VIIb burnt layer; pit outside the building 6 Barley, Emmer, Trifolium
Z6/7-05 VIIb pit, underneath Z6/7-04 6 Trifolium, Chenopodium, Galium
I17-07 VIII/VII (hell.) pot content 4 Barley, Lolium
A8-04 VIII (class.) sediment around pot 0 open vegetation (heterogenous)
Z6/7-04 VIII burnt layer; unclear, partially inside building 0 Emmer, Malva , Barley
A8/9-04 VIII (class.) floor near altar, evt. natural 1 open vegetation (Gramineae, Malva, Trifolium )
A8/9-13 VIII (arch.) floor, west of altars; sacrifice 1 open vegetation (mainly grasses)
A8/9-14 VIII (arch.) floor 1 open vegetation (evt. natural)
Z8-07 VIII (hell.) Pithos content; disturbed 4 Gramineae , weeds, Trifolium
Z8-08 VIII (hell.) Pithos content; disturbed 4 Trifolium , weeds, Gramineae
Z6/7-06 VIII (early arch.) pit, partially overlap Z6/7-05 6 Trifolium, Cruciferae
A8/9-18 IX drain 6 open vegetation (grasses, small seeded legumes)

appendix 4 - Species classification for Kumtepe and Troy
species / genera eco-group alternative eco-group form min. grow. max. grow. code seed size seed size char.
of life height height (subfossil) (rezent)
Aeluropus litoralis (Gouan) Parl. MARINE WATER HABITATS MARINE WATER P 9 25 1 0,8 0,8 SFL
Alopecurus geniculatus L. FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P 7 60 4 1,0 1,5 SFL
Anagallis sp. OPEN VEGETATION (DRY) WEEDS (Secalietea) A 3 70 5 1,0 1,4 SFL
Anthemis arvensis L. WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A · 40 3 1,2 2,0 SHL
Anthemis cotula L. WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A 10 60 4 1,2 1,8 SFH
Asperula arvensis / orientalis WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A 5 40 3 1,5 3,0 SFH
Astragalus sp. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) · · 50 4 2,0 · SHL
Berula erecta Hudson FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P 40 100 6 2,0 · SFH
Bromus hordaceus L. WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A · 100 6 4,0 9,2 SFH
Bromus sp. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) · · · · · · ·
Buglossoides arvensis (L.) Johnston WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A 8 30 2 2,5 3,2 SFH
Buglossoides tenuiflora (L. fil.) Johnston OPEN VEGETATION (DRY) OPEN VEGETATION (dry, rocky, poor soils) A 10 18 1 2,0 · SFH
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz WEEDS WEEDS A/B 30 60 4 1,2 2,2 SFH
Carex divulsa Stokes WOODLAND WOODLAND (more or less open) P · 100 6 2,1 2,8 SFH
Carex sp. (trigonal) VARIOUS HABITATS VARIA (genera) P · · · 1,6 · ·
Chara sp. (oogonium) FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (submerged) · · · · 0,5 0,5 ·
Chenopodium album L. WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A 20 150 7 1,2 1,4 SFH
Cicer arietinum L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Cistus sp. MAQUIS OPEN VEGETATION (garrigue, phrygana, maquis) · · 60 4 1,0 · SHH
Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P 100 150 7 1,3 2,5 SFH
Cyperus longus L. FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P 20 150 7 1,0 · SFL
Echium sp. OPEN VEGETATION (DRY) OPEN VEGETATION (dry, rocky, poor soils) A/P · 100 6 3,2 3,0 BFH
Eleocharis uniglumis / palustris FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P · 40 3 1,5 2,0 SFH
Eragrostis minor Host WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A · 50 4 0,6 0,7 SFL
Euphorbia helioscopia L. WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A · 40 3 2,0 2,3 SFH
Festuca sp. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) · · · · 2,9 · SFH
Ficus carica L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Fumaria officinalis L. WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A 20 40 3 2,0 2,3 SFH
Galium sp. WEEDS VARIA (genera) · · · · · · ·
Geranium dissectum L. MARINE WATER HABITATS MARINE WATER A 10 50 4 1,5 2,0 SFH
Glaucium corniculatum (L.) Rud. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) A/B · 40 3 1,0 1,5 SFH
Gramineae , indet. (big- to medium) OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) · · · · 7,5 · SFH
Gramineae , indet. (small) OPEN VEGETATION VARIA (families) · · · · 2,8 · SFL
Heliotropium europaeum L. WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A · 30 2 1,5 2,2 SFH

appendix 4 - Species classification for Kumtepe and Troy
species / genera eco-group alternative eco-group form min. grow. max. grow. code seed size seed size CPS
of life height height (subfossil) (rezent)
Hordeum geniculatum All. MARINE WATER HABITATS MARINE WATER A · 30 2 2,5 · SHH
Hordeum spontaneum C.Koch WEEDS OPEN VEGETATION (various) A 30 70 5 6,0 · BFH
Hordeum sp. (weedy) WEEDS VARIA (genera) · · · · 5,0 · ·
Hordeum vulgare L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Hyoscyamus niger L. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (nitrogenous soils) A · · · 1,1 1,6 SHH
Isoetes duriei Bory OPEN VEGETATION FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P · · · 0,6 · SFL
Juncus sp. FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) · · · · 0,5 · SHL
Lathyrus sativus / cicera WEEDS WEEDS A 15 50 4 4,5 6,0 BFH
Lens culinaris Medik. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Linum strictum L. MAQUIS OPEN VEGETATION (garrigue, phrygana, maquis) A · · · 2,0 · SHL
Lolium perenne L. OPEN VEGETATION ("GRASS") OPEN VEGETATION ("greenland") P 9 100 6 2,8 5,5 SHL
Lolium persicum Boiss.& Hohen. ex Boiss. WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A 13 75 5 6,0 7,0 SHH
Lolium remotum Schrank WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A · · · 4,2 6,0 SHH
Lolium sp. (rigidum) WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A 9 80 5 4,0 5,5 SHL
Malva sylvestris L. OPEN VEGETATION (DRY) OPEN VEGETATION (dry, rocky, poor soils) P/B 25 120 7 2,0 2,0 SHH
Medicago sp. Sect. Spirocarpos Ser. OPEN VEGETATION ("GRASS") OPEN VEGETATION (various) A 20 30 2 2,5 · SFH
Olea europaea L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Panicum miliaceum L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Phalaris minor Retz. MAQUIS OPEN VEGETATION (garrigue, phrygana, maquis) A 20 80 5 1,8 3,0 SFH
Phleum phleoides (L.) Karsten OPEN VEGETATION (DRY) OPEN VEGETATION (dry, rocky, poor soils) P 14 85 6 1,2 1,6 SFL
Phleum sp. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION ("greenland") · · · · · · SFL
Pisum sativum L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Plantago arenaria Waldst. & Kit. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) A 10 30 2 1,9 · SFL
Plantago lanceolata L. OPEN VEGETATION ("GRASS") OPEN VEGETATION ("greenland") P 7 90 6 1,8 3,0 SFL
Poa trivialis L. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) P 25 90 6 1,0 2,0 SFL
Polycnemum majus A.Braun WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) A 10 20 1 1,0 · SFH
Polygonum aviculare / patulum WEEDS OPEN VEGETATION (garrigue, phrygana, maquis) A · creeping 1 1,8 3,0 SFH
Polygonum sp. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) · · · · · · ·
Portulaca oleracea L. WEEDS OPEN VEGETATION (various) A 5 20 1 0,8 0,8 SFH
Quercus sp. MAQUIS WOODLAND (more or less open) · · · · · · ·
Rubus sp. WOODLAND OPEN VEGETATION (seams, clearings) · · · · 1,5 · ·
Rumex conglomeratus Murr. OPEN VEGETATION ("GRASS") OPEN VEGETATION ("greenland") P · 80 5 1,8 1,7 SFH
Rumex sp. VARIOUS HABITATS OPEN VEGETATION (various) · · · · · · ·
Salsola kali L. MARINE WATER HABITATS MARINE WATER A 10 100 6 1,5 2,0 SFH
Scirpus maritimus L. FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P 60 100 6 2,4 3,1 SFH

appendix 4 - Species classification for Kumtepe and Troy
species / genera eco-group alternative eco-group form min. grow. max. grow. code seed size seed size CPS
of life height height (subfossil) (rezent)
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertner WEEDS WEEDS (Secalietea) B 30 100 6 4,0 7,0 BHH
small seeded legumes, cf. Trifolium sp. OPEN VEGETATION ("GRASS") VARIA (genera) · · 30 2 1,2 · SFH
Stellaria media (L.) Vill. WEEDS WEEDS (Chenopodietea) A 10 50 4 0,6 1,2 SFH
Thalictrum flavum L. WOODLAND FRESHWATER HABITATS · · 100 6 3,0 · SFH
Thymelaea sp. MAQUIS OPEN VEGETATION (garrigue, phrygana, maquis) · · · · 1,8 · SFH
Triticum aestivum / durum CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Triticum dicoccum Schrank CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Triticum monococcum L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Typha latifolia L. FRESHWATER HABITATS FRESHWATER (& near freshwater) P · 250 7 0,9 1,6 ·
Urtica pilulifera L. OPEN VEGETATION WEEDS (Secalietea) A 30 77 5 2,0 3,2 SFH
Valerianella dentata (L.) Pollich WEEDS OPEN VEGETATION (dry, rocky, poor soils) A 10 25 1 1,1 3,0 SFH
Verbena officinalis L. OPEN VEGETATION OPEN VEGETATION (various) P 30 100 6 1,3 2,0 SFL
Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Vicia faba L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·
Vitis vinifera L. CROPS CROPS · · · · · · ·