Are the Grains All-Alakh? An Archaeobotanical Exploration of Agricultural

Practices and Transitions at Late Bronze Age Alalakh (Tell Atchana)

by Matthew A. Stirn

A dissertation submitted to the University of Sheffield in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of

Master of Science in

Environmental Archaeology and Palaeoeconomy

Sheffield, England 11 September 2013

! II!

Abstract

The!Bronze!Age!city!of!Alalakh,!located!in!the!Hatay!Province!of!southern!Turkey!and!northern!Syria,!was!occupied!between!2,000!–!1,100!BC.!For!the!majority!of!its!existence,!Alalakh!served!as!an!important!agricultural!center!and!regional!capitol!to!the!Mukis!kingdom!under!the!Mitanni!kings.!During!the!final!300!years!of!its!occupation!(c.!1500!–!1200!BC),!the!site!fell!into!conflict!and!was!eventually!overtaken!by!the!expanding!Hittite!empire.!Despite!several!episodes!of!site!destruction!and!burning,!the!extent!to!which!Alalakh’s!economy!was!affected!by!the!political!turmoil!remains!uncertain.!Through!the!analysis!of!45!archaeobotanical!samples,!a!comparison!to!previous!research,!and!suggestions!for!future!work,!this!dissertation!explores!Alalakh’s!agricultural!economy!and!observes!that!while!the!scale!of!agriculture!might!have!changed!upon!the!Mitanni!–!Hittite!transition,!cultivation!techniques!and!agricultural!products!remained!surprisingly!consistent!through!time.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! III!

Acknowledgments

My first and foremost thank you is dedicated to my parents, Nancy and Kelly, for

spending countless hours of my childhood exploring the deserts of Wyoming (braving the

‘Trespassers Will Be Shot” signs), not putting me up for adoption when I dug my first 1x1 at

age 12 in our front yard, and for continuously supporting and encouraging me to chase after

and fulfill my dreams. My second thank you is to my brother, Will, for putting up with those

endless trips to the desert, warning us when the threats on the signs were about to be fulfilled,

and for being a never ending source of inspiration, advice, and fun. Thank you very much as

well, Les, for coming enthusiastically (and willingly) on every wild adventure, always

remembering the extra can of fix-a-flat, and for the ceaseless encouragement and kind words.

A huge thank you to Rich Adams for introducing me to archaeology as a young teenager and

guiding me ever since. And to Bryon Schroeder and Orrin Koenig for your constant advice,

wisdom, and humor.

Thank you very much Hyunyoung Kim for lending me the Alalakh samples and

allowing me to work on your material. Endless thanks to Glynis Jones and Mike Charles for

answering my constant questions and explaining to me for the 20th time why Lolium doesn’t

look like barley. To Paul Halstead for comments, advice, and critique. Thank you also to

Robert and Amalia at the BSA for allowing me to sneak in and use the library.

And finally, infinite thanks to Rebecca Sgouros for being a bottomless source of

inspiration and support, and for sharing what has been the best adventure imaginable.

!!!!

! IV!

Table of Contents !Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................. III!Table3of3Contents.................................................................................................................................IV!List3of3Figures .......................................................................................................................................VI!Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1!1.3Anatolia3and3North3Syria:3A3Historical3Background ............................................................ 1!1.13The3Mittani3and3the3Kingdom3of3Mukis ............................................................................................ 3!1.23The3Hittites3and3Their3Takeover3of3Alalakh ................................................................................... 5!

2.3Bronze3Age3Agriculture3in3North3Syria3and3the3Levant....................................................... 7!2.13Significant3Late3Bronze3Age3Crops ..................................................................................................... 8!2.23Methods3of3Agriculture,3Crop3Processing,3and3Distribution ...................................................11!2.2.1!Tilling!and!Sowing ............................................................................................................................................ 11!2.2.2!Irrigating............................................................................................................................................................... 12!2.2.3!Harvesting............................................................................................................................................................ 13!2.2.4!Processing!and!Storing ................................................................................................................................... 13!2.2.5!Distribution ......................................................................................................................................................... 15!

3.3The3Archaeological3Site3of3Tell3Atchana3(Alalakh).............................................................16!3.13The3Geography3and3Environment3of3the3Amuq3Plain3in3the3Northern3Levant..................16!3.23Excavation3History ................................................................................................................................17!3.33Alalakh:3The3Archaeology...................................................................................................................20!Level!V!(c.!1550!−!1435!BC): ................................................................................................................................... 20!Level!IV!(c.!1435!−!1370!BC):.................................................................................................................................. 21!Level!III!(c.!1370!−!1313!BC): ................................................................................................................................. 22!Level!II!(c.!1313!−!1240!BC): ................................................................................................................................... 23!

3.43Agriculture3at3Alalakh..........................................................................................................................23!3.4.1!Archaeological!and!Textual!Evidence ...................................................................................................... 23!3.4.2!Archaeobotanical!Evidence .......................................................................................................................... 25!

4.3Methodology....................................................................................................................................26!4.13Field3Methods..........................................................................................................................................26!4.23Lab3Methods ............................................................................................................................................28!4.2.1!Sample!Preparation ......................................................................................................................................... 28!4.2.2!Specimen!Identification ................................................................................................................................. 29!4.2.3!Data!Quantification .......................................................................................................................................... 30!

4.33Statistical3Methods................................................................................................................................31!4.3.1!Correspondence!Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 32!4.3.2!Discriminant!Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 32!

5.3Results ...............................................................................................................................................35!5.13Entire3Site.................................................................................................................................................36!5.23Level3V .......................................................................................................................................................37!5.33Level3IV......................................................................................................................................................39!5.43Level3III......................................................................................................................................................41!5.53Level3II .......................................................................................................................................................43!5.633Alalakh3Levels:3Trends3and3Changes..............................................................................................44!

! V!

6.3Discussion ........................................................................................................................................49!6.13Sample3Deposition3and3Taphonomy ...............................................................................................49!6.1.1!Rooms .................................................................................................................................................................... 49!6.1.2!Ovens...................................................................................................................................................................... 53!6.1.3!Pits........................................................................................................................................................................... 54!6.1.4!Ceramic!Vessel ................................................................................................................................................... 55!

6.23Activity3Distribution.............................................................................................................................56!6.33Cereal3Crops3at3Alalakh .......................................................................................................................59!6.3.1!Harvesting!Techniques................................................................................................................................... 59!6.3.2!Crop!Sowing!and!Harvesting:!Seasonality ............................................................................................. 60!6.3.3!Cereal!Processing.............................................................................................................................................. 61!6.3.4!Crop!Proportions:!Changes!Through!Time............................................................................................ 64!

6.43Weeds3and3Wild3Taxa...........................................................................................................................66!6.4.1!Fodder!and!Fuel................................................................................................................................................. 67!6.4.2!Ecological!Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 68!

6.53Alalakh:3A3Producer3or3Consumer? .................................................................................................69!6.63Agricultural3Changes3Between3Mitanni3and3Hittite3Rule .........................................................72!

7.3Agriculture3at3Alalakh:3A3Concluding3Model ........................................................................75!8.3Conclusion........................................................................................................................................78!Works3Cited..........................................................................................................................................79!Appendix3I:3Alalakh3Sample3Data..................................................................................................86!Appendix3II:3Discriminant3Analysis3Results........................................................................... 111!

!!!

!!!

!!

! VI!

List of Figures !Figure!1.1!–!Geographic!Areas!Discussed!in!this!Dissertation!(from!Yener!2001) ...................................................................3!Figure!3.2.1?!Dates!of!Alalakh!Levels .........................................................................................................................................................18!Figure!4.1.1?!Distribution!of!Sample!Contexts .......................................................................................................................................27!Figure!4.2.1!–!Sample!Distribution!From!Alalakh!Levels..................................................................................................................29!Figure!4.2.2?!A!Comparison!of!‘New!Type’!Glume!Base!(Left),!to!Emmer!Glume!Base!(Right).. ......................................31!Figure!4.3.1!–!Wild/Weed!Species!Discriminant!Categories!(following!Jones!1983). ..........................................................34!Figure!4.3.2?!Distribution!of!Discriminant!Classifications!for!Alalakh!Samples.....................................................................35!Figure!5.1.1?!Correspondence!Analysis!Species!Plot,!All!Alalakh!Samples ................................................................................36!Figure!5.1.2!–!Ten!most!ubiquitous!and!densest!species!amongst!all!Alalakh!samples. .....................................................37!Figure!5.2.1!–!Top!10!Ubiquitous!Taxa,!Level!V ....................................................................................................................................38!Figure!5.2.2?!Top!10!Densest!Species,!Level!V ........................................................................................................................................39!Figure!5.3.1?!Top!10!Ubiquitous!Taxa,!Level!IV.....................................................................................................................................40!Figure!5.3.2?!Top!10!Densest!Species,!Level!IV.......................................................................................................................................41!Figure!5.4.1?!Top!10!Ubiquitous!Taxa,!Level!III ....................................................................................................................................42!Figure!5.4.2?!Top!10!Densest!Species,!Level!III ......................................................................................................................................42!Figure!5.5.1?!Top!10!Ubiquitous!Taxa,!Level!II ......................................................................................................................................43!Figure!5.5.2?!Top!10!Densest!Species,!Level!II........................................................................................................................................44!Figure!5.6.1?!Correspondence!Analysis!Sample!Plot!(Labeled!by!Level) ....................................................................................45!Figure!5.6.2?!Cereal!Compositions!Across!Alalakh!Levels.................................................................................................................45!Figure!5.6.3?!Grain?to?Chaff!Ratio!Across!Alalakh!Levels.................................................................................................................46!Figure!5.6.4?!Rachis?to?Glume!Base!Ratio!Across!Alalakh!Levels..................................................................................................47!Figure!5.6.5?!Indeterminate!Cereal?to?Total!Cereal!Ratio!Across!Alalakh!Levels.!n.............................................................47!Figure!5.6.6?!Distributions!of!Crop!Processing!Classifications,!Possible!Fodder!Samples,!and!Chaff!Heavy!Samples!

Across!the!Alalakh!Levels.....................................................................................................................................................48!Figure!6.1.1?!Top!10!Most!Ubiquitous!Species!in!Order!of!Density,!Room!Samples...............................................................50!Figure!6.1.2?!Top!10!Densest!Species,!Room!Samples.........................................................................................................................50!Figure!6.1.3?!Processing!Stage!Classifications,!Fodder!Samples,!and!Chaff!Heavy!Samples!Across!Contexts............51!Figure!6.1.4?!Correspondence!Analysis!Biplot!of!Room!Samples.. .................................................................................................53!Figure!6.1.5?!Top!11!Most!Ubiquitous!Taxa!in!Order!of!Density,!Pit!Samples .........................................................................55!Figure!6.1.6?!Top!10!Densest!Taxa,!Ceramic!Vessel.............................................................................................................................56!Figure!6.2.1?!Correspondence!Analysis!Biplot,!All!Species,!Labeled!by!Excavation!Square...............................................57!Figure!6.2.2?!Correspondence!Analysis!Biplot,!Cereals!and!Pulses,!Labeled!by!Excavation!Square.. ............................58!Figure!6.3.1?!Discriminant!Analysis!Plot!Showing!Alalakh!Samples!Classified!Into!Crop!Processing!Stages!

According!to!Jones’!(1983)!Amorgos!Data. ..................................................................................................................62!Figure!6.3.2?!Correspondence!Analysis!Biplot!Displaying!Samples!Classified!as!Fine!Sieve!Products,. ........................63!Figure!6.3.3?!Proportions!of!Cereal!Species!Across!Alalakh!Levels...............................................................................................64!Figure!6.4.1?!Top!10!Most!Ubiquitous!Species!in!Order!of!Density,!Possible!Fodder/Dung!Samples ............................67!Figure!6.6.1?!Boxplot!Displaying!Cultivar?to?Wild/Weed!Species!Ratio!Between!Alalakh!Occupations.....................73!Figure!6.6.2?!Boxplot!Displaying!Grain?to?Chaff!Ratio!Between!Alalakh!Occupations .......................................................74!!!

!

Introduction !

The Bronze Age site of Alalakh was a prominent urban center of the Amuq Plain, a

fertile valley located in the Hatay Province of modern day Syria and Turkey. The city,

occupied from the Early Bronze Age (c. 2000 BC) to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 BC)

maintained an important role as a regional capitol and trade hub. Early excavations performed

by Sir Leonard Woolley (1955) revealed evidence of a stratified society with an agrarian

economy based on grain cultivation and an international trade network spanning the Eastern

Mediterranean to the Indian Subcontinent. During the majority of its occupation, Alalakh

was the regional capital of Mukis kingdom under the Mitanni kings. Near the end of the Late

Bronze Age, increased friction with the adjacent Hittite kingdom led to the city’s destruction

and subsequent reconstruction under Hattic leadership. Despite massive episodes of physical

devastation, the extent to which the political turmoil and transitions of the Late Bronze Age

affected Alalakh’s economy remains uncertain. Through the archaeobotanical analysis of 45

samples collected from the Late Bronze Age levels of Alalakh, this dissertation will explore

Alalakh’s place in Near Eastern agricultural practice, discuss spatial and temporal trends in

the site’s botanical record, and finally will attempt to construct a model for Alalakh’s agrarian

economy within the context of the Mitanni to Hittite transition.

1. Anatolia and North Syria: A Historical Background The Bronze Age in the Near East is characterized by the development of urban centers,

centralized government, and wide reaching trade (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 233).

! 2!

During the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, numerous cities and smaller villages first appear

in the literary and archaeological record (p. 247). Economically, the EBA and MBA

experienced an intensification in crop and animal specialization that “focused on a restricted

number of domesticated species” (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 272). These sites and their

associated ruling bodies grew in power and territory, resulting by the Middle Bronze Age, in

much tension throughout the region. By the onset of the Late Bronze Age, Anatolia and the

Levant presented a highly dynamic political and economic landscape. This period, particularly

in Northern Syria and the region of Alalakh, saw the disruption of native political powers by

the advancement of expanding empires including the Hittites, Mitanni, Egyptians, and

Assyrians (Bryce 2005). After nearly a century of political upheaval and military conflict,

northern Syria entered a period of economic and political decline in the 2nd millennium BC

(Anacleto D'Agostino 2008, 526). Alalakh, located on the border of Hittite, Assyrian, and

Mitanni territory, was routinely a center-point for any political strife in the region

(Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 327) (See Figure 1.1). As such, the city rarely remained

under a consistent government and often transitioned between political authorities. For

several millennia, Alalakh served as a regional capitol of the Mitanni kingdom of Mukis

(Casana 2009). During the Late Bronze Age, where this dissertation is focused, the reign of

the Mitanni at Alalakh fell to the oversight of the Hittites and eventually disintegrated

altogether. The following section presents a brief political history of the Mitanni and Hittites

and their relation to the city of Alalakh during the Late Bronze Age.

! 3!

!!

1.1 The Mittani and the Kingdom of Mukis The kingdom of Mukis lead by the kings of Mitanni was a geographically small but

politically significant region throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. The Mitanni first

appear archaeologically with the arrival of Indo-Aryan Hurrian speakers during the Early

Bronze Age (Bryce 2005, 56; see also Speiser 1954, 19). According to Bryce, the term

Hurrian “applied to a diverse range of population groups whose original homeland is

uncertain” (2005, 55; see also Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 327). The Mitanni were thus a

single cultural group within a larger Hurrian population. While the Mitanni appear

repeatedly in cuneiform primary sources, archaeologically they are more evasive (Novak

Figure 1.1 – Geographic Areas Discussed in this Dissertation (from Yener 2001)

!

! 4!

2007, 390). Although the Mitanni did produce a diagnostic ceramic tradition known as Nuzi

ware, the majority of their material culture is culturally diverse and indistinguishable from

other contemporary groups in the region (see Novak 2007, 391-392). Despite the

archaeological difficulties in identifying and research this group, a brief history can be

patched together.

During the 4th millennium BC, the sites of Tell Brak (see Politopoulos 2012; Charles

and Bogaard 2001) and Alalakh acted as important regional capitals for the kingdom of

Mukis. Throughout this period the political and military strength of the Mitanni grew to such

an extent that it threatened a complete takeover of the Hittites to the north (Bryce 2005). In

reaction to the threat, the Hittites led by Hattusili invaded north Syria and sacked the capitals

of Alalakh and Aleppo (Bryce 2005, 70-71). This destruction event, as will be discussed later

in more detail, is well visible within the architectural stratigraphy (Level VII) of Alalakh.

Despite the powerful Hittite invasion, the Mitanni remained in tact and became even more

powerful after taking advantage of the destruction and political turmoil left behind from the

invasion (p. 116).

During the 15th century BC, internal strife amongst the kings of Mukis resulted in the

king of Alalakh, Idrimi, to be briefly exiled. This lasted approximately seven years before

Idrimi reached an agreement and was reinstalled at the city as a vassal to other Mitannian

kings. As such, Alalakh existed as a separate vassal state under the authority of the kings of

Mukis. This lasted less than a century before conflict with the Hittites developed once again

(Bryce 2005). Near 1400 BC, the Hittite general Suppiluliuma invaded north Syria to counter

advancements made by the Mitanni (p. 138). Bryce notes that, “details of the Hittites’ new

Syrian enterprise are sketchy. But it seems that [the invasion] sought to follow in the

footsteps of Hattusili…by making Aleppo [it’s] prime objective” (p. 140). During this

! 5!

campaign, destruction is once again visible at Alalakh (Level IV: (Akkermans and Schwartz

2001, 334) and although the invasion did not destroy the kingdom of Mukis, the city remained

under the control of the Hittites for the remainder of the Bronze Age (see Fink 2010).

The structural layout of the Mukis kingdom is important in understanding Mitannian

politics and economics. While political affairs were ruled from central urban centers, the

geography of the kingdom did not consist of a continuous landscape but rather existed as a

network of isolated cities and their agricultural hinterlands (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001,

329). Due to large amounts of land trading performed by Mitannian officials, several islands

of Mukis-controlled areas surrounded by other kingdoms existed throughout north Syria (see

Magness-Gardiner 1994). Though the overall kingdom of Mukis was geographically small,

the spread out manner of their landholdings required a system of management similar to

larger Mediterranean empires. As such, products including crops and livestock were

sometimes transported and traded long distances across the Near East (Casana 2009). The

Mitannian network was also located such that it could monopolize trade routes connecting the

Levant to inner-Asia as well as the Aegean (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 305; Carre Gates

1981; Morris and Crouwel 1985; Yener 2001; Yener 2007). In this fashion, the small kingdom

of Mukis became an important figure in the Bronze Age Mediterranean world.

1.2 The Hittites and Their Takeover of Alalakh The Hittite kingdom formed in the 17th century BC with the establishment of its

permanent capital Hattusa, located in central Anatolia (Bryce 2005, 16). The empire was

geographically, culturally, and linguistically diverse with three official languages including

Hattic, Luwian, and Hurrian (p. 18). The ethnicity of the culture is somewhat uncertain as

! 6!

Bryce notes that,

“the term Hittite occurs first as a biblical term used in reference to a small Canaanite tribe who dwelt in the hills of Palestine in the early centuries of the first millennium BC. The term was subsequently adopted by scholars to refer to the kingdom…as far as we know, the Late

Bronze Age Hittites never used any ethnic or political designation when referring to themselves…” (2005, 18-19).

Regardless of possessing a questionable origin, the Hittites quickly established themselves in

central Anatolia and became a considerably powerful kingdom.

During the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the Hittite empire expanded rapidly across

Anatolia and into the Levant and Mesopotamia. Throughout the Old Hittite Kingdom (1680-

1450 BC: Claudia Glatz and Matthews 2005, 53), several military campaigns into north Syria

brought the Hittites into direct contact with the Mitanni and Alalakh (see Bryce 2005, 70-71).

As was previously discussed, the first invasion of the Levant was highly destructive but not

long lasting as the Mitanni quickly recovered and became once again a threat to the king in

Hattusa. The second invasion however, at the time of the Middle Hittite Kingdom (1450-1380

BC: Claudia Glatz and Matthews 2005, 53), ended with a more permanent control over north

Syria. During the final centuries of the Late Bronze Age, Alalakh existed as a vassal city to

Hittite authority.

Understanding how Alalakh was ruled under Hittite oversight requires a brief

investigation of the kingdom’s political and economic system. Despite existing as a cultural

and linguistic conglomeration, the Hittite empire was highly centralized with absolute power

resting in the hands of the king stationed in Hattusa (Claudia Glatz and Matthews 2005).

Bryce notes three different types of Hittite rule over conquered territory; peripheral

territories, viceregal kingdoms, and vassal states (2005, 46-51). These authoritative models

were designed to maintain control over a geographically vast region and to ensure the

sustainability of military and political campaigns far afield.

! 7!

After the Hittite conquests in the 14th century, Alalakh was ruled as a vassal state. The

methodology of Hittite control at the city was much more hegemonic than authoritarian or

colonial (see Claudia Glatz 2009). Though governors were installed to oversee politics and

report to Hattusa (Casana 2009, 11), little changed structurally from earlier Mitannian rule

(Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 351; Riehl 2010, 123). The king of Alalakh was given

kuirwana or ‘protectorate status’ allowing him certain privileges including independent rule

and exception from tribute (Bryce 2005, 49). As such, the city’s political and economic

systems transitioned smoothly and little change is visible in the material record (Cizer 2006;

see Fink 2010 for a contradictory perspective). At this point in time, the site of Alalakh

became a ‘storehouse city’ and held the responsibility of collecting and storing agricultural

surplus (see Matthews 2012, 34). While it was likely an important agricultural center during

Mitannian rule, Alalakh under the Hittites is mentioned in cuneiform records to have focused

exclusively on the processing and storage of crops (Fink 2010). The extent of such activities

however remain uncertain as after the political takeover, the overall size and intensity of

activities at Alalakh shrank drastically (see Yener, Schloen, and Fink 2005, 46). The true

nature of Alalakh’s existence after the second Hittite campaign can perhaps be best explored

through an analysis of its archaeobotanical remains.

2. Bronze Age Agriculture in North Syria and the Levant It would be superfluous to the goals of this dissertation to fully discuss the evolution,

economics, and technologies of early agriculture in the Near East. Instead, the agricultural

scene in the Levant during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages will be briefly explored. By the

! 8!

onset of the Near Eastern Bronze Age, agriculture had developed and matured in the region

for nearly 7,500 years. By this period farmers in the Amuq Plain and greater Mediterranean

climatic zone were well adapted to the region’s highly bipolar environment. Crop plants were

commonly rotated to take advantage of season specific conditions and technological

adaptations developed that enabled large-scale intensive farming throughout the entire year.

This section will introduce important Middle and Late Bronze Age crops and will briefly

explore methods of agricultural production and distribution during this time.

2.1 Significant Late Bronze Age Crops ! Evidence for crop species during the Bronze Age is available from two sources; primary

cuneiform texts and archaeobotanical remains. Considerable efforts have been made to

interpret cuneiform ration lists in terms of crop plant species and quantities processed and

traded (eg Wiseman 1953; 1959). In general, this research offers a decent foundation to

understanding agriculture in the Near Eastern Bronze Age. Items listed in the texts can be

lexically grouped and roughly quantified. However, the resolution of interpretation with such

texts leaves much to be desired. First and foremost, our understanding of Akkadian does not

allow all major crop species to be accurately translated to their Latin equivalents (Nesbitt

1995, 77). Secondly, the records as with most ancient literary sources, offer merely a snapshot

interpretation and likely do not represent norms of the region or time period (Nesbitt 1995,

77). As such, the following analysis of crops during the Bronze Age will focus on evidence

presented in the archaeobotanical record and will only cite primary sources for comparative

purposes.

Throughout the second half of the Bronze Age, most agricultural economies were based

! 9!

off of a wide spectrum of cereal species. During the 16th - 13th centuries BC, archaeological

sites across Anatolia and the Near East display a combination of Macaroni Wheat, Bread

Wheat, Emmer (Triticum dicoccum), and Barley (Hordeum vulgare) (Cizer 2006; Donmez 2005;

Riehl 2010; van zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985). While all of these crops were ubiquitous

throughout the era, some did wax and wane in regards to quantity, density, and perhaps

economic importance. Nesbitt (1995, 75-76) notes that generally in Anatolia, Einkorn and

Emmer dominated the crop spectrum and were quite frequent from the Neolithic until around

3000 BC (see also van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985). At this time, free-threshing (Macaroni

and Bread) wheat became most prevalent followed closely by Hulled Barley. Rye, Oats, and

Millet did not become frequent in the archaeobotanical record until the 2nd century AD.

While species fluctuated in frequency, Barley was the most ubiquitous throughout the entire

Bronze Age (Riehl 2012, 115).

Around the Middle Bronze Age, several other important crops including Olives (Olea

sp.), Grapes (Vitis sp.), Lentils (Lens sp.), and Flax (Linum sp.) became highly important

economic items (eg. Cappellini et al. 2009; Hamilakis 1999; Margaritis and Jones 2007;

Margaritis and Jones 2008; Salavert 2008). The regional and long distance exportation of

olive oil, linseed oil, and wine was a key element of state economies as many of these items

were sought as far away as the western Aegean (eg. Haldane 1993). The Bitter Vetch (Vicia

ervilia) also appears very frequently and in high concentrations within Bronze Age

archaeobotanical assemblages. Its particular function however remains debated as some

interpretations identify it as an important food crop (van zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982) while

others suggest it is unhealthy for human consumption and was more likely grown for animal

fodder (Anderson and Ertug-Yaras 1998; Cizer 2006, 77-78). Regardless of what species the

Bitter Vetch was grown to feed, it should be considered a significant Bronze Age crop.

! 10!

Why exactly the proportions of important crop species changed over time during the

Bronze Age is a complicated dilemma. The traditional response to this problem identifies

climate as the culprit and argues that environmental fluctuations in the Near East caused

agriculturalists to change their crops of choice (Riehl 2009; Weiss 1982). Alternatively, a less

environmentally deterministic perspective suggests that cultural preference and economic

incentives were most responsible for changes in crop proportions (eg. Halstead 2014). In all

likelihood it was probably a combination of the two.

Using carbon isotope data, Riehl (2012) connects a sudden increase in the proportion of

free-threshing wheat c. 2100 BC, to an episode of increased moisture and precipitation. A

century later (c. 2000 BC), the isotope data suggests that environmental conditions became

dry, and at this time barley returned to the top of the crop spectrum (Riehl 2012, 115). The

strong correlation between the fluctuating precipitation and dominating crops is convincingly

environmentally deterministic. Nesbitt (1995, 74) argues that upon the centralization of

populations into urban centers during the Bronze Age, free-threshing wheats provided an

optimal crop due to their positive response to increased manuring and relative ease of

processing en masse. Under this model, a switch to barley would have been more likely a

response to some environmental determinant than a culturally driven choice. Thus, when

environmental degradation occurred at the onset of the 21st century BC barley, a salt and

drought tolerant crop (Nesbitt 1995; see also Cizer 2006) offered the best solution. In this

particular case, an increase in grown barley could have been a direct result of environmental

fluctuation. Other events, such as the decrease of glume wheats in the Bronze Age, are likely

to have been a result of more complex processes involving cultural, economic, and

environmental influences.

The crops discussed above represent the most ubiquitous species recorded in Late

! 11!

Bronze Age assemblages. They are by no means comprehensive though as several species of

vegetables and fruits were grown in either fields or gardens throughout the Near East. For

taphonomical reasons, do not appear regularly in the archaeobotanical record (NB- For a list

and illustrations of less common Near Eastern crops, see van Zeist and Baaker-Heeres (1982,

1984, 1985) and for contemporaneous desiccated vegetable remains preserved in Egypt see

(van der Veen 2007)

2.2 Methods of Agriculture, Crop Processing, and Distribution ! Specific agricultural practices in the Bronze Age Near East are not well understood and

varied considerably across regions and through time. Evidence of such practices is slim which

creates a scenario that relies heavily upon analogy, ethnography, and archaeological proxies

such as archaeobotany and geochemisty. The following section will not attempt to present a

comprehensive exploration of Bronze Age agricultural practices, but instead will provide a

brief overview so that the significance of the charred plant remains analyzed from Alalakh can

be contextualized.

2.2.1 Tilling and Sowing ! The first stage of a successful cereal crop relies both on the tillage and planting

techniques, and, the season of sowing. Ethnographic work performed in Greece (Halstead

2014; Halstead and Jones 1989) and Turkey (Hillman 1984) identified planting strategies that

could have also occurred during the Bronze Age. Their studies display that in its most basic

form, the tillage of soil prior to planting could have been conducted by hand or with the aid of

! 12!

animal driven plows. Which method was utilized likely depended upon a number of factors

including the intensity of agriculture, size of plots, availability of animals, and availability of

personnel (see Halstead 2014 chapter 2). The planting of actual seeds was likely accomplished

by hand and in nearby Mesopotamia involved the use of a long stick to push the seeds deep

into the soil (Maekawa 1990).

The season of planting is highly strategic and has a strong influence on crop

survivability. Halstead notes that in Greece, “recent farmers regarded autumn-winter as the

most productive and reliable season for sowing the cereals…and pulses… [that would have

been] available in the prehistoric Mediterranean” (2014, 65). If sown to late in the winter or

spring, ethnographic sources reported that crops “were at the mercy of undependable March-

April rainfall…” (p. 65). As the seasonal weather patterns are similar between Greece and the

Amuq Plain, Bronze Age farmers at Alalakh and in north Syria might have practiced a similar

routine.

2.2.2 Irrigating ! According to Charles (1988, 2), crops in the Near East and Mesopotamia need

approximately 450 mm. of rain per year in order to survive. In the Mediterranean climate

zone of modern day north Syria, the mean yearly rainfall of 500-700 mm. (Riehl 2010, 124)

provides optimal conditions to support rain-fed agriculture where no additional irrigation is

necessary. Assuming that some parts of the Bronze Age were climatically similar to today, it is

likely that no irrigation was practiced. However, if during the Late Bronze Age predictions

are correct and temperatures rose while precipitation decreased (Riehl 2012), additional

irrigation would have been necessary to sustain intensive agriculture. (NB- van Zeist:1985,

! 13!

311 argues that even if necessary, irrigation would have been impossible in north Syria due to

low river levels during the summer season.) Charles (1988, 16-17) notes non-mechanized

irrigation methods of farmers in modern day Mesopotamia, these include; flooding,

introducing water through channels and furrows, or introducing water to constructed field

basins. As no direct archaeological evidence of irrigation has been recorded in north Syria, we

do not know under what method it might have been practiced.

2.2.3 Harvesting ! Bronze Age methods of harvesting were likely determined by technology, the intensity

of agriculture, and crop species. In general, two options existed: cutting with a blade, or

uprooting (see Halstead 2014, 88-89). Evidence for harvesting methods can be inferred

through the material and archaeobotanical record. Flint blades from sickles are commonly

found in LBA houses throughout the Near East (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 353) and

the greater Mediterranean region (Halstead 2014). It is therefore highly probable that

harvesting by cutting was at least practiced occasionally. A combination of archaeobotanical

samples composed of pure grain and grain mixed with cereal rachis and culm internodes

found at many Bronze Age sites suggests that both cutting and pulling were likely used (van

zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1985, 289).

2.2.4 Processing and Storing ! From ethnographic research performed in Turkey, Hillman notes “about 30 distinct

operations are involved in growing a crop and converting it to food…” (1984, 1). The

! 14!

specificity of the steps depends on whether the cereal is free-threshing (grains easily threshed

from the rachis) or in glumes (requires threshing by pounding or crushing). The traditional

steps of processing free-threshing cereals include; harvesting, drying, threshing by flailing or

trampling, winnowing, coarse sieving, fine sieving, and kiln drying (Hillman 1984, 4). The

processing of glume wheat follows a similar routine but with the addition of parching,

threshing by pounding, and a second winnowing and third sieving (p. 5). After drying, both

types of wheat are hand sorted, cracked, sifted, and then either roasted or milled (p. 6). Jones

(1984) conducted a similar ethnographic study in Greece and recorded a parallel sequence of

processing stages that suggests that these methods are at least somewhat consistent

throughout the Mediterranean.

The location of processing and storage activities depended on climate (Hillman 1984),

the intensity of agriculture, and distance of the fields from residential areas (G. Jones 2005).

Generally, in a dry climate such as north Syria, it would be expected that grain was processed

outside and stored clean (removed from glume spikelets) (Hillman 1984, 8; see G. Jones 1983

for an alternative dry-climate model). Due to the intensive agriculture at LBA urban centers,

it is likely that processing activities were performed away from the site proper (G. Jones

2005). During wet years, grain would have likely been processed inside and stored unclean

(within spikelets) to ensure better preservation (Hillman 1984, 8). As little archaeobotanical

sampling in the Near East has been conducted off-site, no direct evidence for processing in

the fields has been recovered. However, some proxies do exist to help predict the location of

processing activities. When a lack of processing residues is recovered from within site centers,

it is hypothesized that the activity could have been performed elsewhere (Riehl 2010). In

other instances, processing residues found within house structures suggests that at least some

times grain might have been stored uncleaned and processed piecemeal in individual

! 15!

residences (cf. van der Veen and Jones 2006). As such, the processing of grain likely took

place simultaneously within and away from urban centers.

2.2.5 Distribution ! Once grain was processed and stored, the final step was to distribute it to urban centers

and regional populations. It is known from cuneiform texts that both the Mitanni and Hittite

kingdoms controlled the trade and distribution of grain throughout their territories (see

Akkermans and Schwartz 2001; Fink 2010; Wiseman 1959). What is uncertain though is the

distance in which grain was traded and whether every household was tied to the redistributive

system. Akkermans and Schwartz (2001, 222) promote a staple finance model (see D'Altroy and

Earle 1985) in which “elites in chiefdoms or early states collect surplus staples from the

population, store them, and disburse them in order to support personnel engaged in elite-

sponsored tasks.” Archaeobotanical evidence for this model is exemplified through large grain

storage facilities at Raqa’i and ‘Atij (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 221), Titris Hoyk (Hald

2009), and Mitannian era Tell Brak (Charles and Bogaard 2001). However, while a large

redistributive model could explain elite and political trade, it might not necessarily incorporate

individual households or rural communities (eg. Fall, Lines, and Falconer 1998). Other

samples recovered from residential structures that contain mixed grain and chaff, or the by-

products of final processing stages might indicate the occurrence of extensive or household

agricultural regimes (see van der Veen and Jones 2006). (NB- Considering data from

Alalakh, the issue of storage and distribution will be explored further in Chapter 6) As with

many instances regarding agricultural practice, there exists no overarching model and it is

likely that both state controlled and household storage and processing of cereals occurred at

! 16!

Bronze Age sites throughout the Near East.

3. The Archaeological Site of Tell Atchana (Alalakh)

3.1 The Geography and Environment of the Amuq Plain in the Northern Levant Tell Atchana is located in the Amuq Plain (also referred to as the Plain of Antioch),

which runs longitudinally from the Hatay province of Southern Turkey into Northern Syria

(Casana 2009, 9) (See Figure 1.1). Located at 300 m.a.s.l and covering an area of 30x40

kilometers, the Amuq Plain presents a diverse and very hospitable landscape. The location of

the plain is within close proximity to several water sources including snow runoff from three

surrounding mountain ranges; the Amanus Mountains, the Jebel al-Aqra, and the Kurt Dag,

as well as several lakes and the Orontes River (pg.10). Climatically, the Amuq is located on

the border of the Mediterranean and inland Anatolian climate zones. As such, it receives

abundant winter and spring rainfall but suffers extremely hot and dry summers (p.9). On

average the region receives approximately 500-700mm of precipitation a year, which despite

its dry seasons, places the plain high on the scale of Mediterranean rainfall (Riehl 2010, 124).

Overall, the modern day Amuq Plain offers an optimal location for a variety of agricultural

activities.

Despite the favorable climatic conditions observed in the Amuq region today, it might

not have always been so stable. At the onset of the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000 BC),

palaeoclimatic data indicates a decrease in annual precipitation (Riehl, Bryson, and

Pustovoytov 2008, 1014) that, according to stable isotope analysis from crop remains, did not

recover until the end of the EBA (c. 2100 BC) (Riehl 2012, 115). Throughout the majority of

! 17!

the Bronze Age, the climate stabilized providing much precipitation and optimal

temperatures. During the Late Bronze Age (c. 1600 BC), however, the climate undulated

between agriculturally favorable and detrimental conditions.

Palaeoenvironmental data indicates a period of increased temperature and aridity at the

onset of the Late Bronze Age (Riehl 2010, 123). Carbon isotope data corroborates the pollen

record and suggests that this aridity throughout the Amuq region increased steadily

throughout the LBA (Riehl, Bryson, and Pustovoytov 2008, 1018). Interestingly though, the

isotope record obtained from Alalakh shows a slight increase in annual moisture during the

second half of the 2nd millennium BC (p. 1014). This inconsistency could by explained by the

possibility that the tested Alalakh cereals are outliers to the mean, were grown away from and

transported into the Amuq Plain, or that the agricultural zones of Alalakh existed in a

microclimate unaffected by the regional norm. Near the end of the LBA (c. 1000 BC), Alalakh

and its surroundings joined the rest of the Levant region in a rather massive climatic event

that resulted in cooler temperatures and very low amounts of rainfall (Riehl 2010, 124). This

sudden and increased aridity is believed to have had considerable influence on agricultural

yield and in some cases is blamed for the very end of Bronze Age urban centers in the Near

East (Al-Maqdissi et al. 2007; Drews 1993; Harrison 2010; Wilkinson 1997). However, as

will be discussed later in this dissertation, the environment might not have been completely

responsible for the decisions made by Near Eastern populations.

3.2 Excavation History Alalakh, originally termed site 136 and subsequently Tell Atchana, was first recorded by

American Robert Braidwood in the 1930’s (Yener 2007, 152). Excavations began at the site in

! 18!

1936 when Leonard Woolley turned his focus to the Amuq region after finishing work at the

cemeteries of Ur. Woolley’s excavations at Alalakh continued for three years until work

ceased due to the onset of the Second World War in 1939. After the war, Woolley and his

team from the University of Chicago returned in 1946 and worked for three seasons before

finishing in 1949 (Casana 2009, 10). Woolley’s initial excavations identified palace and

fortress structures typical of the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Woolley 1955).

Woolley’s excavation made the first attempt to develop a chronology for Alalakh and through

the identification of building and destruction episodes, developed a complex urban

stratigraphy composed of 18 levels spanning the Early Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age.

Recent interpretations of Woolley’s levels with the aid of radiocarbon dating have discovered

that although the original levels offer convenient categories, they must be treated with

suspicion as they are inconsistant across the site (see Fink 2010). For the sake of simplicity, as

several volumes have been devoted to the debate of Alalakh’s chronology (eg. Albright 1957;

Barnett 1957; Carre Gates 1981; Gates 1987; Fink 2010; Yener et al. 2000), levels discussed in

this dissertation will follow Fink (2010, 2-3; see also Cizer 2006, 29), which were radiocarbon

dated with decent consistency (Figure 3.2.1).

While finds and site interpretations will be discussed shortly in more detail, it is worth

briefly noting some highly significant discoveries made during Woolley’s excavations. In levels

Figure 3.2.1- Dates of Alalakh Levels

! 19!

VII and IV, several hundred burned cuneiform texts were uncovered. Written in Akkadian,

these descriptive artifacts cover a wide range of topics including poetry, stories, receipts,

rations, and political treaties (Fensham and de Boer 1960; Goetze 1959; Kilmer 1974;

Lauinger 2005; Speiser 1954; Wiseman 1959). Other items of note uncovered during the early

20th century excavations at Alalakh include inscribed cylinder seals, fragmented Egyptian

Sphinx, and a variety of ceramics from across the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean (See

Woolley 1955). While these initial excavations focused primarily on interpreting the site

through sequencing art and architecture, Woolley’s research at Alalakh provided a framework

for Bronze Age archaeology in Northern Syria and the Levant and, established a chronology

for the region that remains in use today.

After the end of Woolley’s work at Alalakh in 1949, excavations (and/or the publications

of research) fell dormant until 1995 with the initiation of the Amuq Valley Regional Project

(AVRP) directed by Ashilan Yener from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago

(Yener et al. 2000; see also Casana 2009, 8). The goals of the AVRP were twofold and sought

to both continue excavations at Alalakh and, to perform a comprehensive survey of the

landscape surrounding the Bronze Age center so that its economic and political relation to

nearby agricultural communities could be better understood. While the AVRP ended in 1998

after the recording of 183 archaeological sites, Yener continues to excavate at Alalakh under

the joint auspices of American and Turkish universities (Yener et al. 2000; Fink 2010). While

Woolley’s initial work at the site was rather inclusive and focused on establishing a local

chronology, Yener’s research has focused on placing the urban center of Alalakh within a

geographically and culturally broad socio-economic network (Yener et al. 2000; Yener 2001;

Yener, Schloen, and Fink 2004; Yener, Schloen, and Fink 2005; Yener 2005; Yener 2007). As

a result, this multifaceted research approach has generated a large interest in archaeological

! 20!

and anthropological topics that extend beyond architecture and into the realms of culture,

local lifestyles, politics, and economics.

3.3 Alalakh: The Archaeology Now that the historical, agricultural, and environmental scenes for the Near Eastern

Late Bronze Age have been set, it is appropriate to investigate Alalakh from an archaeological

perspective. Evidence for socio-economic and political reconstructions at Alalakh comes from

archaeological interpretations and a large database of inscriptions and cuneiform tablets (see

Wiseman 1953; 1959). As we shall see, the social and economic systems at Alalakh were quite

complex and remained relatively consistent through time despite several episodes of political

strife. Architecturally and structurally, however, the site transformed roughly every hundred

years between the 16-14th centuries BC.

As previously noted, Woolley’s initial excavations at Alalakh identified 18 architectural

levels (XVIII - I) spanning from c. 2000 BC into the 12th century BC (Woolley 1955). Four

levels (V - II) were attributed to the Late Bronze Age, each representing relatively fine-

resolution ‘low chronologies’ (see Novak 2007) spanning approximately 75 years each.

Level V (c. 1550 − 1435 BC): ! Level V at Alalakh existed within the realm of the Mitanni kingdom under the authority

of the local and regional king Idrimi (Novak 2007). Idrimi is perhaps the best-represented

political figure at the site due to the large inscription found on a bust of him in this level

(Woolley 1955). Aside from some internal political friction, the era of Idrimi’s rule seems to

! 21!

have existed rather peacefully. The city during this period is typified by the construction of a

large palatial structure, a fortress, and a city wall (Woolley 1955). It is suspected that large

blocks of private houses existed within the site during this time, but evidence is scant due to

reconstruction during later levels (p. 174). During the period of level V, Alalakh was likely an

important center for regional and international trade, as is exemplified by the occurrence of

several long-distance luxury items including Mycenaean ceramics (Barnett 1957; Morris and

Crouwel 1985), Minoan style frescoes (Woolley 1955) and ivory artifacts and whole tusks

imported from India (Woolley 1955; Yener 2007). This level seems to represent the political

and economic apex of Alalakh during the Late Bronze Age and during this time the site grew

to 350-400 households (c. 2,100 − 4,000 people: Casana 2009, 29-30) and became the largest

(by area) tell site in Anatolia and north Syria (Fink 2010, 133).

Level IV (c. 1435 − 1370 BC): ! For the majority of its occupation, Level IV existed as more or less a continuation of

Level V. Niqmepa, son of Idrimi, became king of Alalakh and the city remained as a vassal

state under the greater kingdom of Mukis (Akkermans and Schwartz 2001, 334). During this

period the site grew substantially in size with the construction of another palace under the

auspices of Niqmepa (Fink 2010), and the construction of several multi-roomed and multi-

storied private houses (Woolley 1955, 176-177). The majority of cuneiform texts recovered

from the site were located in this level and depict a socially stratified culture with a strong

economy based on trade specialization, agriculture, and both regional and long distance trade

(see Wiseman 1953). Connections to the Aegean are once again visible during this period as

the newly constructed palace of Niqmepa displaying architectural features and frescoes

! 22!

parallel in style to Knossos (Barnett 1957, 356). Whereas most of Level IV was peaceful, the

final decades of the period are marked by war and physical destruction. In close succession

we see the construction of several defensive structures followed by a nearly complete

destruction of the site (Fink 2010, 51-52). This sacking of Alalakh is attributed to the invasion

of Suppiluliuma (Cizer 2006, 29) and marks the political transition of the city from Mitanni to

Hittite rule. From this point on, Alalakh existed as a vassal state under Hattic authority.

Level III (c. 1370 − 1313 BC): ! Alalakh during level III marks the final stage of the site’s existence as a city, after which

it transitioned into a marginally populated outpost (Fink 2010, 120). Under the rule of

Suppiluliuma I, the site was rebuilt in the style and layout of levels V - IV, but to a much

smaller proportion (Woolley 1955, 183). Evidence of Hittite control becomes visible with the

construction of a new palace (Yener 2005) and governors residence (Yener, Schloen, and

Fink 2005). The regional economy likely shrunk during this era as a substantial portion of the

Mukis kingdom was traded by Suppiluliuma I to Ugarit (Fink 2010, 120). The extent of

international trade is less certain but likely remained strong considering the highest

concentration of Mycenaean ceramics was found in this level (Morris and Crouwel 1985, 86).

Overall throughout Level III we see Alalakh still functioning as an important center but

gradually declining in size and power.

! 23!

Level II (c. 1313 − 1240 BC): ! The layout of Alalakh level II displays a considerable decrease in size and almost

complete disintegration of the city structure. The palace became completely abandoned and

the only official structure on the site was the Hittite governors’ residence that was likely used

as a garrison (Yener, Schloen, and Fink 2005, 46). Unlike any earlier period, the houses of

level II do not adhere to any architectural or city plan and are all differently sized and

randomly placed throughout the site (Woolley 1955, 185). This suggests a fallout of urban

planning and probably a significant decrease in the site’s population. Despite a regression in

the city’s physical appearance, the economy of Alalakh seems to have remained unaffected.

Aegean ceramics were still imported into the site (Morris and Crouwel 1985, 86) and Alalakh

during this period is mentioned in Hittite texts as being an important regional supply and

store of agricultural products (Fink 2010, 139). The end of level II is marked by destruction,

Woolley notes, as nearly every private house was burned, and hundreds of bronze arrowheads

and sling bullets were recovered in the streets (1955, 185). The details of this final destruction

are vague, but the city never recovered and Alalakh was more or less abandoned thereafter.

3.4 Agriculture at Alalakh !3.4.1 Archaeological and Textual Evidence Some archaeological interpretations and artifacts at Alalakh have provided information

regarding the site’s agricultural economy. During the excavations of the palace and private

houses in levels V - IV, Woolley documented several grain ‘store rooms’ marked by the

occurrence of large pithoi vessels (Woolley 1955). These were unfortunately never tested for

! 24!

archaeobotanical remains. The existence of grain stores in private and official buildings might

suggest that agricultural production and storage at the site occurred as state level

redistribution and household level subsistence farming. The possibility of the later is

reinforced by additional ‘storage’ containers located in specialized “kitchen wings” of elite

houses (Woolley 1955, 178).

The cuneiform texts from Alalakh level IV provide an excellent snapshot of the city’s

agricultural economy. Amongst the several hundred texts that were translated, the most

frequent crops listed are barley, hulled Emmer, clean Emmer, and an ambiguous vetch

(Wiseman 1953, 15). The texts offer short but descriptive data as they discriminate between

hulled and clean cereals and note specific activities related to each product. Sale receipts show

that barley, Emmer, and vetches were commonly used as currency for the purchase of both

land and entire villages (eg. ATT/39/74, 39/156, 39/171. 38/177) (pp. 47-52). Several of the

receipts were for the purchase of farmland by private individuals showing once again the

existence of household level agriculture. Many ration lists and receipts indicate that vetches

were exclusively grown for animal (mainly horse) fodder (eg. AT/39/58, 39/126) (pp. 82-83).

Barley seems to have been primarily used for the production of beer followed by animal

fodder and then human food (pp. 80-83). Emmer is listed mostly as an imported grain from

regional villages for the use of human consumption and beer production (eg. ATT/39/59) (p.

87). Other, more general ration lists mention emmer, vetches, and barley being sent into the

city center, stored, and then redistributed back to towns under Alalakh’s control (pp. 88-89).

Overall the texts show that agricultural products had very specific uses and, as suspected, the

agricultural economy at Alalakh was multi-scalar.

! 25!

3.4.2 Archaeobotanical Evidence Previous published archaeobotanical research at Alalakh was conducted by Simone

Riehl (Riehl, Bryson, and Pustovoytov 2008; Riehl 2009; Riehl 2010; Riehl 2012; Riehl et al.

2012) and by Ozgur Cizer (2006) as a master’s dissertation. Both projects analyzed several

samples from levels V - II and interpreted the results with relatively similar conclusions.

During the 2003-2004 seasons, Riehl floated 248 archaeobotanical samples. Of these, only 13

were analyzed based on the criteria of only selecting those with a minimum of 50 identifiable

seeds (Riehl 2010, 126). The most ubiquitous crop species recorded in the samples were Olive

(Olea europaea), indeterminable cereals, and free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum) (p.

127). The most common cereals included free-threshing wheat, barley (Hordeum vulgare), and a

few Emmer (Triticum dicoccum) grains. Very little chaff was recorded from any of the samples

and only a single Bread Wheat (Trit. aestivum) rachis was recovered (p. 127). Of the large

quantities of free-threshing wheat recorded, Riehl suggests that given the local environmental

conditions, they are likely to be primarily Bread Wheat instead of Macaroni Wheat (Trit.

durum). (p. 127). The few Emmer grains were located as a single find and do “not demonstrate

[an] established [crop]…produced on a large-scale at Late Bronze Age Alalakh” (p. 128). In

addition to low amounts of Emmer, Riehl notes a “surprising” lack of fig (Ficus sp.) and flax

(Linum sp.) in comparison to other contemporary sites nearby (p. 128). In regards to weed and

wild species, Canary Grass (Phalaris sp.) was the most ubiquitous and was interpreted as

evidence of nearby moist fields (p. 128). Overall, Riehl summarized Late Bronze Age

agriculture at Alalakh as unchanging between Mitannian and Hittite rule, and fitting

parameters of a ‘consumer’ due to the low frequencies of cereal chaff and visible processing

activities (Riehl 2010).

! 26!

In a related study during 2003-2004, Cizer analyzed 35 archaeobotanical samples from a

variety of contexts including room floors, ceramic vessels, ovens, and postholes (Cizer 2006,

34). The report identifies pulses as the most ubiquitous species followed by barley and free-

threshing wheat (p. 74). Similar to Riehl (2010), this study recorded no Emmer chaff and

little free-threshing wheat or barley rachii (p. 74). Overall this study interpreted the

agricultural economy of Alalakh as highly intensive relying primarily on barley and the

possible cultivation of vetches. In line with Riehl, Cizer considers Alalakh to be primarily a

grain consumer.

4. Methodology !4.1 Field Methods ! During the seasons of 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, approximately 731.5 liters of

soil representing 150 samples were floated at Alalakh for archaeobotanical remains. The exact

methodology of sampling and flotation are not certain as other parties carried out these

activities. Based on previous work at the site, it is expected that all samples were floated using

a three-tiered flotation tank with a collection mesh finer than 250 micrometers (see Cizer

2006). Samples were collected from a wide variety of contexts including; rooms floors,

architectural fill, walls, ovens, kilns, ceramic vessels, hearths, and other miscellaneous features

(Figure 4.1.1). Sampling strategies are uncertain but given the composition of the samples

some hypotheses can be formed. All of the archaeobotanical material from 2006 is

exceptionally large (> 3mm in size) and every sample is dense. It is therefore suspected that

the samples were spot-sampled when visible to the excavators’ naked eye. The samples from

! 27!

the other seasons represent a much wider gradient of specimen size and sample density. Thus,

a more systematic and random sampling regime is hypothesized for the 2008, 2010, 2011, and

2012 seasons.

The location of the collected samples were mapped and attributed to contexts according

to the methods established by Yener (see Cizer 2006, 34). Each sample is labeled, in order of

increased resolution, by: level, area, square, lot, and locus. For many, but not all of the

samples, a brief description of the context was provided. Beyond context description and site

Figure 4.1.1- Distribution of Sample Contexts

! 28!

level, more detailed information, such as where specifically in the site the samples were

collected from, is not yet published and was therefore unavailable for this dissertation.

4.2 Lab Methods ! This study analyzed 45 archaeobotanical samples that were chosen from a total of 150

samples obtained from 731.5 liters of floated soil. From these samples 16,331 charred

botanical remains were identified. The methods of lab preparation and analysis are discussed

below.

4.2.1 Sample Preparation ! For this dissertation, the samples discussed in the previous section were transported

from the University of Oxford to the Archaeobotany Laboratory at the University of

Sheffield. The 150 samples (both flots and heavy residues) were first screened for

presence/absence of charred plant remains. Samples that contained at least 10 identifiable

specimens were chosen for analysis. Based on these criteria in addition to selecting samples

from a mostly equal distribution of levels, 45 of the 150 samples were chosen for analysis (See

Figure 4.2.1)

Before analysis, the samples were first sieved and separated into 4 size fractions: 4mm,

1mm, 250 micrometers, <250 micrometers. One sample from each level was scanned for

micro-remains (<1mm) and only small amounts of Plantago sp. and Phalaris sp. were identified.

Considering the low species diversity of the <1mm gradients, none were included in the

project. After sieving, some large samples were sub-sampled with a riffle box by 1/2, 1/4, or

! 29!

1/8 proportion. All sub-sampling followed the methodology outlined in van der Veen and

Fieller (1982) and took into consideration species diversity before riffling. Samples with low

diversity were not sub-sampled so that rare species would not be disproportionately

represented.

4.2.2 Specimen Identification ! Every sample was subjected to microscopic analysis using a Ceti VariZoom microscope

at 10x - 80x magnification. Species level identification was attempted for every specimen but

for various reasons this resolution was not always possible, in which case specimens were

Figure 4.2.1 – Sample Distribution From Alalakh Levels

! 30!

identified to genus. Some species were binned into general categories (eg. Small Seeded

Legumes, Medium Wild Grasses, Small Wild Grasses, etc) because species-level identification

would have been extremely difficult for these particular specimens and finer-resolution

identification would not have provided any additional important information.

Identifications were made using a combination of the University of Sheffield’s

archaeobotanical reference collection and several manuals to seed identification (Anderberg

1994; Berggren 1969; Berggren 1981; Martin and Barkley 2000; Nesbitt 2009). Free-

threshing wheat rachii were identified using characteristics presented in van Zeist and

Bakker-Heeres (1982). Due to their nearly indistinguishable characteristics, Bread and

Macaroni wheat grains were not differentiated and were collectively labelled as Triticum cf.

Aestivum/Durum. “New Glume Wheat” chaff and potential grains were identified using criteria

presented in Jones et al. (2000) with additional aid from Mike Charles and Glynis Jones (See

Figure 4.2.2). The expertise of Charles and Jones was also called upon to help identify

specimens that were not present in the reference collection or well represented in manuals (eg.

Prosopis farcta, ‘New Type’ Glume Wheat, wild grasses, etc).

4.2.3 Data Quantification ! Individual specimens were counted and then, if sub-sampled, were multiplied up to the

highest fraction of the sample (see van der Veen and Fieller 1982, 296). Whole glume bases

were counted as ‘1’ unit and half glumes as ‘.5’ units. While all cereal grains and grain

fragments were extracted from the archaeobotanical samples, only whole grains or grain bases

(embryo visible) were counted. Only legumes representing the entire or more than half of the

specimen were counted. Whole olive pips and olive pip fragments (>1mm) were quantified

! 31!

independently as it would not be possible to compare whole olives to fragmented pieces. All

quantifications were placed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and are available in Appendix

1. In total, 16,331 identifiable specimens were counted.

!

4.3 Statistical Methods ! The analysis of the archaeobotanical samples relied heavily on the utilization of

multivariate and bivariate statistical techniques. Many of these (eg. triplots, ratios, correlation

tests, etc.) are rather straightforward and will be explained in brief when encountered. Two

multivariate techniques, correspondence and discriminant analysis, require a more complex

Figure 4.2.2- A Comparison of ‘New Type’ Glume Base (Left), to Emmer Glume Base (Right). Characterizing features used to identify ‘New Type’ Glume wheat included curved shape and noticeable ridge. Emmer is more ‘V’ shaped with flat (no ridge) glumes.

! 32!

methodology and will be discussed in more detail.

4.3.1 Correspondence Analysis ! Correspondence analysis is a multivariate ordination technique designed to aid in

pattern searching and cluster analysis amongst large datasets. Correspondence analysis of

archaeobotanical data produces axes “along which it places each sample according to its

botanical composition (sample plot) or each species in terms of its coincidence with other

botanical components in samples (species plot)” (Charles and Bogaard 2001, 315). Points that

are situated near the origin of the two axes share similar compositions. Lange (1990, 44) notes

“the direction of a point away from the origin indicates a specific diversion in the distribution

of that species or sample, while the distance away from the origin indicates the degree of the

diversion.” Points that are plotted close together anywhere on the ordination plot share similar

botanical components while points far away from each other possess different components

(see also G. Jones 1991, 72-73; Lange 1990).

In order to produce clear ordination plots some preliminary preparation of the

archaeobotanical data was necessary. To avoid misleading plots caused by outlying data,

samples and species with less than 10 specimens were not included in the correspondence

analysis. All correspondence analyses and plots used in the dissertation were created using the

programs CANOCO and CANODRAW.

4.3.2 Discriminant Analysis ! During two unrelated but similar ethnographic studies, Hillman (1984) and Jones

! 33!

(1983; 1987) were able to identify the products and by-products of different crop processing

stages by analyzing proportions of field weeds present in archaeobotanical samples. This

dissertation follows the methodology of Jones (1983; 1987) who recorded the modern weed

seed composition of samples during different cereal crop processing stages on the Greek

Island of Amorgos. Seeds, depending on their size, density, and subjectivity to flight

(headedness) are affected differently by winnowing and sieving. Based on these attributes,

seeds can be classified one of the following: Small, Free, Light; Small, Headed, Light; Small,

Headed, Heavy; Big, Headed, Heavy; Small, Free, Heavy; Big, Free, Heavy (1987, 313).

Assemblages of seeds with similar anatomical features are created during the major stages of

crop processing. These assemblages are classified in order of their stage: Winnowing By-

Products, Coarse Sieving By-Products, Fine Sieving By-Products, and Fine Sieving Products.

The samples of seeds unique to each processing stage were quantified based on their

proportions of seed classifications and then subjected to discriminant analysis. Similar to

correspondence analysis, discriminant plots display points (samples) in relation to their

compositions and known crop processing stage. Archaeobotanical samples can be added to

Jones’ model and attributed to a most-likely crop processing stage based on the samples’

compositions of weed seeds (see G. Jones 1983; 1987).

To prepare the Alalakh samples for comparison to Jones’ Amorgos data, the species had

to first be categorized into the various classifications discussed above (Figure 4.3.1). Samples

and species with fewer than 10 specimens were excluded from this analysis. Once classified,

the total number of seeds in each category were added together and the proportion of each

seed classification per sample was calculated. Following the methods of Jones (1987), the

square root of each proportion was then calculated (See Appendix 2). Using the discriminant

analysis tool in the SPSS statistics package, the Alalakh samples were compared with and

! 34!

reclassified to Jones’ data and crop processing stages. The most likely and second most likely

stage for each sample was predicted. The results of the Alalakh sample reclassifications are

listed in Appendix 2. Of the 45 samples, 3 were classified as Stage-1 (Winnowing By-

Prodcut), 11 as Stage-3 (Fine Sieve By-Product), and 31 as Stage-4 (Fine Sieve Product)

(See Figure 4.3.2.).

!

!!!!

Figure 4.3.1 – Wild/Weed Species Discriminant Categories (following Jones 1983).

!

! 35!

5. Results The results from analyzing the Alalakh samples will be discussed below in terms of

species ubiquity and density in addition to ratios of grain-to-chaff, rachii-to-glume bases,

Triticum aestivum-to-Triticum durum, wild/weeds-to-cultivars, and preservation based on the

ratio of indeterminable grains-to-identifiable grains. Cereals and wild/weed species will be

Figure 4.3.2- Distribution of Discriminant Classifications for Alalakh Samples

! 36!

discussed independently. See Appendix 1 for raw data counts.

5.1 Entire Site ! Considering all 45 samples analyzed (16,331 specimens) from Alalakh, the most

common cereal types at the site are free-threshing wheats (slightly more Macaroni Wheat

than Bread Wheat, .75 Trit. aestivum : 1Trit durum estimated from rachii), barley, Emmer, and

occasional New Glume type wheat. Common economic plants at the site include Bitter vetch

(Vicia ervilia), two species of Olive (Olea europaea and Olea Type 1), Grape (Vitis vinifera), Lentil

(Lens culinaris), Fig (Ficus sp) and isolated occurrences of wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca) and

mesquite fruit (Prosopis farcta). Common wild taxa at the site include Ryegrass (Lolium

temulentum), small seeded legumes, Canarygrass (Phalaris sp.), unidentified large wild grasses,

Burclover (Medicago sp.), Sorrel (Rumex sp.), Bedstraw (Galium aparine), Scorpion Vetch

(Coronilla sp.), and Thymelaea sp. (See Figure 5.1.1)

Figure 5.1.1- Correspondence Analysis Species Plot, All Alalakh Samples

! 37!

The ten most ubiquitous taxa at the entire site are: Indeterminate cereals, free-threshing-

wheat grains, Vicia ervilia, Lolium temulentum, small seeded legumes, barley grains, Phalaris sp.,

unidentified large wild grasses, Medicago sp., and hulled barley grains (Figure 5.1.2). The ten

densest taxa at the site are: Indeterminable cereal, free-threshing wheat grains, Coronilla sp.,

unidentified large wild grasses, Vicia ervilia, Rumex, sp., Lolium temulentum, small seeded

legumes, Thymelaea sp., and Olea sp. Fragments (Figure 5.1.2). Overall, cereals greatly

outnumber chaff (16:1), and free-threshing wheat and barley rachii outnumber glume bases

(3:1). Weeds and wild species are only slightly outnumbered by cultivated taxa (.75:1). The

preservation of archaeobotanical remains at Alalakh is rather poor considering indeterminable

cereals represent 65% of the total cereal assemblage (NB- Preservation was estimated by

comparing the proportions of indeterminate and taphonomically damaged grain to in-tact and

identifiable grain.)

5.2 Level V ! Of the 18 samples (12,667 specimens) analyzed from Level V, the most common cereal

Figure 5.1.2- Ten most ubiquitous and densest species amongst all Alalakh samples. Matching species are color coded for clarity.

! 38!

taxa are: free-threshing wheat (1.2 Durum : 1 Aestivum), barley, some Emmer, and New Glume

type wheat. The most common economic taxa are: Vicia ervilia, Lens culinaris, Vitis vinifera, and

very few Olea sp. 1 pips. Common wild taxa include: Phalaris sp., small seeded legumes, Lolium

temulentum, Medicago sp., Rumex, sp., Coronilla sp., Galium aparine, Thymelaea sp., and Galium

spurium.

The ten most ubiquitous taxa in Level V are: free-threshing wheat grains, indeterminate cereal

grains, Vicia ervilia, Phalaris sp., small seeded legumes, Lolium temulentum, Medicago sp., barley

grains, hulled barley grains, large wild grasses (See Figure 5.2.1). The ten densest taxa in

Level V are: indeterminate cereal grains, Coronilla sp., large wild grasses, free-threshing wheat

grains, Vicia ervilia, Rumex sp., small seeded legumes, Thymelaea sp., Lolium temulentum, and

barley grains (Figure 5.2.2). Cereal grain greatly outnumbers chaff (16:1), and free-threshing

wheat and barley rachii outnumber glume bases (3:1). Cultivated taxa only slightly

outnumber wild taxa (1.2:1). The preservation of Level V is rather poor with indeterminate

grains representing 64% of the total number of cereals (See Figure 5.6.5).

Figure 5.2.1 – Top 10 Ubiquitous Taxa, Level V

! 39!

!!!!!!!!!5.3 Level IV ! Of the 13 samples (2,635 specimens) analyzed from Alalakh Level IV, the most common

cereal taxa are: free-threshing wheat (2.5 durum : 1 aestivum), barley, Emmer, and a single

occurrence of New Type glume wheat. The most common economic taxa are: Vicia ervilia, Lens

culinaris, and Vitis vinifera. Common wild taxa include: Lolium temulentum, large wild grasses,

small seeded legumes, Medicago sp., Rumex sp., Phalaris sp., Thymelaea, sp., Galium aparine, and

small wild grasses.

Figure 5.2.2- Top 10 Densest Species, Level V

! 40!

The ten most ubiquitous taxa in Level IV are: free threshing wheat grains, indeterminate

cereal grains, Lolium temulentum, Vicia ervilia, large wild grasses, barley grains, small seeded

legumes, hulled barley grains, Medicago sp., and Rumex sp. (Figure 5.3.1). The ten densest taxa

in Level IV are: Indeterminate cereals, free-threshing wheat grains, Lolium temulentum, Rumex

sp., Triticum sp. grains, Vicia ervilia, cereal internodes, cf. free-threshing wheat grains, barley

grains, and small seeded legumes (Figure 5.3.2). Grain outnumbers chaff (13:1). Rachii are

present in a higher quantity than glumes (3:1), and cultivated taxa outnumber wild taxa (3:1).

Preservation is slightly better than Level V with indeterminate grains representing 62% of the

total grains (Figure 5.6.5).

!!!

Figure 5.3.1- Top 10 Ubiquitous Taxa, Level IV

! 41!

!!!

5.4 Level III ! Of the 2 samples (245 specimens) analyzed from Alalakh Level III, the most common

cereals are: free-threshing wheat (unknown proportions of Durum/Aestivum), barley, and small

amounts of Emmer. The most common economic taxa are: Lens culinaris, Vicia ervilia, Vitis

vinifera, Ficus sp., and Prosopis farcta. The most common wild taxa are: Lolium temulentum,

Astragalus sp., Cyperaceae sp., and Medicago sp.

The most ubiquitous taxa (represented in both samples) are: barley grains, free-

threshing wheat grains, and Lolium temulentum (Figure 5.4.1.). The ten densest taxa in

Figure 5.3.2- Top 10 Densest Species, Level IV

! 42!

Level IV are: large wild grasses, indeterminate cereal grains, Lolium temulentum, Lolium sp.,

free-threshing wheat grains, Fabaceae sp., Ficus sp., Vicia ervilia, medium wild grasses, and barley

grains (Figure 5.4.2). Grain drastically outnumbers chaff (70:1) considering a single barley

rachis fragment was identified in this level. Cultivated taxa are slightly outnumbered by wild

species (.8:1). Preservation is slightly better than Levels V and IV as indeterminate cereals

represent 60% of the total grains (Figure 5.6.5).

Figure 5.4.1- Top 10 Ubiquitous Taxa, Level III

Figure 5.4.2- Top 10 Densest Species, Level III

! 43!

5.5 Level II ! Of the 12 samples (784 specimens) analyzed in Alalakh Level II, the most common

cereals are: free-threshing wheat (as no chaff was identified, the ratio of Durum/Aestivum is

unknown), Emmer, and barley. The most common economic taxa are: Vicia ervilia, Olea sp.

fragments, Olea sp. 1 pips, Olea europaea, and Vitis vinifera. The most common wild taxa in Level

II are: Lolium temulentum, small seeded legumes, Lolium sp., and small wild grasses.

The ten most ubiquitous taxa in Level II are: indeterminate cereals, Vicia ervilia, Lolium

temulentum, Olea sp. fragments, small seeded legumes, free-threshing wheat grains, Triticum sp.

grains, Olea sp. 1, Emmer grains, and cf. cereal/Lolium sp. (Figure 5.5.1). The ten densest taxa

in Level II are: large wild grasses, indeterminate cereals, Lolium temulentum, cf. Lolium sp., free-

threshing wheat grains, Fabaceae sp., Ficus spl, Vicia ervilia, medium wild grasses, and barley

grains (Figure 5.5.2). The samples from Level II are composed of pure grain and cultivated

taxa outnumber wild taxa (1.2:1). Preservation in Level II is the best in the entire site with

indeterminate cereals representing 36% of the total cereal count (Figure 5.6.5).

Figure 5.5.1- Top 10 Ubiquitous Taxa, Level II

! 44!

5.6 Alalakh Levels: Trends and Changes ! Across the five levels and through time at Alalakh, some trends and changes in the

sample composition do emerge. The species composition of samples remains mostly consistent

across the levels and only minor variations occur. No level is significantly distinct in terms of

species composition from another (See Figure 5.6.1). However, cereals do exhibit some

noticeable trends and diachronic changes. Free-threshing wheat consistently dominates the

cereal composition throughout every level at the site. Durum wheat is proportionately equal to

aestivum in level V, but doubles in level IV before disappearing in levels III and II. Barley is

Figure 5.5.2- Top 10 Densest Species, Level II

! 45!

the second most common cereal from level V - II, but varies in relation to the free-threshing

wheat. In level II, the proportion of Emmer overtakes barley to become the second most

common cereal. New Type glume wheat is evident in levels V - IV but disappears altogether

by level III (See Figure 5.6.2).

Figure 5.6.1- Correspondence Analysis Sample Plot (Labeled by Level)

Figure 5.6.2- Cereal Compositions Across Alalakh Levels

! 46!

The proportions of chaff remain relatively low in comparison to cereal grains across

levels V - IV and drop drastically by level III before disappearing in level II (See Figure

5.6.3). The proportion of free-threshing wheat and barley rachii to glume bases remain 3:1

throughout levels V - IV before disappearing altogether in levels III - II (Figure 5.6.4). The

archaeobotanical preservation of the levels hovers consistently between levels V - III with

indeterminate cereals representing c. 60% of all cereal grains. In level II the preservation

greatly improves with indeterminate cereals representing only 36% of the total cereal grain

count (Figure 5.6.5).

Figure 5.6.3- Grain-to-Chaff Ratio Across Alalakh Levels

! 47!

Figure 5.6.4- Rachis-to-Glume Base Ratio Across Alalakh Levels

Figure 5.6.5- Indeterminate Cereal-to-Total Cereal Ratio Across Alalakh Levels. Used to Predict Level Preservation

! 48!

While the sample composition does not drastically change over time at Alalakh, the type

of samples (eg. processing stage) found in each layer tends to vary. Samples classified as fine

sieve by-products are found almost entirely in levels V - IV, with some in level II and very

little in level III. The majority of samples classified as fine sieve products are found in level II

with lower counts distributed between levels V and IV. No fine sieve products were recorded

in level III. Samples representing possible fodder (high proportions of both barley and Vicia

ervilia: see Ch. 6 for more information) are found mainly in levels V - IV with some in level III

(See figure 5.6.6).

Upon preliminary inspection, the sample composition and species distributions across

the Alalakh levels are rather similar in makeup and do not seem to represent any large-scale

patterns or clusters. The most obvious change over time is perhaps the noticeable drop in

cereal chaff between levels V - IV and levels III - II. Fortunately, archaeobotany has in its

possession a large interrogative arsenal and through more detailed analysis, several spatial and

chronological patterns at Alalakh will be identified.

Figure 5.6.6- Distributions of Crop Processing Classifications, Possible Fodder Samples, and Chaff Heavy Samples Across the Alalakh Levels

! 49!

6. Discussion Interpreting the agricultural practices at ancient Alalakh requires spinning a complex

and convoluted web of ratios, trends, correlations, and clusters. The following discussion will

attempt to tackle this problem by starting small and building to a larger agricultural model.

Beginning with sample deposition and formation processes, this discussion will progress into

interpreting agricultural techniques and activities before scrutinizing the transition between

Mitanni and Hittite rule and finally, developing a general regime for Alalakh’s agricultural

economy.

6.1 Sample Deposition and Taphonomy ! Whereas sample distributions across the site levels do not display obvious patterns,

interpreting the data by context offers more interesting results that can potentially illuminate

activity areas and depositional events. Trenches, miscellaneous, and unknown contexts are not

included in this discussion because they represent modern designations and not archaeological

or architectural features. Of the 45 samples, 29 were recovered from archaeological contexts.

6.1.1 Rooms ! A high-resolution archaeobotanical analysis of rooms has the potential to identify very

specific activity areas (eg Hald 2009; Helbaek 1961; Sadori, Susanna, and Persiani 2006).

Unfortunately, because it is unknown from which rooms and where in those rooms samples

were collected, such a resolution of analysis cannot be ascertained. Despite this setback, it is

! 50!

possible to draw some basic conclusions of room-based subsistence activities.

From the 19 samples collected from rooms throughout various levels, the most

ubiquitous taxa are: indeterminate cereals, free-threshing-wheat grains, Vicia ervilia, small

seeded legumes, Lolium temulentum, barley grains, Triticum sp. grains, Medicago sp., Phalaris sp.,

and hulled barley (Figure 6.1.1). Other taxa that occur less frequently but in high densities

include: Coronilla sp., large wild grasses, Rumex sp., Thymelaea, and Olea sp. fragments (Figure

6.1.2).

Figure 6.1.2- Top 10 Densest Species, Room Samples

Figure 6.1.1- Top 10 Most Ubiquitous Species in Order of Density, Room Samples

! 51!

Some additional taxa located in room samples include Lentil, Grape, Olive, Fig, and Flax

(Linum sp.). Interestingly, Wild Strawberry (Fragaria vesca) (albeit in very low accounts)

appears exclusively in room samples. Chaff, fine sieve by-products, and fine sieve products

are much more frequent in rooms than any other context (See figure 6.1.3). Also of interest,

possible fodder samples are very common in rooms (Figure 6.1.3). This could be due to the

fact that more samples were taken from rooms than any other context.

Given their compositions, the room samples seem to represent a combination of various

food processing activities. The large numbers of indeterminate grain, free-threshing wheat,

and barley probably represent litter leftover from cooking or milling activities. The high

quantities of field weeds (eg Lolium temulentum, large wild grasses, Rumex sp., etc.) and chaff

suggest the occurrence of late-stage grain cleaning activities. This hypothesis is confirmed by

Figure 6.1.3- Processing Stage Classifications, Possible Fodder Samples, and Chaff Heavy Samples Across Contexts

! 52!

the high proportion of fine sieve by-product and product samples found in rooms (Figure

6.1.3). The occurrence of grain processing residues within rooms suggests that: 1) grain was

stored unseparated from weeds, 2) the cleaning of grain sometimes took place within the site

boundaries (a contradiction to previous archaeobotanical studies at the site (Cizer 2006, Riehl

2010), and 3) the cleaning of grain occasionally took place at the household level.

Hald (2009) proposes a test in which centralized redistribution and household level

agriculture can be distinguished using the range of archaeobotanical compositions across

houses. If the species diversity is consistent across all house contexts, grain was likely

harvested from a single area and centralized agriculture is implied. If on the other hand

houses display unique clusters of compositions, grain was more likely harvested from several

different fields (Hald 2009 p. 75). While this test isn’t a sure sign of agricultural practices, it

does produce some interesting results at Alalakh. When compared to each other, the samples

collected from rooms display clusters of species associations and sample compositions.

Amongst the room samples, there seems to exist three clusters of species (Figure 6.1.4). Some,

like Cyperaceae are probably indicative of different (wetter) environmental conditions. The

three species groups might provide evidence of harvesting from different fields that in turn

could suggest that some households, or groups of households, were harvesting grain from

individual plots. Larger sample sets would be needed to further explore this hypothesis.

The high proportions of Vicia ervilia and Phalaris sp. are less clear. Vetches are exclusively

discussed in the Alalakh tablets (Wiseman 1953) as animal fodder. Additionally, Riehl (2010)

suggests the most likely way Phalaris sp. was brought into the site was by being attached to

animals brought in from grazing. If this is true, the combination of vetches and Phalaris in

rooms could suggest that animals were kept indoors at some point (see Twiss et al. 2009; van

der Veen 2007, 971). Much more corresponding evidence, such as geochemical analysis, is

! 53!

necessary to prove this hypothesis.

Overall, the samples collected from rooms at Alalakh bear archaeobotanical

compositions that are expected from such contexts and suggests that rooms at the site were

likely used for a wide range of economic and subsistence activities.

6.1.2 Ovens ! Five samples were collected from oven features, which include possible pottery kilns and

fire hearths. The archaeobotanical investigations of ovens have often been used to interpret

food preparation, plant fuel use, and the composition of animal dung used for fuel (eg Miller

and Smart 1984; Shahack-Gross 2011, 211). While often an integral tool for culinary

endeavors, van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985, 291) warn that “one should be extremely

Figure 6.1.4- Correspondence Analysis Biplot of Room Samples. Red Ovals Indicate Sample Clusters, Blue Ovals Indicate Species Clusters.

! 54!

cautious in considering food-plant remains in and near ovens as evidence of the preparation of

these food stuffs for human consumption at that place.” Just because possible food items are

found in a kitchen does not mean they are refuse from cooking (unless the chefs were

particularly clumsy around the fire). The samples from the Alalakh ovens are more likely

explained by the burning of dung for fuel.

The highest densities of Vicia ervilia are found in oven features compared to any other

context. Returning to the Alalakh tablets (Wiseman 1953), the most likely explanation for

vetches is animal fodder. But because the vetches are not found in pure concentrations, the

burning of unused fodder is unlikely. In addition to vetches, the oven samples display a high

concentration of Fig and Mesquite fruit (Prosopis farcta). Valamoti and Charles (2005, 532)

note that in southern Greece, figs were often fed to goats during the winter season and could

therefore be an indicator of dung cakes. Mike Charles (personal communication) suggests,

similarly, that Mesquite fruits were likely used as a supplement for grain fodder and could

also point towards dung. If vetches, fig, and Mesquite occurred independently it would be

dangerous to assume the corresponding samples originated from dung fuel. But, because the

three species occur together in relatively high quantities, dung burning is a reasonable

explanation. If this is the case, it might be possible to reconstruct dung composition and

subsequently animal fodder by analyzing the oven samples from Alalakh. This will be

explored later in the chapter.

6.1.3 Pits ! Interpreting pits in the archaeological record is an intimidating task as it is very difficult

to determine both their formation (eg. architectural work, refuse, natural feature, etc.) and

! 55!

function. Despite this caveat, the 3 pits sampled from Alalakh display similar archaeobotanical

compositions that might explain how they were used.

Common and dense taxas identified from the pits include: free-threshing wheat grains,

barley grains, Vicia ervilia, wild grasses, and lots of barley and free-threshing wheat rachii

(Figure 6.1.5). The density of cereal rachii (.75 − 1 / L.) is greater in pits than any other

feature at Alalakh. As rachii are usually separated from grain during the final cleaning stage,

they can be interpreted as evidence of by-products of grain cleaning (Hillman 1984). Lolium

temulentum and proportionately sized wild grasses are similarly associated with final-stage

grain cleaning. Considering this evidence, the three pits sampled for archaeobotanical remains

were likely used for depositing refuse and processing residues. Additional information such as

the zooarchaeological composition of these features would help to bolster the interpretation.

6.1.4 Ceramic Vessel ! The contents of a single vessel from Level II were sampled for archaeobotanical remains.

Given the large volume of the sample (c. 26 liters) it is assumed that the vessel was likely a

Figure 6.1.5- Top 11 Most Ubiquitous Taxa in Order of Density, Pit Samples

! 56!

pithos. It is unfortunately not known where in the site, or in what architectural context the jar

was found.

The densest taxa from the vessel were free-threshing wheat grains, Lolium temulentum,

and small-seeded legumes. Very low counts of Vicia ervilia, cereal internodes, Polygonum

aviculare, and small wild grasses were also recorded (Figure 6.1.6). The vessel was clearly used

for grain storage of which grain was not separated from Lolium considering the proportions of

grass to cereal in the jar are nearly equal. The other wild species and low numbers of vetches

are probably contaminants that either accumulated amongst the original sample or became

intermixed after the sample was burned. This is not surprising as van Zeist and Bakker-

Heeres (1985, 283) note “only under very favorable conditions would anything left over from

a household supply have been preserved as an almost pure grain or pulse-crop concentration.”

The results from the pithoi corroborate interpretations made from room samples that suggest

that grain was occasionally stored uncleaned from field weeds.

6.2 Activity Distribution ! In addition to levels and select contexts, some patterns in Alalakh’s archaeobotanicl

record are visible spatially across the site’s excavation squares. In total, the samples analyzed

Figure 6.1.6- Top 10 Densest Taxa, Ceramic Vessel

! 57!

for this dissertation covered material obtained from 9 individual squares (the squares vary in

size and shape, eg. 1x1m, 1x2m, 2x7m, etc.).

When looking at all of the cultivated and wild species within the samples, the different

squares display an equally varied composition (See Figure 6.2.1). As such, at this resolution

no patterns can be easily distinguished. However, if interpreting the samples in terms of their

cereal and chaff content, distinct clusters begin to emerge. It is once again unfortunate that at

the time of this dissertation it was not possible to mark the locations of the excavation squares

on the site.

Figure 6.2.1- Correspondence Analysis Biplot, All Species, Labeled by Excavation Square

! 58!

The majority of the samples (15) came from square 32.57 and display two groups with

concentrations of vetches (Vicia ervilia) and cereal grains/chaff (Figure 6.2.2). Square 32.57

can thus be described as a multi-activity area where grain processing residues and likely

fodder were deposited. Squares 45.44 and 64.83 provided samples composed primarily of pure

grain without vetches or cereal chaff (Figure 6.2.2). It is possible that these squares display

primarily grain storage activities and that processing, which would result in more chaff,

occurred elsewhere. Square 32.54 contains high proportions of vetches and little cereal chaff

or grain (Figure 6.2.2). Continuing the assumption that vetches represent fodder or dung, it is

likely that in 32.54 either fodder and/or dung was stored, dung was burned, or animals were

penned. Although only a few patterns are visible across the excavations squares, they are

distinct enough to suggest some differentiation in the use of space regarding agricultural

and/or pastoral activities.

Figure 6.2.2- Correspondence Analysis Biplot, Cereals and Pulses, Labeled by Excavation Square. (Ovals denote clusters discussed in text).

! 59!

6.3 Cereal Crops at Alalakh ! Earlier in this dissertation (Ch. 3) a range of agricultural methods and techniques

commonly associated with Bronze Age farming was discussed. It remains relatively unknown,

however, which of those methodologies were adopted by agriculturalists at ancient Alalakh.

Cereal (unlike other crops such as grapes, olives, or vetches),occurs in high enough

frequencies and densities alongside wild taxa that some agricultural techniques can be

extrapolated.

6.3.1 Harvesting Techniques ! A major question surrounding the harvesting of cereal at Alalakh is whether the crops

were harvested by pulling or by the mass cutting of stalks. While both techniques would

require considerable manpower, the cutting of stalks is a more intensive harvesting method as

it is aimed to accumulate the highest yield in the least amount of time. Van Zeist and Bakker-

Heeres (1985, 289) suggests that “high counts of rachis and culm nodes are signs of

harvesting ears and straw simultaneously” by cutting. The authors also suggest that if crops

were individually plucked, large numbers of field weed seeds would not be expected (p. 311).

As some rachis and culm internodes were found in the late-stage processing samples and, the

proportion of field weeds are high throughout all the samples, cutting seems more likely.

The height of the cereal stalks when harvested can also shed light on the preferred

technique. If crops were cut low to the ground (<1m), they were likely cut with a scythe or

sickle. If on the other hand evidence suggests that only the upper portions of stalks were

collected (1m+), collection by pulling is a more likely explanation. As mentioned above, the

! 60!

occurrence of culm internodes, suggests that cereals were cut at least on occasion below the

ear and closer to the ground.

Weed anatomy offers another line of evidence to interpret crop harvesting height. If in

cereal assemblages high proportions of tall (>1m) field weeds are found with few short (<1m)

weeds, it can be assumed that the harvesting method only removed the top portions of cereal

stalks. If on the other hand high quantities of short weeds are identified, cutting likely

occurred low to the ground (see Charles and Bogaard 2001 for a detailed example). Generally

this method requires high numbers of field weeds to be identified to the species level, which I

was unable to do with the Alalakh samples. Charles and Bogaard (2001, 322) note, however,

“weeds which mimic the crop in height, fruiting time and seed size, may tend to dominate the

later stages of processing, in particular fine-sieve products.” In the Alalakh assemblage, the

weeds that dominate the fine-sieve products are Lolium temulentum, Coronilla, and Thymelea.

Although they were not all identified to the species level, their entire genera do not typically

grow above a height of 80cm, which can be classified as short. As such, the anatomy of field

weeds from Alalakh further supports a low crop-cutting regime.

6.3.2 Crop Sowing and Harvesting: Seasonality ! Given the high amount of precipitation in the Amuq Plain during the winter and early

spring, it has often been assumed that Bronze Age crops were sown in the winter and

harvested in the spring (eg Fall, Lines, and Falconer 1998; Riehl 2010). While probable, crop

seasonality has yet to be explored using archaeobotanical evidence. Determining the

seasonality of harvest, as with estimating crop height, once again depends upon a high

resolution of species-level identification. Returning to the triad (Lolium temulentum, Coronilla

! 61!

sp., Tymelaea sp.) of frequent fine sieve product weeds, it might be possible to form a rough

estimation.

The Lolium, Coronilla, and Thymelaea genera all flower in the early spring between the

months of April and June. As the majority of late-stage crop processing residues at Alalakh

posses a high concentration of these three genera, it is likely that the harvesting of some

cereals took place during the early spring. If this were true, an abundance of spring annuals

would further suggest that crop sowing occurred, as expected, in the late autumn or early

winter months.

There was not enough resolution in the data to determine whether various cereals were

harvested during different times of the year. Halstead (2014, 81-82) notes that throughout the

majority of the Mediterranean, crops are commonly harvested in the order of pulses, barley,

and then free-threshing wheat. A similar model could have existed at Alalakh but as is

growing typical, more supporting data is necessary.

6.3.3 Cereal Processing ! Both previous archaeobotanical studies at Alalakh (Cizer 2006; Riehl 2010) identified

low quantities of cereal chaff that led to assumptions that crop processing did not occur within

the city walls. Based on the current findings, this might not be entirely accurate. Using Jones’

(1983) model, my samples from Alalakh were classified primarily as fine sieve products with

some fine sieve by-products. Many of the fine sieve by-product samples were not confidently

classified (<.90 probability) and are thus more likely to have been fine sieve products that

were simply not cleaned as thoroughly. As such, the majority of samples that are left over

from crop processing are likely to be residues from the final stage of sieving (Figure 6.3.1).

! 62!

The high proportion of late-stage processing products along with the low quantities of cereal

chaff in my samples support Riel and Cizer’s interpretations that the early stages of crop

processing occurred away from the site center. It is however potentially dangerous to treat a

lack of evidence as evidence in and of itself. The general lack of chaff in the samples could be

misleading considering, as Jones (2000, 80) warns, “there is a number of reasons why [cereal

chaff] may never reach household fires” even though large quantities of the material could

have been brought on site. Thus, early stage crop processing could have been conducted

within the city walls but did simply not become part of the charred botanical record.

Alternatively, as the entire site has yet to be excavated, processing areas might well exist but

Figure 6.3.1- Discriminant Analysis Plot Showing Alalakh Samples Classified Into Crop Processing Stages According to Jones’ (1983) Amorgos Data.

! 63!

have simply not been discovered. While the current evidence points towards off-site crop

processing, we cannot yet make this a confident declaration.

An additional and interesting discovery was that Hittite samples classified as fine sieve

products posses a much narrower weed species diversity than Mitanni samples (See Figure

6.3.2). Why Hittite era samples are much cleaner, especially when the population of Alalakh

drastically shrank, is somewhat confusing. Perhaps if grain was stored exclusively as reserves

for state level consumption by the Hittites (Fink 2010, 139), it was cleaned more thoroughly

than when it was distributed during the Mitanni period for household consumption. If true,

this could suggest that the proportion of household scale economics dropped after the Hittite

takeover of Alalakh and was replaced by a purer, and larger-scale redistributive economy.

The drop in field weeds could also be explained, though, in that the inhabitants of Alalakh

Figure 6.3.2- Correspondence Analysis Biplot Displaying Samples Classified as Fine Sieve Products, Labeled by Level. Red=Hittite Levels, Blue=Mitanni Levels.

! 64!

during Hittite rule cleaned their grain more thoroughly, or, new harvesting techniques were

initiated to avoid collecting high amounts of grass seeds. This topic will be further explored in

Chapter 6.6.

6.3.4 Crop Proportions: Changes Through Time ! In addition to changes in the composition of fine sieve products, some proportions of

Alalakh’s cereal types change throughout the site’s levels. Overall, free-threshing wheat was

consistently dominant and is typical of Late Bronze Age cereal assemblages. Barley, however,

stays prominent for most of the site’s occupation but was eventually overcome by Emmer in

level II (Figure 6.3.3). This is particularly interesting as Emmer, a glume wheat, is considered

to have dropped almost entirely out of agricultural importance by the Middle Bronze Age (see

Miller 1991; Nesbitt 1995). There are a couple scenarios that might explain this surprising

event.

0.0%!10.0%!20.0%!30.0%!40.0%!50.0%!60.0%!70.0%!80.0%!90.0%!

V! IV! III! II!

Barley!FTW!Emmer!New!Glume!

Figure 6.3.3- Proportions of Cereal Species Across Alalakh Levels

! 65!

While the importance of Emmer decreased in the Near East during the Middle and Late

Bronze Ages, it remained an important crop in Anatolia at sites like Troy or Kastanas (Cizer

2006, 102). As the Hittites controlled those sites during the time of Alalakh Level II, the

sudden influx of Emmer into the site could reflect imported grain from central Anatolia.

Alternatively, environmental fluctuations offer another model of explanation. Near the end of

the late Bronze Age (contemporary to Alalakh Level II), Riehl et al. (2008, 1019) note a spike

in the level C13 isotopes within cereal crops. This spike, which reaches a level only equaled

during the Early Bronze Age, suggests a possible episode of increased yearly precipitation

that could have made the Amuq Plain once again favorable to the cultivation of glume wheat.

As discussed earlier, deteriorating environmental conditions during the Middle and Late

Bronze Ages likely made glume wheat unfavorable crops to sustain large populations. It is

suspiciously convenient that as soon as the environment returned to optimal conditions for the

growth of glume wheat, Emmer suddenly reappeared in high proportions. The question is

then raised: Were the species of cereal crops grown at Alalakh determined by fluctuating

environmental conditions?

Glume wheats, as opposed to barley for example, require a narrow range of moisture

and temperature conditions to successfully grow (see van der Veen 1992). As such, when

environmental conditions change, the optimal suitability of growing glume wheat technically

increases or decreases exponentially. Thus, when investigating causalities underlying trends

and changes in agricultural products, the environment offers an easy culprit. But, it is

dangerous to assume that simply because optimal or less-optimal conditions were presented,

the decisions of Bronze Age farmers were environmentally determined. After conducting a

regional comparison of moisture fluctuations and changes in crop species, Riehl (2012, 119)

! 66!

observes, “there is no justification to expect simultaneous and uniform cultural and socio-

economic change with environmental change.” In other words, Bronze Age farmers sometimes

adapted to environmental change and remained unaffected, or conversely, farmers altered

their crops-of-choice unexplainably during times of environmental stability. As such, it

becomes severely difficult to correlate changes in the archaeobotanical record to climatic

events.

In addition to climate, cultural norms and preferences also have a considerable affect on

crop species. Halstead (2014, 352) suggests that pinpointing the rationality behind crop

variations is futile as the reasons can range from “unconscious replication of motor habits

learnt in childhood, through maintenance of what was familiar and practically viable, to the

deliberate reinforcement of cultural identity.” To further increase the complexity of this

problem, because the charring of agricultural products is generally accidental, there are

numerous reasons why a crop may or may not appear in the archaeobotanical record despite it

having remained consistently important during the period of cultivation (G. Jones 2000).

Until this vast obstacle of equifinality can be circumvented, the changes in Alalakh’s crop

proportions can only be described and not fully explained.

6.4 Weeds and Wild Taxa ! Archaeobotany is by no means limited to interpreting human subsistence and

agricultural practices. Beyond shedding light on these two popular topics, the Alalakh samples

can move beyond the sphere of farming to provide information on topics such as animal

husbandry and additional environmental reconstructions.

! 67!

6.4.1 Fodder and Fuel ! Formation processes of archaeobotanical assemblages that involve the charring of

animal feed can provide information regarding livestock diets and animal husbandry practices

(eg Anderson and Ertug-Yaras 1998; Miller, Zeder, and Arter 2009; Valamoti and Charles

2005). It is ultimately unknown if any samples at Alalakh represent livestock fodder or dung.

However, samples that occurred in ovens, in addition to samples that contain high proportions

of both barley and vetches (the most common fodder ingredients according to the Alalakh

tablets: Wiseman 1953) offer likely candidates. Twelve samples fit these criteria and will be

examined for the possible makeup and implications of fodder or livestock dung. (NB- It

should be explicitly stated that this brief exploration is based on the stretching assumptions

that; 1) these samples actually represent livestock dung or fodder and, 2) dung was used for

fuel in ovens.)

The most common components of the probable dung/fodder samples (besides vetches

and barley) include; small seeded legumes, Thymelaea sp., Lolium sp., cereal internodes, and

free-threshing wheat rachii (See Figure 6.4.1). High proportions of indeterminate cereals and

free-threshing wheat grains were also recorded in these samples but as many of them were

Figure 6.4.1- Top 10 Most Ubiquitous Species in Order of Density, Possible Fodder/Dung Samples

! 68!

found in rooms, the free-threshing cereal grains were likely intermixed and can therefore be

ignored.

The above components can be binned into three categories; cultivated fodder, cereal

stubble/hay, and wild grazing-plants. The cultivated fodder products (barley and vetches) are

known from the Alalakh tablets (Wiseman 1953) to have been grown at times specifically for

animal food that could have been fed to livestock either in or outside of the site. Cereal

stubble/hay (internodes and rachii) could have been intermixed with fodder (Anderson and

Ertug-Yaras 1998; Miller, Zeder, and Arter 2009) or, could be the result of livestock grazing

harvested fields (Miller, Zeder, and Arter 2009). The remaining wild taxa, while noted as

crop field weeds, are also commonly found in non-cultivated plains throughout modern

Turkey (Davis 2008). They therefore could be considered evidence of livestock grazing in

fields surrounding Alalakh. If these correlations are by any means accurate, they would

suggest that livestock at Alalakh were fed a mixed cultivated and wild diet, and that their

dung provided an important source of fuel for ovens and kilns. Currently the exploration of

these topics requires much speculation, but if approached more intensively, this niche is likely

to bear significant results.

6.4.2 Ecological Considerations ! Wild taxa that grow under specific conditions can act as indicators of past

microenvironments, and guides to how past societies used their surrounding landscapes.

Additionally, trends and changes amongst indicator species can help identify environmental

fluctuations. Unfortunately, as the growing habitats of the identified species are almost

entirely uniform, not much environmental information can be gathered from the Alalakh

! 69!

samples at this time. Nearly all of the taxa that could be identified to the species level prefer

dry and disturbed ground that is typical of cultivated fields. Only two, Cyperaceae and Scirpus,

veer from the norm and are definite indicators of wetlands or at least moist soil conditions.

Because the wetland taxa occur in small quantities amongst many dry-land species, they

are likely to indicate a differential use of landscape rather than changing environmental

conditions. Samples with wetland taxa probably represent crop-processing residues from

fields that were located in close proximity to a water source, such as the Orontes River. While

interesting, this is not particularly surprising considering crop fields likely blanketed the

Amuq plain including both dry and moist areas. As the number of wetland taxa are small

(n=28), it is difficult to form large-scale conclusions. If more hydrophilic species could be

identified in Alalakh's archaeobotanical record, multivariate statistics (eg. correspondence

analysis) could potentially tie samples to individual fields based on environmental constraints,

or, estimate yearly levels of precipitation in the Amuq region.

6.5 Alalakh: A Producer or Consumer? ! Upon considering the high abundance of cereal grain and late-stage processing residues,

past interpretations of Alalakh's economic status identify it as a producer site (Cizer 2006,

103). While the composition of Alalakh's archaeobotanical samples do support some

definitions of producers (M. Jones 1985), truly defining the site's agricultural regime presents

a much more complicated task. First, it is difficult to label the economic status of an entire

urban center based on only charred plant remains and second, reaching a definition of

'consumer' or 'producer' requires a detailed examination of Alalakh's interaction with its

agricultural hinterland.

! 70!

Traditionally, sites with agricultural economies have been interpreted as 'producers' or

'consumers' based on relative proportions of pure grain, chaff, and weed compositions (M.

Jones 1985). A producer in this case is defined as a site that grows and harvests its own crops

(M. Jones 1985) whereas consumers "import their crops from elsewhere" (van der Veen and

Jones 2006, 219). According to the model proposed by M. Jones (1985), producer sites

exhibit high proportions of grain with little chaff while consumer sites are chaff and weed rich

with lower proportions of pure grain (NB- Hillman (1984) and G. Jones (1987) propose

opposite grain-to-chaff signatures and while I agree with their definitions, M. Jones' is

discussed here as it was the model originally used to define Alalakh).

While there is nothing wrong with the economic definitions of 'producer' or 'consumer',

trying to attribute a site to either model using only archaeobotanical remains is a perilous task.

The archaeobotanical record is by no means comprehensive and Jones (2000, 81) warns that

"the relative contribution of wild and cultivated plant resources cannot be evaluated simply

from the quantities of each found on archaeological sites." As has been discussed throughout

this dissertation, the presence/absence of charred plant remains are influenced by several

factors unrelated to the importance or utilization of crops during the time of a site's

occupation. As such, it is potentially misleading to characterize a site as a 'producer' or

'consumer' by the presence or absence of cereal grain, chaff, and wild taxa (see van der Veen

and Jones 2006).

Instead of relying upon archaeobotanical ratios, a better understanding of Alalakh's

economic status might be reached by hypothesizing the site's interaction with its hinterlands

and farming communities. If geographically defining the site of Alalakh as the structures and

population that existed within the city walls, the site must be treated as a consumer. Unless

substantial garden cultivation existed on the tell, all of the produce and cereal crops for the

! 71!

city's population must have been imported from its agricultural hinterland. Even at the

household subsistence-farming level, anything consumed in rooms must have been grown

elsewhere. In further support of the city center as a consumer, we know from the Level IV

cuneiform receipts (Wiseman 1953) that Alalakh imported large shipments of grain and

fodder from its landholdings in the greater Amuq region. Given this evidence, Alalakh fits into

the definition of a consumer site.

If we are willing to expand the geographical boundaries of Alalakh from the city walls to

include the many nearby farms under the site's socio-political sphere, an entirely different

model is presented. From the same cuneiform receipts mentioned above, numerous accounts

are provided that grain cultivated under the auspices of Alalakh was exported as payment and

tribute during the Mitanni periods (Levels V - IV). Furthermore, during the periods of Levels

III - II, grain from the Alalakh farms was grown exclusively for the use of the Hittite army,

which was located a great distance away from the Amuq plain (Fink 2010). As such, we see

Alalakh under both Mitanni and Hittite rule acting very clearly as a producer.

How Alalakh is to be defined as an agricultural economy will ultimately depend on how

it is defined as a site. If considering it to be the structures within the boundaries of the city

walls, then the activities that occurred there fit into the single category of consumer. But, if

the conception of Alalakh as a site includes its landholdings off of the tell, a mixed economic

system of production and consumption is presented. It is therefore suggested that rather than

attempting to economically define Alalakh as a whole, we should instead treat the site as

multiple loci representing a combination of activities. Van der Veen and Jones (2006) warn

that attempting to characterize a site by consumption or production is overly simplistic and

potentially deceiving. While their concerns are valid, if the unit of interpretation can be

broken down from the site level to multiple independent activity areas (eg. households,

! 72!

storerooms, nearby farms, etc.), the terms ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’ can be veritable

descriptors. Under these terms, ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’ economies are not mutually

exclusive and Alalakh therefore could have existed, on a variety of scales, as a combination of

the two.

6.6 Agricultural Changes Between Mitanni and Hittite Rule ! When Riehl (2010) originally approached the problem of agricultural transitions at

Alalakh, she determined that the agricultural economy of the site did not change upon the

transition between Mitanni and Hittite. Upon observing continuity in the proportion of cereal

species across the site’s levels, Riehl (2010, 131) notes, “despite the political instability of the

region…there is no indication in the archaeobotanical record that this would have affected

agro-production”. When first inspecting the samples for this dissertation, Riehl’s hypothesis

appeared valid and no obvious changes or patterns were noted between Alalakh’s two

occupations. Despite some fluctuations in proportions, economic crops and cereals at the site

maintained a consistency throughout its entire occupation. However, if moving beyond pure

frequencies of cereal types and considering the ratios of other archaeobotanical material,

visible changes through time become more apparent.

Upon the onset of Hittite rule at Alalakh, archaeobotanical samples display a sudden

and complete elimination of cereal chaff along with a considerable decrease in the proportion

of field-weeds that are generally removed during later-stage processing (eg. Coronilla,

Thymelaea, Galium, etc.). The majority of weeds remaining in the Hittite samples classified as

fine sieve products are Lolium and other medium wild grasses, which were most likely hand-

picked from grain stores piecemeal just before use (Donmez 2005, 37). Thus, Hittite fine sieve

! 73!

product samples are much purer in comparison to those in Mitanni levels, which present a

wider species diversity (Refer back to Figure 6.3.2). According to an agricultural

intensity/scale model proposed by van der Veen and Jones (2006), samples representing

household level agriculture are typified by high proportions of cereal chaff and weed species

while samples representing large-scale agriculture display higher proportions of pure grain.

Under this paradigm, pure grain is expected of large-scale operations due to accidental

charring from carelessness overlooked to maximize efficiency (p. 219). Chaff and weed heavy

samples on the other hand can best be explained as” by-products of day-to-day processing” (p.

219) associated with small-scale agriculture. During the Mitanni to Hittite transition, Alalakh

samples display a significant decrease in chaff and field-weeds (Figure 6.6.1, 6.6.2) which

according to the van der Veen and Jones model, could suggest a change in the scale of

agriculture at the site. It would appear then that while he types of cereals grown at Alalakh

remained unaltered by the political transition, the scale of agriculture increased when

authority changed hands.

Figure 6.6.1- Boxplot Displaying Cultivar-to-Wild/Weed Species Ratio Between Alalakh Occupations

! 74!

An increase in the scale of agriculture upon the Hittite takeover is not particularly

surprising and fits interpretations made throughout this dissertation. Foremost, the Mukis

kingdom of the Mitanni was smaller in population and size than the much larger Hittite

kingdom. As such, Mitanni crop were transported and redistributed over shorter distances

and probably in smaller quantities in comparison to Hittite crops that were commonly

transported throughout the entirety of Anatolia (Bryce 2005). Secondly, as presented in

Chapter 5.6, the majority of samples classified as fine sieve by-products are located in Mitanni

levels while the majority of fine sieve products were recorded in Hittite levels (Figure 5.6.6).

This skewed distribution shows that more late-stage cereal processing occurred in the Alalakh

city center during Mitanni rule than under Hittite rule. The lack of fine sieve residues in the

Hittite levels suggests that grain was most likely entering the site in a mostly clean state; a

possible characteristic of large-scale agriculture.

Figure 6.6.2- Boxplot Displaying Grain-to-Chaff Ratio Between Alalakh Occupations

! 75!

While a transition from small to large-scale agriculture fits the political background and

the archaeobotanical record, the general lack of architecture recorded in Alalakh Level II

presents a potential problem. If the scale of the site’s agricultural economy did in fact increase,

we would expect to see the site grow and not to shrink. Though equifinality certainly poses a

problem, there do exist a couple of hypothetical explanations to this dilemma. Perhaps Hittite

Alalakh did, as expected, experience more intensive grain production and processing and the

activities simply took place away from the city center or in a portion of the site not yet

excavated. Or, as proposed by Fink (2010) and Yener et al. (2005), the role of Alalakh after

the Hittite takeover could have transitioned from an urban center into an outpost for surplus

storage or exportation. Under this model, Alalakh could have stored intensively harvested

pure grain acquired from nearby farms, which was then exported throughout the kingdom.

The site functioning as a small and sparsely populated administrative garrison would explain

both the drop in household-level grain processing and, the general lack of urban architecture

in levels III and II. Overall it seems clear that the agricultural economy of Alalakh did change

between Mitanni and Hittite rule. The extent and exact definition of this change however is

ambiguous and remains to be determined.

7. Agriculture at Alalakh: A Concluding Model From the 45 samples and 16,331 archaeobotanical specimens identified for this

dissertation, a more detailed picture of agriculture at ancient Alalakh has been explored.

Overall, the interpretations made from these data places Alalakh within to the norm of

agricultural practice during the Late Bronze Age in the Near East. The species diversity and

! 76!

the scale of the site’s economy fall within the temporal and regional pattern of grain-centered

redistribution supplemented by household-level farming.

Of all the crops at Late Bronze Age Alalakh, free-threshing cereals were clearly the

primary staple, which supports the hypothesis that the Amuq Region was an important

supplier of grain during both Mitanni and Hittite rule (Bryce 2005; Fink 2010). Barley was

also an important crop in Alalakh’s economy but was probably used more so for fodder or

beer and was transported in smaller quantities across shorter distances (cf. Wiseman 1953).

Olives, flax, and grapes occurred in frequencies that suggest relative importance, but, unless

oil and wine was exported by the thimbleful these species cannot be considered staple crops

from the samples analyzed in this dissertation. In the samples analyzed by Riehl (2010),

however, olive was the most ubiquitous species, suggesting that oil was in fact important to

Alalakh’s economy, but was just not visible in the areas excavated during recent field seasons.

Whereas the crop species at Alalakh remained consistent through time, evidence of their

processing changed between levels. The late-stage processing of harvested cereals occurred

throughout the sites’s population, however, processing residues are much more apparent in

Mitanni levels than in Hittite. If the Alalakh samples can indeed be explained by the van der

Veen and Jones (2006) model of agricultural scale, the Mitanni periods likely saw a

dominating state-run redistributive agricultural economy that was supplemented by small

levels of household subsistence farming. In this scenario, residents of the city likely received

both rations from the central store and occasional supplies of crops they harvested themselves

or received personally from nearby farms. When the Hittites took over, the household

processing of cereals disappeared completely. It is tempting to suggest that at this time, the

few households remaining in Alalakh relied more heavily on state-controlled imports with no

supplementation of small-scale farming. However, this is probably unlikely and is at risk of

! 77!

over-stretching the analytical capacity of the archaeobotanical data, especially without

corroborating evidence from the archaeological record.

Something that we do not see but would be expected (given the textual references to

large-scale grain trade and redistribution) are large grain or fodder stores. The numerous

pithoi recorded by Woolley (1955) suggest that storage did occur, but considering the entire

city was burned to the ground on several occasions, we would hope to see at least one grain

storage assemblage in the archaeobotanical record. A lack of obvious grain storage does not

necessarily refute a large-scale redistributive model, but, it does not allow a definite support.

Consequently, several avenues exist for future archaeobotanical and agricultural research at

Alalakh.

To immediately tackle the problem of state-run redistribution, the identification of

features not traditionally recognized for storage (eg. Esag pits : Fairbairn and Omura 2005)

could provide much needed evidence for centralized grain storage. For evidence of a

contradictory model, increased systematic sampling in residential structures would exhibit a

finer resolution model concerning the use of space and stronger evidence for household-level

agriculture. To better understand the Mitanni to Hittite transition, additional sampling from

Alalakh Level III is absolutely essential as the current archaeobotanical assemblage is plagued

by a gap from that period. Other changes in agriculture might well exist between the Mitanni

and Hittite occupations and could be identified through further statistical analysis. A higher

resolution of species identification would allow further testing based on sowing seasonality,

harvesting height, possible irrigation, and other pattern analyses centered on weed ecology

and phytosociology. These tests represent a few of many possibilities that if accomplished,

would greatly increase the confidence of many hypotheses drawn throughout this study.

Given the size of the archaeobotanical assemblage and its generally good state of preservation,

! 78!

the potential for Alalakh’s contribution to both local and regional knowledge of ancient

agriculture remains very high. The research presented in this dissertation is far from complete

but will hopefully provide a stepping-stone for future projects to be accomplished and

hypotheses tested.

8. Conclusion Forty-five archaeobotanical samples were analyzed from the ancient Near Eastern city

of Alalakh. Spanning four archaeological levels (V - II) and a period of approximately 300

years, the data from this analysis provided information pertaining to the site’s agricultural and

pastoral economies. The results of this project identified, agreeing with previous work done at

the site, a cereal based economy of various scales centered on the cultivation of free-threshing

wheats. Unlike previous research, however, the data from this dissertation identified for the

first time at Alalakh, the occurrence of ‘New Type’ glume wheat, high frequencies of cereal

chaff, and a possible change in the scale of agriculture between Mitanni and Hittite rule. The

discoveries made during this analysis propose that the agricultural economy of Alalakh was

intricate, dynamic, and highly variable. If the hypotheses pertaining to economic scale,

harvesting seasonality, and responses during times of political turmoil can be validated, our

understanding of agriculture in the Late Bronze Age Amuq Plain will grow substantially.

!!!

! 79!

Works Cited

Akkermans, Peter, and Glenn Schwartz. 2001. The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-

Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (C. 16,000 - 300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Al-Maqdissi, Michel, Joachim Bretschneider, Patrick Degryse, Hendrik Hameeuw, David

Kaniewski, Etienne Paulissen, Stefaan Van Simaeys, and Karel Van Lerberghe. 2007. “Environmental Chages in the Jebleh Plain (Syria): Geophysical, Geomorphological, Palynological, Archaeological and Historical Research.” Res Antique 4: 3–10.

Albright, W F. 1957. “Further Observations on the Chronology of Alalakh.” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 146: 26–34. Anacleto D'Agostino, Florence. 2008. “Between Mitannians and the Middle-Assyrians:

Changes and Links in Ceramic Culture at Tell Barri and in Syrian Jazirah During the End of the 2nd Millennium BC.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near Est, edited by Joaquin Cordoba, Miquel Molist, M Carmen Perez, Isabel Rubio, and Sergio Martinez, 1:525–547. Madrid: UAM Ediciones.

Anderberg, Anna-Lena. 1994. Atlas of Seeds: Part 4 Resedaceae - Umbrelliferae. Vol. 4. Swedish

Natural Science Research Council. Anderson, Seona, and Fusun Ertug-Yaras. 1998. “Fuel Fodder and Faeces: an Ethnographic

and Botanical Study of Dung Fuel Use in Central Anatolia.” Environmental Archaeology 1: 99–109.

Barnett, R D. 1957. “Review: Alalakh. an Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the

Hatay, 1937-1949 by L. Woolley.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 (2): 355–357. Berggren, Greta. 1969. Atlas of Seeds: Part 2 Cyperaceae. Vol. 2. Stockholm: Swedish Natural

Science Research Council. Berggren, Greta. 1981. Atlas of Seeds: Part 3 Salaceae - Cruciferae. Stockholm: Swedish Natural

Science Research Council. Bryce, Trevor. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cappellini, Enrico, M Thomas P Gilbert, Filippo Geuna, Girolamo Fiorentino, Allan Hall,

Jane Thomas-Oates, Peter D Ashton, et al. 2009. “A Multidisciplinary Study of Archaeological Grape Seeds.” Naturwissenschaften 97 (2): 205–217.

Carre Gates, Marie-Henriette. 1981. “Alalakh Levels VI and v: a Chronological

Reassessment.” Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4 (2): 2–40.

! 80!

Casana, Jesse. 2009. “Alalakh and the Archaeological Landscape of Mukish: the Political Geography and Population of a Late Bronze Age Kingdom.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 353: 7–37.

Charles, M, and A Bogaard. 2001. “Third-Millennium BC Charred Plant Remains From Tell

Brak.” In Excavations at Tell Brak, edited by D Oates, J Oates, and H McDonald, 2:301–326. McDonald Institute Monographs.

Charles, Michael. 1988. “Irrigation in Lowland Mesopotamia.” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture

4: 1–39. Cizer, Ozgur. 2006. “Archaeobotanical Macro Remains From Late Bronze Age Kinet Hoyuk

and Tell Atchana (Alalakh) in Southern Turkey: Economical and Environmental Considerations.” Unpublished MSc Dissertation, Tubingen University.

Claudia Glatz. 2009. “Empire as Network: Spheres of Material Interaction in Late Bronze

Age Anatolia.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2): 127–141. Claudia Glatz, and Roger Matthews. 2005. “Anthropology of a Frontier Zone: Hittite-Kaska

Relations in Late Bronze Age North-Central Anatolia.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (339): 47–65.

D'Altroy, T, and T Earle. 1985. “Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inca

Politcal Economy .” Current Anthropology 26: 187–206. Davis, Peter. 2008. Flora of Turkey. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Donmez, Emel Oybak. 2005. “Early Bronze Age Crop Plants From Yenibademli Hoyuk

(Gokceada), Western Turkey.” Environmental Archaeology 10: 39–49. Drews, Robert. 1993. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe CA. 1200

B.C. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fairbairn, Andrew, and Sachihiro Omura. 2005. “Archaeological Identification and

Significance of ESAG (Agricultural Storage Pits) at Kaman-Kalehoyuk, Central Anatolia.” Anatolian Studies 55: 15–23.

Fall, Patricia, Lee Lines, and Steven Falconer. 1998. “Seeds of Civilization: Bronze Age Rural

Economy and Ecology in the Southern Levant.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (1): 107–125.

Fensham, F Charles, and P A H de Boer. 1960. “The Treaty Between Solomon and Hiram

and the Alalakh Tablets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1): 59–60. Fink, Amir Sumakai. 2010. Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy, Chronology,

History. Oxford: Archaeopress.

! 81!

Gates, Marie-Henriette. 1987. “Alalakh and Chronology Again.” In High, Middle, or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, edited by Paul Astrom, 2:60–87. Partille, Sweden: Jonsereds Herrgard.

Goetze, Albrecht. 1959. “Remarks on the Lists From Alalakh IV.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies

13 (2): 63–64. Hald, Mette Marie. 2009. “Distribution of Crops at Late Early Bronze Age Titriş Höyük,

Southeast Anatolia: Towards a Model for the Identification of Consumers of Centrally Organised Food Distribution.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 19 (1): 69–77.

Haldane, Cheryl. 1993. “Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze Age.” World

Archaeology 24 (3): 348–360. Halstead, Paul. 2014. Two Oxen Ahead: Pre-Mechanized Farming in the Mediterranean. [In Press] Halstead, Paul, and Glynis Jones. 1989. “Agrarian Ecology in the Greek Islands: Time Stress,

Scale, and Risk.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 109: 41–55. Hamilakis, Yannis. 1999. “Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: the Social Context of

Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete.” World Archaeology 31 (1): 38–54.

Harrison, Timothy. 2010. “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition in the North Orontes

Valley.” In Societies in Transition: Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant Between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age, edited by Fabrizio Venturi, 83–102. Monte.

Helbaek, Hans. 1961. “Late Bronze Age and Byzantine Crops at Beycesultan in Anatolia.”

Anatolian Studies 11: 77–97. Hillman, Gordon. 1984. “Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains: the Application of

Ethnographic Models From Turkey.” In Plants and Ancient Man. Studies in Palaeoethnobotany, edited by W van zeist and W A Casparie, 1–41. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Jones, Glynis. 1983. “The Use of Ethnographic and Ecological Models in the Interpretation

of Archaeological Plant Remains: Case Studies From Greece.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Jones, Glynis. 1984. “Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains: Ethnographic Models

From Greece.” In Plants and Ancient Man, edited by W van zeist and W A Casparie, 43–61. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Jones, Glynis. 1987. “A Statistical Approach to the Archaeological Identification of Crop

Processing.” Journal of Archaeological Science (14): 311–323. Jones, Glynis. 1991. “Numerical Analysis in Archaeobotany.” In Progress in Old World

Palaeoethnobotany, edited by W van zeist, Wasytikowa, Behre, 63–80. Balkema.

! 82!

Jones, Glynis. 2000. “Evaluating the Importance of Cultivation and Collecting in Neolithic

Britain.” In Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond, edited by Andrew Fairbairn, 79–84. Oxbow Books.

Jones, Glynis. 2005. “Garden Cultivation of Staple Crops and Its Implications for Settlement

Location and Continuity.” World Archaeology 37: 164–176. Jones, Glynis, Soultana Valamoti, and M Charles. 2000. “Early Crop Diversity: a ‘New’

Glume Wheat From Northern Greece.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany (9): 133–146. Jones, Martin. 1985. “Archaeobotany Beyond Subsistence Reconstruction.” In Beyond

Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by G Barker and C Gamble, 107–128. London: Academic Press.

Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. 1974. “Symbolic Gestures in Akkadian Contracts From Alalakh and

Ugarit.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (2): 177–183. Lange, A G. 1990. Plant Remains From a Native Settlement at the Roman Frontier: De Horden Near

Wijkbij Duurstede. a Numerical Approach. Amersfoort: Nederlandse Oudheden. Lauinger, Jacob. 2005. “Epigraphic Finds From the Oriental Institute’s 2003 Excavations at

Alalakh*.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 64 (1): 53–58. Maekawa, Kazuya. 1990. “Cultivation Methods in the Ur III Period.” Bulletin on Sumerian

Agriculture: 115–145. Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie. 1994. “Urban-Rural Relations in Bronze Age Syria: Evidence

Form Alalah Level VII Palace Archives.” In Archaeological Views From the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, edited by Glenn Schwartz and Steven Falconer, 37–47. Washingson DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Margaritis, Evi, and Martin Jones. 2007. “Crop Processing of Olea Europaea L.: an

Experimental Approach for the Interpretation of Archaeobotanical Olive Remains.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (4): 381–392.

Margaritis, Evi, and Martin Jones. 2008. “Olive Oil Production in Hellenistic Greece: the

Interpretation of Charred Olive Remains From the Site of Tria Platania, Macedonia, Greece (Fourth–Second Century B.C.).” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (4): 393–401.

Martin, Alexander, and William Barkley. 2000. Seed Identification Manual. Caldwell, NJ:

Blackburn Press. Matthews, Roger. 2012. “Hittites and ‘Barbarians’ in the Late Bronze Age: Regional Survey

in Northern Turkey.” Archaeology International: 1–4.

! 83!

Miller, Naomi F. 1991. “The Near East.” In Progress in Old Wold Palaeoethnobotany: a

Retrospective View on the Occasion of 20 Years of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, edited by W van zeist, Krystyna Wasylikowa, and Karl-Ernst Behre, 133–160. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Miller, Naomi F, and Tristine Smart. 1984. “Intentional Burning of Dung as Fuel: a

Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds Into the Archaeological Record.” Journal of Ethnobiology 4 (1): 15–28.

Miller, Naomi F, Melinda A Zeder, and Susan R Arter. 2009. “From Food and Fuel to Farms

and Flocks.” Current Anthropology 50 (6): 915–924. Morris, C E, and J H Crouwel. 1985. “Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery From Tell Atchana

(Alalakh).” The Annual of the British School at Athens 80: 85–98. Nesbitt, Mark. 1995. “Plants and People in Ancient Anatolia.” The Biblical Archaeologist 58 (2):

68–81. Nesbitt, Mark. 2009. Identification Guide for Near Eastern Grass Seeds. Left Coast Press. Novak, Mirko. 2007. “Mittani Empire and the Question of Absolute Chronology: Some

Archaeological Considerations.” In The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by M Bietak and E Czerny, 389–401. Proceedings of the SCIEM.

Politopoulos, Aris. 2012. “From Mitanni to Middle Assyrians: Changes in Settlement Patterns

and Agriculture in the Land of Hanigalbat.” University of Leiden. Riehl, Simone. 2009. “Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Interrelationship of Agricultural

Decision-Making and Climate Change in the Ancient Near East.” Quaternary International 197 (1-2): 93–114.

Riehl, Simone. 2010. “Flourishing Agriculture in Times of Political Instability: the

Archaeobotanical and Isotopic Evidence From Tell Atchana.” In Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh: the 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K Aslihan Yener, 1:123–139. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari.

Riehl, Simone. 2012. “Variability in Ancient Near Eastern Environmental and Agricultural

Development.” Journal of Arid Environments 86 (C): 113–121. Riehl, Simone, Konstantin Pustovoytov, Aron Dornauer, and Walther Sallaberger. 2012.

“Mid-to-Late Holocene Agricultural System Transformations in the Northern Fertile Crescent: a Review of the Archaeobotanical, Geoarchaeological, and Philological Evidence.” In Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations: Geophisycal Monograph Series 198, 115–136. American Geophysical Association.

! 84!

Riehl, Simone, Reid Bryson, and Konstantin Pustovoytov. 2008. “Changing Growing Conditions for Crops During the Near Eastern Bronze Age (3000–1200 BC): the Stable Carbon Isotope Evidence.” Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (4): 1011–1022.

Sadori, Laura, Francesca Susanna, and Carlo Persiani. 2006. “Archaeobotanical Data and

Crop Storage Evidence From an Early Bronze Age 2 Burnt House at Arslantepe, Malatya, Turkey.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 15 (3): 205–215.

Salavert, Aurélie. 2008. “Olive Cultivation and Oil Production in Palestine During the Early

Bronze Age (3500–2000 B.C.): the Case of Tel Yarmouth, Israel.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (S1): 53–61. 3.

Shahack-Gross, Ruth. 2011. “Herbivorous Livestock Dung: Formation, Taphonomy,

Methods for Identification, and Archaeological Significance.” Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2): 205–218.

Speiser, E A. 1954. “The Alalakh Tablets.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1): 18–25. Twiss, Katheryn C, Amy Bogaard, Michael Charles, Jennifer Henecke, Nerissa Russell,

Louise Martin, and Glynis Jones. 2009. “Plants and Animals Together.” Current Anthropology 50 (6): 885–895.

Valamoti, Soultana Maria, and Mike Charles. 2005. “Distinguishing Food From Fodder

Through the Study of Charred Plant Remains: an Experimental Approach to Dung-Derived Chaff.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14 (4): 528–533.

van der Veen, Marijke. 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes. an Archaeobotanical Study of Farming in

Northern England: 1000 BC - AD 500. Sheffield: JR Collis Publications. van der Veen, Marijke. 2007. “Formation Processes of Desiccated and Carbonized Plant

Remains – the Identification of Routine Practice.” Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (6): 968–990.

van der Veen, Marijke, and Glynis Jones. 2006. “A Re-Analysis of Agricultural Production

and Consumption: Implications for Understanding the British Iron Age.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 15 (3): 217–228.

van der Veen, Marijke, and Nick Fieller. 1982. “Sampling Seeds.” Journal of Archaeological

Science 9: 287–298. van zeist, W, and J A H Bakker-Heeres. 1982. “Archaeobotanical Studies in the Levant:

Neolithic Sites in the Damascus Basin - Aswad, Ghoraife, Ramad.” Palaeohistoria 24: 165–256.

van zeist, W, and J A H Bakker-Heeres. 1985. “Archaeobotanical Studies in the Levant:

Bronze Age Sites on the North Syrian Euphrates.” Palaeohistoria 27: 247–316.

! 85!

Weiss, Barry. 1982. “The Decline of Late Bronze Age Civilization as a Possible Response to Climatic Change.” Climatic Change: 173–198.

Wilkinson, T J. 1997. “Environmental Fluctuations, Agricultural Production and Collapse: a

View From Bronze Age Upper Mesopotamia.” In Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, edited by H Nuzhet Dalfes, George Kukla, and Harvey Weiss, 67–106. Springer.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute of Archaeology at

Ankara. Wiseman, Donald J. 1959. “Ration Lists From Alalakh IV.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 13 (2):

50–59. Woolley, Leonard. 1955. Alalakh: an Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in Hatay, 1937-

1949. London: Society of Antiquaries. Yener, K Aslihan. 2001. “Alalakh: a Late Bronze Age Capital in the Amuq Valley, Southern

Turkey.” The Oriental Institute News and Notes 169: 1–16. Yener, K Aslihan. 2005. The Amuq Valley Regional Projects: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and

Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002. Edited by Leslie Schramer and Thomas Urban. Vol. 1. The Oriental Institute.

Yener, K Aslihan. 2007. “The Anatolian Middle Bronze Age Kingdoms and Alalakh: Mukish,

Kanesh, and Trade.” Anatolian Studies 57: 151–160. Yener, K Aslihan, Christopher Edens, Timothy Harrison, J Verstraete, and T J Wilkinson.

2000. “The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998.” American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2): 163–220.

Yener, K Aslihan, J David Schloen, and Amir Sumakai Fink. 2004. “Reliving the Legend: the

Expedition to Alalakh, 2003.” The Oriental Institute News and Notes 181: 1–6. Yener, K Aslihan, J David Schloen, and Amir Sumakai Fink. 2005. “2004-2005 Annual

Report: Expedition to Alalakh (Tell Atchana).” Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

! 86!

Appendix I: Alalakh Sample Data !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! 87!

!Level V Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 1

! 88!

!

Level V Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 1 Cont.

!

! 89!

!

Level V Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 2

!!

! 90!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

Level V Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 2 Cont.

!

! 91!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Level V Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 3

!

! 92!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Level V Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 3 Cont.

!

! 93!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

Level V Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 4

!

! 94!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

Level V Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 4 Cont.

!

! 95!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level V Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 5

!

! 96!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level V Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 5 Cont.

!

! 97!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level IV Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 1

!

! 98!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level IV Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 1 Cont.

!

! 99!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level IV Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 2

!

! 100!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level IV Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 2 Cont.

!

! 101!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

Level IV Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part 3

!

! 102!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

Level IV Samples, Wild Taxa, Part 3 Cont.

!

! 103!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Level III Samples, Cultivated Taxa

!

! 104!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Level III Samples, Wild Taxa

!

! 105!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Level II Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part I

!

! 106!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Level II Samples, Wild Taxa, Part I Cont.

!

! 107!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

Level II Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part II

!

! 108!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

Level II Samples, Wild Taxa, Part II Cont.

!

! 109!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Level II Samples, Cultivated Taxa, Part III

!

! 110!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

Level II Samples, Wild Taxa, Part III Cont.

!

! 111!

Appendix II: Discriminant Analysis Results !

1=Winnowing By-Product (BP), 3=Fine Sieve BP, 4=Fine Sieve Product