The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete

New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 42

The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete

New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands

edited by

Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou

Published byINSTAP Academic Press

Philadelphia Pennsylvania2013

Design and ProductionINSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia PA

Printing and BindingHoster Bindery Inc Ivyland PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The neolithic settlement of Knossos in Crete new evidence for the early occupation of Crete and the Aegean islands edited by Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou pages cm -- (Prehistory monographs 42) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-931534-72-7 (hardcover alk paper) 1 Knossos (Extinct city) 2 Neolithic period--Greece--Crete 3 Land settlement patterns Prehistoric--Greece--Crete 4 Crete (Greece)--Antiquities I Efstratiou Nicholas DF221C8N46 2013 939rsquo18--dc23

2013016076

Copyright copy 2013

INSTAP Academic PressPhiladelphia Pennsylvania

All rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America

To the memory of Professor JD Evans a gentleman of British Archaeology

ndashNikos Efstratiou

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text ix

List of Figures in the Text xiii

Preface Alexandra Karetsou xix

Acknowledgments xxiii

Introduction Nikos Efstratiou xxv

1 The Excavation Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou 1

2 The Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases Nikos Efstratiou 25

3 Fabric Diversity in the Neolithic Ceramics of Knossos Sarantis Dimitriadis 47

4 Neolithic Sedimentology at Knossos Maria-Pilar Fumanal Garciacuteadagger 53

5 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data Anaya Sarpaki 63

6 Wood Charcoal Analysis The Local Vegetation Ernestina Badal and Maria Ntinou 95

7 Plant Economy and the Use of Space Evidence from the Opal Phytoliths Marco Madella 119

8 The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands Manuel Peacuterez Ripoll 133

9 The Earliest Settlement on Crete An Archaeozoological Perspective Liora Kolska Horwitz 171

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 42

The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete

New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands

edited by

Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou

Published byINSTAP Academic Press

Philadelphia Pennsylvania2013

Design and ProductionINSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia PA

Printing and BindingHoster Bindery Inc Ivyland PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The neolithic settlement of Knossos in Crete new evidence for the early occupation of Crete and the Aegean islands edited by Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou pages cm -- (Prehistory monographs 42) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-931534-72-7 (hardcover alk paper) 1 Knossos (Extinct city) 2 Neolithic period--Greece--Crete 3 Land settlement patterns Prehistoric--Greece--Crete 4 Crete (Greece)--Antiquities I Efstratiou Nicholas DF221C8N46 2013 939rsquo18--dc23

2013016076

Copyright copy 2013

INSTAP Academic PressPhiladelphia Pennsylvania

All rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America

To the memory of Professor JD Evans a gentleman of British Archaeology

ndashNikos Efstratiou

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text ix

List of Figures in the Text xiii

Preface Alexandra Karetsou xix

Acknowledgments xxiii

Introduction Nikos Efstratiou xxv

1 The Excavation Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou 1

2 The Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases Nikos Efstratiou 25

3 Fabric Diversity in the Neolithic Ceramics of Knossos Sarantis Dimitriadis 47

4 Neolithic Sedimentology at Knossos Maria-Pilar Fumanal Garciacuteadagger 53

5 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data Anaya Sarpaki 63

6 Wood Charcoal Analysis The Local Vegetation Ernestina Badal and Maria Ntinou 95

7 Plant Economy and the Use of Space Evidence from the Opal Phytoliths Marco Madella 119

8 The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands Manuel Peacuterez Ripoll 133

9 The Earliest Settlement on Crete An Archaeozoological Perspective Liora Kolska Horwitz 171

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 42

The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete

New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands

edited by

Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou

Published byINSTAP Academic Press

Philadelphia Pennsylvania2013

Design and ProductionINSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia PA

Printing and BindingHoster Bindery Inc Ivyland PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The neolithic settlement of Knossos in Crete new evidence for the early occupation of Crete and the Aegean islands edited by Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou pages cm -- (Prehistory monographs 42) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-931534-72-7 (hardcover alk paper) 1 Knossos (Extinct city) 2 Neolithic period--Greece--Crete 3 Land settlement patterns Prehistoric--Greece--Crete 4 Crete (Greece)--Antiquities I Efstratiou Nicholas DF221C8N46 2013 939rsquo18--dc23

2013016076

Copyright copy 2013

INSTAP Academic PressPhiladelphia Pennsylvania

All rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America

To the memory of Professor JD Evans a gentleman of British Archaeology

ndashNikos Efstratiou

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text ix

List of Figures in the Text xiii

Preface Alexandra Karetsou xix

Acknowledgments xxiii

Introduction Nikos Efstratiou xxv

1 The Excavation Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou 1

2 The Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases Nikos Efstratiou 25

3 Fabric Diversity in the Neolithic Ceramics of Knossos Sarantis Dimitriadis 47

4 Neolithic Sedimentology at Knossos Maria-Pilar Fumanal Garciacuteadagger 53

5 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data Anaya Sarpaki 63

6 Wood Charcoal Analysis The Local Vegetation Ernestina Badal and Maria Ntinou 95

7 Plant Economy and the Use of Space Evidence from the Opal Phytoliths Marco Madella 119

8 The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands Manuel Peacuterez Ripoll 133

9 The Earliest Settlement on Crete An Archaeozoological Perspective Liora Kolska Horwitz 171

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Design and ProductionINSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia PA

Printing and BindingHoster Bindery Inc Ivyland PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The neolithic settlement of Knossos in Crete new evidence for the early occupation of Crete and the Aegean islands edited by Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Maria Ntinou pages cm -- (Prehistory monographs 42) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-931534-72-7 (hardcover alk paper) 1 Knossos (Extinct city) 2 Neolithic period--Greece--Crete 3 Land settlement patterns Prehistoric--Greece--Crete 4 Crete (Greece)--Antiquities I Efstratiou Nicholas DF221C8N46 2013 939rsquo18--dc23

2013016076

Copyright copy 2013

INSTAP Academic PressPhiladelphia Pennsylvania

All rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America

To the memory of Professor JD Evans a gentleman of British Archaeology

ndashNikos Efstratiou

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text ix

List of Figures in the Text xiii

Preface Alexandra Karetsou xix

Acknowledgments xxiii

Introduction Nikos Efstratiou xxv

1 The Excavation Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou 1

2 The Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases Nikos Efstratiou 25

3 Fabric Diversity in the Neolithic Ceramics of Knossos Sarantis Dimitriadis 47

4 Neolithic Sedimentology at Knossos Maria-Pilar Fumanal Garciacuteadagger 53

5 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data Anaya Sarpaki 63

6 Wood Charcoal Analysis The Local Vegetation Ernestina Badal and Maria Ntinou 95

7 Plant Economy and the Use of Space Evidence from the Opal Phytoliths Marco Madella 119

8 The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands Manuel Peacuterez Ripoll 133

9 The Earliest Settlement on Crete An Archaeozoological Perspective Liora Kolska Horwitz 171

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

To the memory of Professor JD Evans a gentleman of British Archaeology

ndashNikos Efstratiou

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text ix

List of Figures in the Text xiii

Preface Alexandra Karetsou xix

Acknowledgments xxiii

Introduction Nikos Efstratiou xxv

1 The Excavation Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou 1

2 The Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases Nikos Efstratiou 25

3 Fabric Diversity in the Neolithic Ceramics of Knossos Sarantis Dimitriadis 47

4 Neolithic Sedimentology at Knossos Maria-Pilar Fumanal Garciacuteadagger 53

5 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data Anaya Sarpaki 63

6 Wood Charcoal Analysis The Local Vegetation Ernestina Badal and Maria Ntinou 95

7 Plant Economy and the Use of Space Evidence from the Opal Phytoliths Marco Madella 119

8 The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands Manuel Peacuterez Ripoll 133

9 The Earliest Settlement on Crete An Archaeozoological Perspective Liora Kolska Horwitz 171

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Table of Contents

List of Tables in the Text ix

List of Figures in the Text xiii

Preface Alexandra Karetsou xix

Acknowledgments xxiii

Introduction Nikos Efstratiou xxv

1 The Excavation Nikos Efstratiou Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou 1

2 The Stratigraphy and Cultural Phases Nikos Efstratiou 25

3 Fabric Diversity in the Neolithic Ceramics of Knossos Sarantis Dimitriadis 47

4 Neolithic Sedimentology at Knossos Maria-Pilar Fumanal Garciacuteadagger 53

5 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data Anaya Sarpaki 63

6 Wood Charcoal Analysis The Local Vegetation Ernestina Badal and Maria Ntinou 95

7 Plant Economy and the Use of Space Evidence from the Opal Phytoliths Marco Madella 119

8 The Knossos Fauna and the Beginning of the Neolithic in the Mediterranean Islands Manuel Peacuterez Ripoll 133

9 The Earliest Settlement on Crete An Archaeozoological Perspective Liora Kolska Horwitz 171

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

viii THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

10 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos An Overview Yorgos Facorellis and Yiannis Maniatis 193

11 Knossos and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands Nikos Efstratiou 201

Index 215

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Table 41 Correlation of sedimentology samples with excavation levels and cultural phases 55

Table 42 Munsell color and calculation of statistical parameters of mean size sorting skewness and kurtosis for each of the analyzed sedimentology samples 56

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) 67

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates 67

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil 68

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos 71

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris 74

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples 75

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae 78

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum 78

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples 81

List of Tables in the Text

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

x THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions 85

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 86

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples 88

Table 61 Inventories of plants growing in different parts of the study area 99

Table 62 Absolute and relative frequencies of taxa identified in the wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 102

Table 63 Presence of plant taxa in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos along with the total number of fragments analyzed and the total number of taxa identified in each level 104

Table 71 Knossos 1997 south profile phytolith counts 122

Table 72 Knossos 1997 west profile phytolith counts 125

Table 81 Number of identified and unidentified specimens by taxa and period 135

Table 82 Measurements of bones from Bos taurus 135

Table 83 Measurements of bones from Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) 136

Table 84 Measurements of bones from Sus scrofa domesticus Sus scrofa ferus Capra aegagrus Martes and Meles meles 138

Table 85 Number of identified specimens of Bos OvisCapra and Sus with number of marks caused by dog gnawing 140

Table 86 Early Neolithic I and EN II faunal remains 141

Table 87 Early Neolithic IIMN faunal remains 142

Table 88 Middle Neolithic faunal remains 144

Table 89A Late Neolithic faunal remains 146

Table 89B Late Neolithic faunal remains 149

Table 810 Number of identified specimens of Bos and OvisCapraSus with burn marks 151

Table 811 Number of long bone remains (the diaphysis fragments are not counted here) phalanges and tarsi corresponding to mature and immature bones along with the number of LN tooth remains grouped by age for comparison with the long bones 156

Table 812 Number of mandibles (NM) for goats and sheep from the LN levels classified by age 157

Table 813 Number of mandibles (NM) of Bos taurus classified by age 158

Table 814 Number of maxillary and mandibular remains of Sus scrofa domesticus classified by age 159

Table 815 Number of identified specimens of Bos taurus classified by sex 160

Table 816 Number of identified specimens of Ovis aries (Oa) and Capra hircus (Ch) classified by sex 160

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xiLIST OF TABLES IN THE TEXT

Table 817 Chronological representation of the faunal species at Knossos 161

Table 818 Percentages of identified specimens of domestic and wild species at Knossos and other sites 161

Table 819 Representation and abundance of various faunal species at Shillourokambos Ais Yiorkis and Khirokitia 162

Table 820 Introduction and chronological representation of wild animals at various sites in Crete 163

Table 91 Relative frequencies (percentages) of animal species from Knossos 175

Table 92 Schematic representation of the relative chronology (cal bc dates) of sites mentioned in the text 183

Table 101 Summary of the British Museum radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the excavations of JD Evans at Neolithic Knossos sorted by age 194

Table 102 Description of the samples dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory 195

Table 103 Summary of radiocarbon dating results of carbonized samples collected in 1997 from the Neolithic settlement levels at Knossos 196

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Frontispiece The city the fortifications the harbor and the hinterland of Khandax (Herakleion) in the first half of the 17th century Map by unknown cartographer 17th c Collezione Museo Civico Padua Vikelaia Municipal Library Herakleion ii

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past xxi

Figure 11 Plan of the Palace of Knossos showing the Central Court and the location of the excavation 2

Figure 12 Trench II (a) view of the Central Court of the Palace looking northeast (b) view of the area of the rescue dig looking northeast (c) view looking northeast of the stratigraphy of the upper part of the trench in the souther profile 3

Figure 13 Plan of the excavation trenches next to the staircase 3

Figure 14 South and west stratigraphic profiles of the trench 4

Figure 15 View of excavation level 4 showing hearth in northwest corner of the trench 5

Figure 16 Plans of excavation levels 9 and 10 7

Figure 17 Plan of excavation level 12 showing the round kouskouras feature (12A) in southwest corner 8

Figure 18 View of excavation level 12 showing kouskouras deposit and feature (12A) in northwest corner 8

List of Figures in the Text

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xiv THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 19 Plan of excavation level 13 9

Figure 110 Plan of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 9

Figure 111 View of excavation level 14 showing hearth in northwest corner 10

Figure 112 Plans of excavation levels 15 and 16 showing appearance of walls 1 and 2 running from north to south 11

Figure 113 View of excavation level 15 from above 12

Figure 114 View of excavation level 16 from above 12

Figure 115 View of excavation level 16 facing west section 12

Figure 116 Plan of excavation level 17 showing walls 1 and 2 and the first appearance of walls 3 and 4 12

Figure 117 View of level 17 facing west section 13

Figure 118 View of excavation level 18 from above 13

Figure 119 View of excavation level 19 from above 13

Figure 120 Plan of excavation level 21 showing walls 3 4 5 and 6 13

Figure 121 View of excavation level 21 from above 14

Figure 122 View of excavation level 23 14

Figure 123 View of excavation level 24 showing wall 7 and grinding stones 14

Figure 124 Plans of excavation levels 22 and 24 15

Figure 125 Plan of excavation level 27 16

Figure 126 View of excavation level 28 from above 16

Figure 127 View of excavation level 28 facing west profile 16

Figure 128 Plans of excavation levels 29ndash29a and 30ndash30a showing walls and hearths 17

Figure 129 View of level 29A showing hearths 1 2 and 3 18

Figure 130 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 18

Figure 131 View of excavation level 30 showing hearth 4 and the elliptical structure 19

Figure 132 View of the elliptical stone wall from levels 24ndash27 19

Figure 133 View of excavation level 31 19

Figure 134 Plans of excavation levels 31 32 and 34 showing hearths 5 6 and 7 20

Figure 135 Plan of excavation level 37 showing pits 1 and 2 21

Figure 21 Sedimentological samples of the middle part of the south profile 26

Figure 41 Fine fraction granulometry () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 42 The organic content () of the samples from the west profile 57

Figure 43 The carbonate content of the samples from the west profile 57

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xvLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 44 Morphoscopy of sands without acid treatment 57

Figure 45 Morphoscopy of sands after the elimination of calcareous grains (subsequent to acid treatment) 57

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos 69

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos 72

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos compared with average values for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East 73

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos 74

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşkli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad 89

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos 90

Figure 61 Climate and topography of Knossos (a) mean annual precipitation in Crete (b) topographic map of the area around Knossos (c) westndasheast topographic section (d) southwestndashnortheast topographic section 96

Figure 62 View of the Knossos valley from Mt Juktas showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 63 Panoramic view of the site of Knossos showing present-day vegetation 98

Figure 64 Present-day phrygana vegetation on the hills in the study area 98

Figure 65 Present-day vegetation on deep soils in the study area 98

Figure 66 Anatomy of plant taxa identified in wood charcoal assemblages from Neolithic Knossos 106

Figure 67 Wood charcoal diagram from Neolithic Knossos showing relative frequencies of taxa in successive excavation levels 108

Figure 71 Bar chart of phytolith per centage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 72 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the south profile 122

Figure 73 West profile stratigraphy and sampling 123

Figure 74 Bar chart of phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 124

Figure 75 Bar chart of C3 and C

4 phytolith percentage frequencies from the west profile 125

Figure 76 Trench section (southwest corner to west face) with phases identified according to phytolith composition and frequencies 127

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xvi THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Figure 77 Silica skeleton from grass leaf (long cells and a stoma) from the EN I deposits (sample XXa level 32) 129

Figure 78 Wheat-type silica skeleton from the EN I deposits (sample XXIVb level 32) 129

Figure 79 Silica skeleton from a dicotyledonous plant from the EN I deposits (sample XIV level 30) 129

Figure 710 Millet-type silica skeleton from the EN II deposits (sample Xa level 16) 129

Figure 81 Percentages of the osseous parts of cattle long bones 139

Figure 82 Percentages of the osseous parts belonging to the long bones of middle-sized mammals (goats sheep and pigs) 139

Figure 83 Skeletal fragments of long bones of OvisCapra from level 14 all with dog-gnawing marks 140

Figure 84 Fragments of proximal epiphyses of femur and tibia of Bos taurus with fracture marks caused by impacts from the extraction of marrow level 24 151

Figure 85 Animal bones from level 3 (a) radius diaphysis (b) radius proximal part (c) scapula (d) fragment of femur (e) phalanx I of Capra aegagrus 153

Figure 86 Distal metacarpus of Capra aegagrus and Ovis aries 153

Figure 87 Animal bones (a) ulna in lateral view probably belonging to a wild boar (level 23) (b) Sus scrofa ferus canine fragment (level 10) (c) Sus scrofa domesticus ulna in lateral view (level 14) 154

Figure 88 Diaphysis width range (SD) of Sus scrofa domesticus and Sus scrofa ferus from Zambujal (Portugal) Cerro de la Virgen (Spain) Argissa-Magula and Knossos 154

Figure 89 Meles meles (a) left mandible in lateral view (level 14) (b) lower canine (level 14) (c) left ulna in medial views the proximal epiphysis is not fused (level 3) Martes (d) distal part of humerus in cranial view (level 9) 155

Figure 810 Age classes of the mandibles of Ovis and Capra 157

Figure 811 Age classes of the mandibles of Bos taurus 158

Figure 812 Distal part of metacarpus belonging to a male (possibly ox) of Bos taurus with osseous deformations on the articular surfaces 158

Figure 813 Age classes of Sus scrofa domesticus maxillae and mandibles 159

Figure 814 Correlation of the measurements of phalanx I belonging to Bos taurus 160

Figure 91 Map showing location of sites mentioned in the text 1 Ashkelon 2 lsquoAin Ghazal 3 Atlit Yam 4 Hagoshrim and Tel Ali 5 Ras Shamra 6 Cap Andreas Kastros 7 Khirokitia 8 Tenta 9 Asikli Houmlyuumlk 10 Mersin 11 Can Hasan III 12 Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk 13 Suberde 14 Haccedililar 15 Nea Nikomedeia 16 Argissa-Magula 17 Sesklo 18 Achilleion 19 Franchthi Cave 20 Sidari Corfu 21 Cave of the Cyclops Youra 22 Melos 23 Santorini 24 Knossos Crete 25 Tel Aray 2 26 Umm el Tlel 27 Qdeir 28 El Kowm 2 173

Figure 92 Adult male agrimi (Capra aegagrus cretica) showing phenotypic resemblance to the wild bezoar goat 177

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xviiLIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT

Figure 101 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by stratum of the samples from the excavations of JD Evans 198

Figure 102 Distribution of calibrated dates sorted by depth of the samples from the 1997 archaeological campaign 198

Figure 103 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 1997 excavation at Knossos plotted against the depth of the samples in order to determine the accumulation rate of the habitation deposits 198

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Preface

The site of Knossos on the Kephala hill in Crete is of great archaeological and historical importance for Greece and Europe Dating back to 7000 bc it is the home of one of the earliest farming societies in southeastern Europe In later Bronze Age periods it developed into a remarkable center of econom-ic and social organization within the island enjoy-ing extensive relations with the Aegean the Greek mainland the Near East and Egypt Arthur Evans excavated the site at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury and through his extensive and spectacular res-toration and reconstruction efforts he transformed Knossos into one of the most popular archaeological sites in the Old World (Evans 1901 1921ndash1935 1927 1928) Knossos is now best known among both specialists and the wider public for its unique cen-tral building conventionally called a palace which is one of the earliest archaeological monuments to have been restored on such a scale

What was not apparent during the early ar-chaeological research at the site was the impres-sive extent and depth of the earlier habitation that lies under the imposing palace even though

the laborious work of Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie in the early 20th century had re-vealed considerable amounts of Neolithic mate-rial (Mackenzie 1903) In 1953 Audrey Furness studied and published the Neolithic pottery from Evansrsquos test soundings with the aim of testing the three ldquoStone Agerdquo periods discussed by Mackenzie (Furness 1953) The successful work of Furness led the British School at Athens to launch a se-ries of systematic investigations at Knossos di-rected by Sinclair Hood and John D Evans from 1956 to 1971 (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Warren et al 1968) The well-known Trenches A to C which were opened in the area of the Central Court of the palace together with the peripheral soundings X and ZE confirmed a chronological sequence of 10 strata representing at least 4000 years of Neolithic occupation including the still-disputed Aceramic phase Looking back at the announcement by JD Evans (1971) of the first and very early radiocar-bon dates for the founding of Knossos (7000 bc) I cannot forget the welcome surprise with which these dates were received and I am very happy to

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xx THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

see that our recent radiocarbon dates published in this volume confirm Evansrsquos early chronology that was attained without the benefit of our mod-ern technology

Other contributions to our knowledge of the Neolithic of Crete include the work of Richard M Dawkins at Magasa in eastern Crete in 1905 (Dawkins 1905) the investigations of Angelo Mosso and Doro Levi at Phaistos (Mosso 1908) the publication of the Phaistos material by Lucia Vagnetti (Vagnetti 1972ndash1973) and the pioneering research at Katsambas by Stylianos Alexiou (1953 1954) The forthcoming publication of Katsambas by Nena Galanidou and her associates (Galanidou ed forthcoming) and the study of the materi-al from older fieldwork at Gerani and Pelekita in the Zakros area carried out by Yiannis Tzedakis and Costis Davaras respectively (Tzedakis 1970 Davaras 1979) are expected to offer more data re-garding the early occupational horizon of Crete The recent publication by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins of The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008) the latest rescue excavations carried out by the Ephorate of Central Crete in the vicinity of Katsambas and most importantly the announced presence of Mesolithic material on the islands of Crete and Gavdos show that early prehistoric research in Crete and its immediate environs is a dynamic field of investigation

A series of archaeological test soundings was opened in February 1997 in conjunction with the planning of the course of the main and secondary visitorsrsquo routes through the palace a process that involved widening the existing paths establishing new ones and examining the state of the build-ingrsquos foundations The south and east slopes of the Kephala hill were the main focus of investigation (Karetsou 2004 Ioannidou-Karetsou 2006) This research was prompted by the architect Clairy Palyvoursquos suggestion to double the width of the modern narrow stone stair leading from this part of the Central Court to the first level of the Grand Staircase where A Evans made his last attempt to restore the Medallion Pithoi The investigation which lasted five weeks was carried out under dif-ficult weather conditions and according to a very strict timetable

We were all happily surprised that in an area often disturbed for conservation work in the 1950s

and 1960s including the opening of rainwater channels deep pre-Minoan deposits remained in-tact just a few centimeters under the visitorsrsquo feet I took this to be a sign of good fortune since after three decades of personal systematic involvement with Minoan archaeology the dream of my youth to look down to the ldquoNeolithic Cretan timerdquo was becoming a reality

A collaboration with colleagues familiar with the excavation of Neolithic sites and modern data col-lection and analysis methods was my next immedi-ate concern The chance to reexamine the succession of Neolithic occupation strata on the Kephala hill-top some 50 years after the first such investigation at Knossos presented me with great expectations and challenges Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki contributed greatly to the success of the project and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him He was responsible both for the selection of the research-ers who gathered at Knossos with very short notice that February and for the coordination of the proj-ect In addition Professor Giorgos Hourmouziadis also of the Aristotle Uni versity of Thessaloniki was very helpful

Many thanks are due as well to my colleague Dr Eleni Banou who participated in the excavation on behalf of the Ephorate to Nikos Daskalakis the skilled foreman of the Knossos project and to the late Andreas Klinis also a Knossos foreman and a man of rare excavation experience

The general aims of the investigation in the Central Court of Knossos in 1997 were (1) to read-dress questions related to the old material and con-clusions reached many years ago and (2) to obtain new data which considering the nature of the ar-chaeological site with the palace standing on top of the Neolithic tell would have been otherwise impossible More specific objectives included the careful study of the stratigraphy for the confirma-tion or revision of the already established Neolithic sequence the determination of whether the alleged Aceramic phase was represented the collection of new evidence for the Neolithic ceramic sequence and the recovery of new archaeozoological and ar-chaeobotanical data and the analysis of their strati-graphic distribution (Efstratiou et al 2004) Most importantly the archaeological information was to be gathered and studied using methodologies that were not available in the pastmdashsedimentological

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

PREFACE xxi

analyses which might clarify the occupational gaps in the impressive Neolithic palimpsest phy-tolith analyses ceramic technological analyses paleoenvironmental observations and most signif-icantly new radiocarbon analyses for the establish-ment of a reliable sequence of dates

The many archaeological questions relating to the long Neolithic habitation of the Knossos tell had always intrigued me especially during my 12 years of service (1992ndash2004) as head of the Knossos Conservation Project I was impressed by the extent of the Neolithic settlement and the density of the scattered material especially that of

the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Fig i) I was enormously pleased by the opportunity we had to investigate this early Cretan farming communi-ty buried deep under the glorious Minoan palace and to contribute to its understanding There is no doubt that the Knossos Neolithic settlementmdashwhether or not it was the first and only one in Cretemdashconstitutes one of the earliest agricultur-al communities in Greece and it is also surely the earliest in the Aegean islands

Alexandra KaretsouHonorary Ephor of Antiquities

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

5280

5270

5260

5250

5240

5230

5220

5210

5200

5190

5180

5170

5160

5150

5140

5130

1765

0

1766

0

1767

0

1768

0

1769

0

1770

0

1771

0

1772

0

1773

0

1774

0

1775

0

1776

0

1777

0

1778

0

1779

0

1780

0

1781

0

1782

0

1783

0

1784

0

Figure i The Minoan palace and its Neolithic past areas where Neolithic deposits and ceramics are found are indicated with black dots (1997 ndash2004)

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxii

ReferencesAlexiou S 1953 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo

Prakt 108 [1956] pp 299ndash308

mdashmdashmdash 1954 ldquoἈνασκαφὴ Κατσαμπᾶ Kρήτηςrdquo Prakt 109 [1957] pp 369ndash374

Davaras C 1979 ldquoΣπήλαιο Πελεκητών Ζάκρουrdquo ArchDelt 34 (B 2 Chronika) pp 402ndash404

Dawkins RM 1905 ldquoExcavations at Palaikastro IV2 Neolithic Settlement at Magasaacuterdquo BSA 11 pp 260ndash268

Efstratiou N A Karetsou E Banou and D Margomenou 2004 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement of Knossos New Light on an Old Picturerdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 39ndash51

Evans AJ 1901 ldquoThe Neolithic Settlement at Knossos and Its Place in the History of Early Aegean Culturerdquo Man 1 pp 184ndash186

mdashmdashmdash 1921ndash1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos IndashIV London

mdashmdashmdash 1927 ldquoWork of Reconstruction in the Palace of Knossosrdquo AntJ 7 pp 258ndash266

mdashmdashmdash 1928 ldquoThe Palace of Knossos and Its Dependencies in the Light of Recent Discoveries and Reconstructionsrdquo Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 36 pp 90ndash102

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Furness A 1953 ldquoThe Neolithic Pottery of Knossosrdquo BSA 48 pp 94ndash134

Galanidou N ed Forthcoming The Neolithic Settlement by the River Kairatos The Alexiou Excavations at Katsamba

Ioannidou-Karetsou A 2006 ldquoΑπό την Κνωσό μέχρι τη Ζάκρο H περιπέτεια της προστασίας των ιστορι-κών αρχαιολογικών χώρων στην κεντρική και ανα-τολική Κρήτηrdquo in Conservation and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Large Islands of the Mediterranean V Karageorghis and A Giannikouri eds Athens pp 61ndash76

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

Karetsou A 2004 ldquoKnossos after Evans Past In ter-ventions Present State and Future Solutionsrdquo in Knossos Palace City State Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School of Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in November 2000 for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evansrsquos Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12) G Cadogan E Hatzaki and A Vasilakis eds London pp 547ndash555

Mackenzie D 1903 ldquoThe Pottery of Knossosrdquo JHS 23 pp 157ndash205

Mosso A 1908 ldquoCeramica neolitica di Phaestos e vasi dellrsquoepoca minoica primitivardquo MonAnt 19 pp 142ndash228

Tzedakis I 1970 ldquoἈρχαιλογική Ἐρεύvε Ἀνασκαφί Σπήλαιο Γερανίουrdquo ArchDelt 25 (B 2 Chronika) pp 474ndash476

Vagnetti L 1972ndash1973 ldquoLrsquoinsediamento neolitico di Festogravesrdquo ASAtene 34ndash35 pp 7ndash138

Warren P MR Jarman HM Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Acknowledgments

The excavators are grateful to all the people who made this publication possible First and foremost we would like to express our thanks to Dr Iordanis Dimakopoulos former Director of the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Tourism He fully understood the need for the rescue excavation to be carried out at a time when the visitorsrsquo walkway project at the pal-ace of Knossos was already under way with a tight deadline

Our warmest thanks are also due to the technical staff of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the Knossos Conservation Office who worked through the particularly cold February of 2011 We would especially like to thank Nikos Daskalakis Stavros Mavrakis and Michalis Tzobanakis who construct-ed a small shelter to protect both staff and trenches from the rain since the excava-tion ran from sunrise to sunset The late Andreas Klinis a foreman of special skill and astuteness was the person whom we entrusted with the stratigraphy he was the only one to work at a depth of four to eight meters We must also thank Konstantinos Ktistakis for his accurate plans elevations and sections of the trenches Dr Don Evely former Knossos curator for the British School at Athens for his help during the study of the material and archaeologist Maria Kelaidi who spent an entire sum-mer in the courtyard of the Villa Ariadne meticulously sieving the huge amount of soil from the excavation Vital assistance was also provided by the head guard of the palace of Knossos Manolis Apostolakis and the rest of the guard staff The Ephorate accountants Evangelia Fotaki and Litsa Kafousi also provided their services without which the project would not have been possible

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

xxiv

Finally we would like to express our particular thanks for the generosity of Professor Philip Betancourt who enthusiastically supported the publication of this volume by the INSTAP Academic Press and to the Director of Publications Susan Ferrence for all her efforts in ensuring that the resulting publication was of the high-est possible standard Our warmest gratitude is also of course due to all the contrib-utors to the volume

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETE

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

Introduction

Nikos Efstratiou

The construction of a staircase extension in the northeastern part of the Central Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos prompted the open-ing of a new excavation trench in 1997 After the systematic excavation of the deep Neolithic occu-pation levels by JD Evans in the late 1950s (1964 132) and later more limited investigations of the Prepalatial deposits undertaken primarily dur-ing restoration work no thorough exploration of the earliest occupation of the mound had been at-tempted Although our operation was to be swift and limited in extent we knew that the opening of a trench destined to reach the basal layers of the settlement offered us the opportunity to address many old and new research questions concerning the chronological socioeconomic and spatial as-pects of Cretan Neolithic society (Evans 1994 1)

Since the time of Evansrsquos research excava-tion techniques and field methods have devel-oped rapidly and a new more complex picture of late Pleistocene and early Holocene developments in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean has emerged The chance to reexamine the important

but inconspicuous Neolithic deposits of the Knossos tell afforded both an appealing and a demanding challenge

While the Bronze Age palace dominates the his-toriography of the site and its archaeological image the Neolithic settlement at Knossos does not hold the position it deserves in discussions of the early prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean in part be-cause of the limited research directed toward the early prehistory of Crete and the other Aegean is-lands Moreover the publication of the Neolithic settlement has been confined to a few preliminary though excellent field reports and short studies pro-duced by Professor JD Evans and his collabora-tors (1964 132 1971 95 Warren et al 1968 239) When attempted previous syntheses of this ma-terial have been either very cautious analyses of the limited data (Evans 1994 1) or provocative in-terpretations containing attractive but ill-founded speculations (Broodbank 1992 39 Whitelaw 1992 225) Additional Neolithic material recovered from later small field investigations focusing on Bronze Age deposits has been welcome but because such

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxvi

information is scarce it cannot provide the an-swers to many open questions (Manteli and Evely 1995 1)

It is fortunate that certain categories of the ar-chaeological material from Evansrsquos investigations have recently undergone detailed reexamination with respect to issues of spatial organization ce-ramic typology and technology lithics and fau-nal remains (Isaakidou and Tomkins eds 2008)

Despite these new and interesting studies howev-er the need for a better understanding of the founda-tion and development of Neolithic Knossos continues This impressive and long-lived settlementmdashone of the very few tells in Greecemdashis of paramount im-portance to the history of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (Berger and Guilaine 2009) Recent developments in the archaeology of Cyprus and the Aegean islands make the reevaluation of long-held concepts about this region and time peri-od all the more urgent as discussed in Chapter 11

Although a number of rigorous surface recon-naissance projects have been undertaken in Crete in the past decades Knossos remains the only early settlement known on the island (Manning 1999 469) The methodology employed in these all- period surveys was not specifically designed to lo-cate early sites however In the last few years field researchers have become increasingly critical of older methods used to identify traces of early habi-tation sites especially in view of the geomorpholog-ical complexity of coastal and island areas (Runnels 2003 121 Ammerman et al 2006 1) Until spe-cially designed surface reconnaissance projects are carried out in various coastal areas the presence of other early occupation sites in Crete remains an open possibility Thus the recently reported re-sults of the Plakias Mesolithic Survey in Crete in which a number of pre-Neolithic sites rich in lith-ic scatters were identified along the southern coast of the island do not come as a surprise (Strasser et al 2010) Indeed current research in Cyprus indi-cates that we may encounter more new and unex-pected late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds in the eastern Mediterranean (Ammerman 2011) Many older views of early habitation patterns in the Aegean islands should now be treated with skepti-cism (Cherry 1990 145)

The newly found Mesolithic habitation remains along the south coast of the island may ultimately support claims of a missing Early Neolithic (EN)

horizon in Crete In the meantime the apparent uniqueness of Knossos within the island is hard to accept in cultural terms and as we shall see in later chapters such a perception is undermined albeit indirectly by the material remains (pottery subsistence) from Knossos along with other ev-idence The key importance of Knossos howev-er for documenting the beginning of farming in the Aegean and mainland Greece whether as a distinctive stage within a westward mobility pat-tern of human groups or as a well-planned coloni-zation episode involving specific Aegean islands remains undiminished At present the notion of a local transition to farming in Crete undertaken by a dynamic Mesolithic population seems improbable as is the case in continental Greece where the ar-chaeological evidence for the arrival of new farm-ing groups seems overwhelming (Perlegraves 2001)

Neolithic Knossos is also important as sug-gested above in the wider geographic context of the early island prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean Recent discoveries on the island of Cyprus have revealed the presence of a num-ber of pre-Neolithic inland and coastal sites trig-gering an interesting debate about a possibly early date for the occupation of the largest east-ern Mediterranean islands and the interpreta-tion of this phenomenon as a historical process with its own distinctive cultural technological and ideological characteristics (Broodbank 2006 Ammerman 2010) Mounting archaeological evi-dence from the Aegean either supports or at least allows us to entertain a new picture of early is-land settlement (Sampson 2006) In this context the founding of the early seventh millennium bc farming village of Knossos on the Kephala hill may still be viewed either as the result of a long pre-Neolithic process of development on the island or as the start of an intrusive occupation by farm-ers from the east Archaeological evidence from the long stratigraphic sequence of the Knossos tell may be called upon to interpret this ambigu-ous cultural process Indeed in relation to main-land Greece specific material evidence from Knossos such as the EN sequence of pottery (fab-ric types surface treatment) attests to idiosyn-cratic elements of a local island development (see Dimitriadis this vol Ch 3) It is still too early to argue whether these characteristics should be in-terpreted as the outcome of island isolationism

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

INTRODUCTION xxvii

and endogenous developments in Crete or as the manifestation of a more generalized and long-standing Aegean island cultural tradition The for-mer would undoubtedly have resulted in a number of other distinctive material features and perhaps oddities that we may search for in the archaeolog-ical record

Both in terms of a pre-ldquohistoricalrdquo reconstruc-tion and as far as the archaeology of the site it-self is concerned our endeavor entails a constant shift between different scales (ldquomacrordquo ldquomicrordquo) and genres of field inquiry (eg use of space ra-diocarbon dating abandonment phases faunal changes pottery changes) The small size of our 1997 dig admittedly limits the overall representa-tional validity of our findings at the site but this does not deter us from addressing some of the broader issues mentioned above We are particu-larly hopeful that the new studies presented heremdashsedimentology phytoliths anthracology ceramic technologymdashtogether with the critical reevaluation of the other categories of material remains such as the fauna and archaeobotany will provide new and meaningful insights into the cultural sequence of

the Knossos settlement The documentation of the tellrsquos stratigraphic sequence which has a depth of more than 8 m along with its comparison to the old and well-established succession of Evansrsquos stra-ta (Efstratiou this vol Ch 2) also contributes to these insights as does the the newly obtained se-ries of radiocarbon dates from accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which seems to corroborate the existing chronological framework (Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Ch 10)

All of the categories of material remains with the exception of the pottery are analyzed and pre-sented in the following chapters of the mono-graph The detailed study of the ceramics is still in progress and will appear in a separate volume The contributors wish to underline the contingent nature of their results and syntheses which are constrained by the limited area of the field inves-tigation Nevertheless we hope that the rigor em-ployed in the data collection the meticulous study of the finds the constant cross-checking with JD Evansrsquos record and our final synthesis will bal-ance this unavoidable difficulty

ReferencesAmmerman AJ 2010 ldquoThe First Argonauts Towards the

Study of the Earliest Seafaring in the Mediterraneanrdquo in Global Origins (and Development) of Seafaring A Anderson J Barrett and K Boyle eds Cambridge pp 81ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2011 ldquoThe Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italyrdquo in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 14) G Vavouranakis ed Athens

Ammerman AJ P Flourentzos C McCartney J Noller and D Sorabji 2006 ldquoTwo New Early Sites on Cyprusrdquo RDAC 2006 pp 1ndash22

Berger J-F and J Guilaine 2009 ldquoThe 8200 cal bp Abrupt Environmental Change and the Neolithic Transition A Mediterranean Perspectiverdquo Quaternary International 200 pp 31ndash49

Broodbank C 1992 ldquoThe Neolithic Labyrinth Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 39ndash75

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoThe Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activityrdquo JMA 19 pp 199ndash230

Cherry JF 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Med-i terranean Islands A Review of Recent Researchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Isaakidou V and P Tomkins eds 2008 Escaping the Labyrinth The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8) Oxford

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF KNOSSOS IN CRETExxviii

Manning SW 1999 ldquoKnossos and the Limits of Settlement Growthrdquo in Meletemata Studies in Ae-gean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H Wiener on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20) P Betancourt V Karageorghis R Laffineur and W-D Niemeier eds Liegravege pp 469ndash482

Manteli K and D Evely 1995 ldquoThe Neolithic Levels from the Throne Room System Knossosrdquo BSA 90 pp 1ndash16

Perlegraves C 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

Runnels C 2003 ldquoThe Origins of the Greek Neolithic A Personal Viewrdquo in The Widening Harvest The Neo -lithic Transition in Europe Looking Back Looking Forward (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6) AJ Ammerman and P Biagi eds Boston pp 121ndash133

Sampson A 2006 Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου Athens

Strasser TF E Panagopoulou CN Runnels PM Murray N Thompson P Karkanas FW McCoy and KW Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Whitelaw TM 1992 ldquoLost in the Labyrinth Comments on Broodbankrsquos Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Agerdquo JMA 5 pp 225ndash238

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

5

The Economy of Neolithic Knossos The Archaeobotanical Data

Anaya Sarpaki

The archaeobotanical data presented in this paper came principally from the 1997 rescue ex-cavation in the southeastern area of the Central Court of the Palace of Knossos The discussion is enriched however with information from the un-published report of Hans Helbaek on the Neolithic botanical material excavated by JD Evans (Evans 1964 1971 1994 Renfrew 1979) I have also ex-amined some seed finds from Evansrsquos excavation

stored in the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos but more arch aeobotanical material recovered by Evans remains to be studied Unlike Evansrsquos sam-ples the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 ex-cavations de rive from a long diachronic sequence extending from the Aceramic through the Late Neolithic (LN) periods

The study of this material may provide an in-sight into the cultural origins of the Neolithic of

All figures and tables prepared by the author Abbreviations used in this chapter are

B breadthBM British Museum lab codecal calibrated or calendar yearscf compareCh(s) Chapter(s)cotyl cotyledonEN Early Neolithicfr fragment(s)I Teledyne Isotopes Westwood NJ lab codekm kilometersL lengthLN Late Neolithiclvs leaves

m metersmin mineralizedmm millimetersMN Middle NeolithicNo numberOxA Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit Oxford University lab codePPN Pre-pottery Neolithic (with phases PPNA PPNB PPNC)sl sensu lato meaning ldquoloose senserdquosp speciesspp various speciessubsp subspeciesT thickness

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 64

Knossos and a better understanding of the agricul-tural preferences practices and food procurement strategies of Knossos in comparison with other Neolithic sites of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean in general A more complete pic-ture of Neolithic subsistence should emerge after additional material from Knossos and other sites in Crete has been studied (Sarpaki 2009)

Knossos and Phaistos are the earliest Neolithic sites in Crete that have been studied to date Earlier sites have been identified at Trypiti and Rouses near Herakleion and at Asfendou near Sphakia in western Crete however and more examples may be found as research progresses (Zois 1973 58ndash66 Kopaka and Matzanas 2009 see also van Andel and Runnels 1995) Strasser (1996 327ndash328) has noted that the first farmers were quite aware of their environment as attested by their choice of settle-ment locations and of cultivars

At present the archaeobotanical evidence sug-gests that the Aceramic inhabitants of Knossos were either immigrants who established themselves on Crete and introduced a ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo of economic plants and animals or local hunter- gatherers who most likely imported agricultur-al produce While ldquomigrationrdquo and ldquodiffusionrdquo are taboo words for some archaeologists it is time to revisit these concepts with fresh data a step that may help us reformulate our explanations for de-velopments in Crete (Sherratt 1996 140)

The imported species observed in the early ag-ricultural complex include a wide range of plants and animals such as cattle (see Peacuterez Ripoll this vol Ch 8 Cherry 1990 161) sheep goats pigs dogs cereals and perhaps legumes Evans (1994 5) hypothesized a link with Asia Minor since al-though the other plants and animals present have been attested at contemporary sites in mainland Greece as well as in western Asia bread wheat is known to have been cultivated specifically at Ccedilatalhoumlyuumlk The practice of building with mud-bricks (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) also points to sites such as Aceramic Haccedililar and Aşikli Houmlyuumlk in southwestern Asia Minor as one possible area of dissemination The closest parallels for the coarse pottery occur in western Anatolia and the eastern Aegean islands (Warren et al 1968 273 Sakellarakis 1973) Therefore it appears that the Neolithic cultivars

could have originated in the area extending from western Turkey to Palestine because the region of the Syro-Levant and Turkey is where agriculture first originated

The evidence from Franchthi points to the ac-quisition of obsidian albeit in tiny amounts in Upper Paleolithic levels dated to 10880 plusmn 160 bp in radiocarbon years (I-6129 Perlegraves 1979) This is an indication of what must have been a more wide-spread pattern of movement and exploration fur-ther attested by the three pieces of obsidian found at Knossos (two of Early Neolithic [EN] I and one of EN II date) originating from the island of Giali and suggesting a probable contact with southwest-ern Asia Minor (Evans 1994 5 n 10)

Whether the introduction of farming involved immigration or importation the necessary sail-ing might have been accomplished with the level of technology available if islands were used as stepping stones for voyages One possible route might have passed by Rhodes Karpathos and Kasos Another might have skirted the islands of the Dodecanese (such as Kos) and the southern Cyclades (Anaphi Thera)

Sakellarakis (1973 134) favors the immigration to Crete from the Cyclades or the Dodecanese A third passage might have been undertaken via the Peloponnese Kythera and Antikythera or even through Attica via some of the Cycladic islands (see Broodbank 1999 34 fig 19 2000 135 fig 38 see also Cherry 1985 for possible colonization sequences) Lambeck (1996) discusses sea level changes which must have been an important fac-tor affecting colonization in the early part of the Neolithic Crete is visible at certain times of the year from some of the islands along each of these routes (eg Karpathos Thera and Kythera) There is no evidence so far to confirm or refute any of these hypothetical journeys and it is very proba-ble that there were two or more such events wheth-er simultaneous or successive For Greece proper Perlegraves (2001) has argued that colonization was a maritime phenomenon that started with small groups of people from different points of origin She later adds that these migrations could have oc-curred in different periods (Perlegraves 2005 280) and one might suggest that parallel processes were un-derway in Crete

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 65

Background to CultivationModern Crete has a Mediterranean-type climate

characterized by hot dry summers and cool wet winters The climate of Neolithic Crete seems to have been less arid than that of the present possi-bly comparable to that of modern Epirus as sug-gested by the evidence from pollen cores taken from Tersana and Limnes (Moody Rackham and Rapp 1996 Rackham and Moody 1996 39) Knossos is located in one of the driest areas of the island It presently receives an average annual rainfall of under 600 mm considerably less than the levels observed in areas to the west which may receive up to 1800 mm It is likely that in the past as is the case today arable agriculture was based upon autumn- and winter-sown crops because crops plant-ed in the spring would have received insufficient rainfall to survive spring and summer droughts

The soil around the site is light fine-grained friable marl and redzina soilsmdashwhich are charac-terized by a horizon of high organic content and which are highly arablemdashthat are very workable and fairly fertile (Jarman Bailey and Jarman eds 1982 147) Vines and olive trees are grown there today For people who cultivated the soil with the hoe or digging stick rather than the plow the choice of a site with a friable easily cultivable soil was of paramount importance (Strasser 1996 327ndash328) Local soils may have changed somewhat since the Neolithic however due to the effects of erosion and other anthropogenic and climatic events

The Kairatos River located immediately below the site to the east along with its tributary the Vlychia would have been a major source of water for Knossos The Kairatos rises from springs near Archanes and before the use of pump irriga-tion it was a perennial river (Roberts 1979 231) Furthermore before recent seismic activity local springs and a high water table adjacent to the site justified the digging of wells although we can-not say whether wells were present in prehistoric times The wheat found at ancient Knossos (es-pecially Triticum turgidumaestivum L) certain-ly indicates that water was available in some form (Sherratt 1980)

Thus Neolithic Knossos occupied an area of prime agricultural land Nearby there were high-quality redzina soils suitable for cultivation Some of the steeper areas south of Knossos on Mt Juktas could have been used for grazing along with the surrounding lowlands which might have sus-tained the cattle whose bones were recovered from the site As the whole of Crete is characterized by pockets of varied microenvironments a type of small-scale mixed farming may have been fa-vored as Halstead (1996a 1996b 35) has sug-gested Contrary to some present views a form of ldquotranshumancerdquo may also have been practiced as was the case in several areas of Crete until recent-ly (for a thorough history of transhumance see Arnold and Greenfield 2006)

So far the evidence indicates that the residents of Neolithic Knossos were full-fledged mixed far-mers No crops were found at the transitional stage between ldquowildrdquo and ldquodomesticatedrdquo although we cannot exclude the stage of ldquocultivationrdquo for some plants such as the radish the fig and the almond If the first settlers were colonists we need to under-stand why they left their homes and what the ldquopres-suresrdquo were that pushed them to migrate from their native cultural social and natural environments If they were not immigrants we need to understand what made the local people change from hunting and foraging to farming for a livelihood The an-swers to such questions are undoubtedly complex and they must be addressed by integrating interdis-ciplinary research

The available climatic data suggest that follow-ing the Late Glacial global warming a cold spell known as the Younger Dryas took place from ca 10800 to 9800 bc in northern Europe and glob-ally This triggered extremely dry conditions in the Near East and it seems to have been followed by the onset of agriculture (Blumler 1996 41) It has been demonstrated by ample evidence that tem-perature change is not as crucial a factor as mois-ture for plant species The pollen figures according to Bottema (1992 104) demonstrate that precip-itation declined at the same pace as temperature

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 66

change resulting in greater aridity This is believed to have happened at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the beginning of the PPNB in northern Syria (Helmer et al 1998 30) and the Levant (Peltenburg et al 2000) Although the effects were archaeologically noted in those pe-riods the trend would nevertheless have started earlier without leaving any evidence that has been detectable to date The lowering of temperatures and the diminishing of precipitation probably led to an exodus and a bottleneck situation as Sherratt (1996 136) infers for the Near East as communi-ties searched for improved conditions for mixed agriculture Cyprus seems to have received a first wave of settlers some 500ndash1000 years later in the early PPNB period (Peltenburg et al 2000) Farther afield Crete may have experienced a related demic influx approximately 1000 years after Cyprus

The bioarchaeological remains found to date at Knossos represent an agro-pastoral farming

regime that was established at the first habitation of the site It was difficult to understand why cat-tle were preferred to sheep and goats at the earliest periods of the sitersquos existence under relatively un-favorable environmental conditions However ac-cording to the recent study by Peacuterez Ripoll (this vol Ch 8) sheepgoat predominated in the EN and cattle did not rise significantly until the Middle Neolithic (MN) The Delphinos core sampled west of Rethymnon (ca 80 km to the west of Knossos) points however to a landscape of open vegetation with low tree cover around 7375ndash6310 cal bc (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) The reasons behind agricultural and pastoral choices may well have been triggered not only by economic constraints and environmental conditions but also by cultural choices Those choices are often ldquoveiledrdquo by their ldquobiographiesrdquo or social histories as well as by their taphonomic histories

The ArchaeobotanyThe archaeobotanical material from Knossos

comes from three sources One sample was a cache of seeds found by JD Evans (Evans 1994) in Level IX in a single specific contextmdashthe so-called Aceramic levelmdashreferred to as stratum X in earlier excavations (Warren et al 1968 269 272) This was the sample that Helbaek studied but never properly published (Table 51) Some other mate-rial was retrieved by Michael and Heather Jarman (1968) but the archaeobotanical study was never completed The third group of samples came from the 1997 rescue excavation from which 33 sam-ples of soil were water-floated (Table 52) A ma-jority of the levels from this investigation were sampled for bioenvironmental data the exceptions being levels 1 5 6 11 15 16 18 19 21 22 25ndash27 30 36 and 38 The soil processed amounted to ca 600 liters

The nature of the information from each data source is different but complementary Evans be-lieved that Helbaekrsquos material was the threshing product of a crop containing contaminants and

weeds He mentioned that in area AC which mea-sured 11 X 5 m no buildings were found but there was evidence of other activities including threshing and corn grinding (Evans 1994 2) He also stated (Evans 1994 4) that ldquoin one area grain from a field of breadwheat had apparently been threshedrdquo One side of this area had a row of stake holes from which a radiocarbon date was obtained This proved similar to a date obtained from level 39 of the 1997 excavations (see Facorellis and Maniatis this vol Table 101 BM-436 Area AC Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 140 bp or 7050ndash6370 cal bc on car-bonized grain cf Table 103 OxA-9215 level 39 dated to 7050ndash6690 cal bc) Unfortunately the water-floated material from the 1997 rescue dig cannot be assigned to interior or exterior spatial contexts (see Efstratiou Karetsou and Banou this vol Ch 1) but it represents a long diachronic se-quence Whenever there is any structural or fea-tural evidence pertaining to context however it is discussed below

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 67

Seed Type Description Sorted in Copenhagen Sorted in England

Wheat grains

bread wheat 2900 2500

emmer 10

einkorn 10

Barley grains

hulled straight 9 4

hulled twisted 2 2

naked straight 12 1

naked twisted 2

Wheat spikelet fragment

bread wheat 3

emmer191

einkorn 1

Barley spike fragment

hulled two-row 9

hulled six-row 3

naked six-row none

Lentil seeds 210 140

Weeds

wild oats (awn) 1

ryegrass (grain) 1

mallow (nutlets) 52

plantain (seed) 1

Table 51 Seed list provided to JD Evans by Hans Helbaek (unpublished) Helbaek did not separate einkorn from emmer grains Here he must have meant rachis fragment

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

2 E 97(1) LN

Stratum II

mdash

3E 97(2a)E 97(2b)

LN mdash

4E 97(4)

E 97(5a)MN

Stratum III

mdash

7 E 97(6a) MN mdash

8 E 97(5b) MN mdash

9E 97(6b)E 97(7)

MN 5470ndash4850

10 E 97(8) MN mdash

10b E 97(9) MN mdash

12E 97(10)E 97(11)

MN 4990ndash4731

14E 97(12)

E 97(13a)E 97(13b)

EN II

Stratum IV

4982ndash4774

17 E 97(14) EN II mdash

20 E 97(15) EN II mdash

23 E 97(16) EN II mdash

24 E 97(17) EN II 5208ndash4936

28 E 97(18) EN II 5042ndash4779

29E 97(19)E 97(20)

EN II Stratum IV 5000ndash4730

Table 52 List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10)

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 68

1997 Level Number

Water FlotationNumber

RelativeDate

JD Evans Strataand Dates (uncal bp)

Calendar Age (bc)

31 E 97(21) EN I

Strata VIndashV

5310ndash5000

32 E 97(22) EN I 5211ndash5016

33E 97(23)

EN I 5220ndash4950E 97(24)

34E 97(25)

EN I mdashE 97(26a)

35E 97(26b)

EN I 5468ndash5228E 97(27)1

37 E 97(28)2 EN I Strata IXndashVI 5300ndash5000

39 E 97(30)3 Aceramic

Stratum IX 7740 plusmn 130 bp

(BM-436) Stratum X no seeds dated

7050ndash6690OxA-9215

Table 52 cont List of archaeobotanical samples from the 1997 rescue excavation along with relative and absolute dates Only short-lived samples (ie seedsgrains) are included here For all the others see Facorellis and Maniatis (this vol Ch 10) The dated grains of naked wheat originally assigned to Stratum X (Warren et al 1968 272) were later attributed to Stratum IX (Evans 1994 20) 1 T spp 5297ndash5055 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21420) 2 T turgidumaestivum 5206ndash4843 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21419) 3 Triticum spp 6639ndash6480 bc (calibrated) (2 sigma) (OxA-21418)

Plant Species Common Name Count

Amygdalus communis almond (1)

Ficus cf carica fragment fig (4)

Lens culinaris lentils 2

cf Lens sp (4)

Legume fragments (6)

Leguminosae (medium) 1

cf Trifolium spcf Astragalus sp clover 1

Triticum sp wheat 5 + (3)

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L 1

Triticum sp glume base 1

Hordeum sp hulled barley (3)

Cerealia sp (Triticum or Hordeum) (2)

cf Cerealia fragments (26)

Total 11 + (49)

Table 53 Aceramic Neolithic archaeobotanical sample E 97(30) from Knossos 1997 level 39 retrieved from 16 liters of water-floated soil Values shown in parentheses represent fragments All fragments charred More like T dicoccum but too fragmented

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 69

Figure 51 Drawing of Triticum turgidum LT aestivum from the 1997 excavations at Knossos Drawing A Kontonis

Material from the Aceramic period includes the sample from what is now known as Stratum IX (not X) of Evansrsquos excavation examined by Helbaek (Table 51) and sample E 97(30) from 1997 level 39 examined by the author (Table 53) Various species of cereals and pulses are represented along with fruits such as the almond (Prunus amygdalus) and the fig (Ficus carica) All of the crops present should be considered fully domesticated except for the almond and the fig which could have been wild as discussed at greater length in conjunction with the EN II finds

The most striking archaeobotanical find of the Aceramic was the presence of free-threshing bread wheat identified by Helbaek as Triticum aesti-vum which he stated was in the ldquooverwhelming majorityrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5) The 1997 rescue dig produced regrettably only grains that are prefera-bly to be referred to as T turgidum Laestivum L (Fig 51) No rachis was preserved in the water-floated sample There is no secure way of separat-ing tetraploid from hexaploid wheats on the basis of grain shape and size only rachis morphology can be used to distinguish their ploidy level

Helbaek found rachis fragments in his archaeo-botanical sample and he observed that the spike must have been dense rather than compact On compact spikes he wrote ldquo[t]he narrow tops of the internodes suggest that the spikelet did not yet normally develop several grains as in later times but was two-grained like emmer one of its direct parentsrdquo (Helback unpublished report Knossos) He noted that a compact spikelet would have been no more than 1 mm long whereas in the Orient the internodes of bread wheat (T aestivum) varied from 2 to 4 mm in length One complete internode from Helbaekrsquos sample measured 220 mm long and 148 mm at its widest point Unfortunately it was not illustrated (Helbaek unpublished report Knossos) The measurements reported by Helbaek are comparable to T parvicoccum as identified by Kislev (1979ndash1980 99ndash100) DNA analysis is needed to verify the presence of T parvicoccum as some archaeobotanists believe it is an aberra-tion (see Kislevrsquos 2009 publication of T turgidum sp parvicoccum) The present author plans to re-study the archaeobotanical material from Evansrsquos

0

excavations and will check for any unpublished notes relating to this material

It is important to elucidate the problem of wheth-er the Knossos wheat is a free-threshing tetra-ploid (4X T turgidum L) or a hexaploid (6X T aestivum) for it would add to our knowledge about the spread of these wheats in the eastern Mediterranean It is well known that T aestivum evolved under cultivation from the already cultivat-ed T turgidum L stock (Helbaek 1970 211 Maier 1996 47 Zohary and Hopf 2000 51) It is a prod-uct of hybridization between a tetraploid T turgi-dum L wheat and a diploid wild grass Aegilops squarrosa L This wild grass does not occur in the Mediterranean-bordering regions of the Near East although it is present in temperate parts of cen-tral Asia such as northern Iran Transcaucasia and Afghanistan Thus T aestivum could have devel-oped only after the domestication of emmer (T di-coccum) and the spread of cultivated tetraploid (T turgidum L) wheat to northern Iran and adjacent Transcaucasia This expansion is believed to have occurred sometime between 6000 and 5000 bc (Maier 1996 table 2 figs 8 9 Zohary and Hopf 2000 54) postdating the postulated occurrence of hexaploids in Crete some 1000ndash1500 years ear-lier Experimental evidence has indicated that the first hexaploid wheats were spelt-like or hulled (Zohary and Hopf 2000 52) although genetic anal-ysis shows that naked hexaploid wheats could have evolved rather quickly from their more primitive hulled relatives (Zohary and Hopf 2000 57)

As noted above the material presented in this study consists only of the grains of free-threshing wheat no chaff of this cereal was retrieved from water flotation The overall morphological character

The Aceramic Sample

5 mm

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 70

of the grain is short and blunt The dorsal view of the grains is rather rounded in comparison to the more truncated and acute dorsal view of tetraploids (Kislev 1984 143) and the outline of the cheeks (ventral view) is also rounded instead of angular as tetraploids tend to be Due to the effects of charring deformation on the grains however definitive iden-tification of species cannot be made without the ra-chis internodes Jacomet has made several charring experiments on Cerealia and she specifically men-tions that ldquothe most varied shapes are producedrdquo (1987 40 see similar observations by Hopf 1955 Helbaek 1970 van Zeist 1972 49)

Measurements of the grains of T aestivum sl and T aestivo-compactum from Knossos (Table 54 Fig 52) have been presented for compari-son in Figure 53 with the data from the sites of Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras studied by Jacomet (1987 58) van Zeist and Buitenhuis (1983) and van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooijen (1985) The Knossos finds fall largely within these measure-ments and are consistent with those of the dense-eared form of bread wheat T aestivo-compactum Schiem or club wheat (van Zeist 1972 53ndash54 Jacomet 1987 38ndash40) According to Jacomet the ratios of the length and breadth measurements are crucial for distinguishing between the T aes-tivum group (lax-eared bread wheat) and the T aestivo-compactum type She claims that the lengthbreadth ratio of T aestivum is lt17 com-pared to the lt3 for emmer T dicoccum

The measurements of the Knossos naked wheat grains have been graphed in order to determine whether there were size differences between the Neolithic periods Unfortunately the number of grains is not comparable between periods but it appears that there may have been some difference between the Aceramic and EN II periods with a tendency toward more compact forms emerging in the EN II Possibly there was more than one pop-ulation of T turgidumaestivum s1 or two popu-lations might have been introduced to Crete the second being of more compact form Helbaek com-pared the Knossos AceramicEN I naked wheat to the finds from Haccedililar however and concluded that the wheats were of the same race with differenc-es in ecological conditions among other factors accounting for the ldquoslightly more prolific crop at Haccedililarrdquo (Helbaek 1968 5ndash6) Because of his first-hand knowledge of material from likely areas of

emigra tion to Knossos Helbaekrsquos observations are important Nevertheless on the basis of the present evidence no firm conclusions can be drawn

The early date of the naked wheat at Knossos still remains surprising within circa 1000 years of its appearance in Anatolia and the Near East Its high presence seems to have persisted through-out the Aceramic and the EN periods although it is not attested in MN or LN within the area of the 1997 excavation We do not know whether this trend was representative of the whole site or merely of the area excavated and the question will not be answered until the author completes the study of the archaeobotanical remains excavated by JD Evans

The Aceramic (Table 53) has provided evidence of other cereal crops such as einkorn (T monococ-cum) emmer (T dicoccum) two-row hulled bar-ley (Hordeum distichum) six-row hulled barley (H vulgare) and naked barley (H vulgare var nudum) The Knossos einkorn is domesticated and no wild einkorn (T monococcum subsp Boeoticum or T boeoticum) was found in the sample although its distribution (Zohary and Hopf 2000 37 map 1) extends to mainland Greece Stavropoulos et al (1992) noted its presence in middle Greece (the area of Phthiotis) Macedonia and Thrace Crete is not known to have had wild einkorn but its pres-ent distribution may be a relic of what existed in the past The wild ancestor of emmer T dicoccoides (Koumlrn) has a narrower distribution than einkorn but seems to have been present in Greece The wild ancestor of barley H vulgare L subsp spontane-um (C Koch) has a wide distribution in the east-ern Mediterranean including Crete

Pulses are almost as numerous as cereals in the 1997 Aceramic sample While there seem to be a few taxa present the only identifiable pulse is the lentil (Lens sp) Zohary and Hopf refer to L orien-talis as the progenitor of L culinaris based on the observation that the wild and cultivated lentils are chromosomally uniform They believe that L culi-naris was ldquofully homologous with the standard ori-entalis racerdquo and suggest that the lentil was taken into cultivation once or at most a very few times (Zohary and Hopf 2000 95) In contrast L nigri-cans (M Bieb) and L ervoides (Brign) Grande have been said to undergo hybrid embryo break-down when crossed with the cultivated lentil (L cu-linaris) Ladizinsky claims that upon hybridization

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 71

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB BL x 100 LT

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L (n=35)

E 97(12) EN II 50 37 33 135 74 15

E 97(13b) EN II 42 29 31 145 69 14

E 97(13b) EN II 39 28 25 139 72 16

E 97(17) EN II 46 34 29 135 74 16

E 97(17) EN II 40 34 33 118 85 12

E 97(19) EN II 33 22 23 150 67 14

E 97(19) EN II 40 32 24 125 80 17

E 97(19) EN II 37 29 27 128 78 14

E 97(21) EN I 39 32 30 122 82 13

E 97(21) EN I 40 27 27 148 68 15

E 97(21) EN I 33 25 20 132 76 17

E 97(21) EN I 39 29 26 137 73 15

E 97(21) EN I 37 31 27 119 84 14

E 97(21) EN I 45 30 25 150 67 18

E 97(22) EN I 30 22 22 136 73 14

E 97(22) EN I 42 31 23 135 74 18

E 97(22) EN I 49 31 28 158 63 18

E 97(22) EN I 50 31 31 161 62 16

E 97(22) EN I 45 32 25 141 71 18

E 97(23) EN I 47 33 34 142 70 14

E 97(23) EN I 36 27 24 133 75 15

E 97(24) EN I 40 29 26 136 73 15

E 97(24) EN I 42 26 25 162 62 17

E 97(25) EN I 43 38 33 113 88 13

E 97(25) EN I 37 29 24 128 78 15

E 97(25) EN I 45 32 29 141 71 16

E 97(25) EN I 47 31 27 152 66 18

E 97(26a) EN I 46 33 31 139 72 15

E 97(26a) EN I 47 30 26 157 64 18

E 97(26b) EN I 40 32 27 125 80 15

E 97(26b) EN I 45 34 32 132 76 14

E 97(27) EN I 47 28 30 166 60 16

E 97(27) EN I 50 36 34 139 72 15

E 97(28) EN I 45 34 30 132 76 15

E 97(30) Aceramic 50 32 26 156 64 19

Table 54 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN levels at Knossos LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) BL x 100 = ratio of breadth to length multiplied by 100 LT = ratio of length to thickness (T)

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 72

Figure 52 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Neolithic Knossos Early Neolithic II specimens are graphed on the left side of the horizontal axis with EN I specimens in the center and Aceramic specimens on the right Averages and standard deviations are shown as solid and dotted lines respectively with values calculated separately for the EN I and EN II periods

a Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed length

40875

4253846154

5

2

3

4

5

6

Leng

th (

mm

)

Std Dev = 68

b Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed breadth

3230625 305

15

2

25

3

35

4

Bre

adth

(m

m)

26

281252753846154

15

2

25

3

35

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

c Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L seed thickness

156

134375

1398461538

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Bre

adth

Std Dev = 68

d Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengthbreadth

192

14625

1554230769

1

12

14

16

18

2

22

Rat

io o

f Le

ngth

Thi

ckne

ss

e Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed lengththickness

1092917745

1114197069

1230769231

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rat

io o

f B

read

thT

hick

ness

f Distribution of Triticum turgidum Laestivum L ratio of seed breadththickness

EN II n=8EN I n=26Aceramic n=1 Average Standard Deviation

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 73

Figure 53 Measurements of Triticum turgidumaestivum from Aceramic and EN Knossos compared with average val-ues for Erbaba Ramad and Bouqras in the Near East Jacometrsquos values for lax-eared and dense-eared forms are derived from data pooled from central European sites (Jacomet 1987)

of L culinaris with L nigricans and L ervoides the embryos die about two weeks after fertilization (Ladizinsky 1989 377) Many more DNA investi-gations of lentil species found outside the Near East such as in Greece as well as on archaeological ma-terial are needed however to establish the ances-try of the cultivars in Greece we believe (Valamoti 2004 44) Within the Knossos samples the seed

dimensions are quite similar through time (Table 55) although there may have been a slight differ-ence between the Aceramic lentils and those from later periods as measurements of the latter fall at the low end of the range (Fig 54) Many more mea-surements of complete seeds are necessary never-theless in order to define meaningful clusters

The EN I Samples The EN I period is represented in nine samples

(1235 liters of soil) and the general agricultural complex is the same as that of the previous period (Table 56) Although the cereals (wheat and barley mainly) are numerically more abundant than le-gumes (196 versus 36) it is difficult to estimate the exact proportions of these taxa due to their vary-ing propensities for preservation Greenrsquos (1975)

experiments in the recovery of seeds demonstrat-ed that cereals are more likely to be preserved than legumes Wilsonrsquos (1984) charring experi-ments with weed seeds also demonstrated differ-ential preservation Legumes do not float easily compared to cereals and in cases where the resi-due material is not examined many of the legumes may be missed Moreover the archaeobotanical

a Triticum turgidum L aestivum L length

28

7

59

38

626

34

66

25

35

45

55

65

75

Leng

th (m

m)

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

112

149

155

139

19

172

179176

17

183

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

8928571429

6711409396

6451612903

7194244604

5263157895

5813953488

55865921795681818182

5882352941

5464480874

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Brea

dth

Leng

th x

100

Rat

io

a Triticum turgidum Laestivum L length

c Triticum turgidum Laestivum L breadthlength x 100

b Triticum turgidum Laestivum L lengthbreadth

Leng

th (

mm

)B

read

thL

engt

h x

100

Rat

io

Leng

thB

read

th R

atio

35

45

55

65

75

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

25

Jacomet 1987 (lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(densed-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 vanZeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist and Buitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Jacomet 1987(lax-eared)

Jacomet 1987(dense-eared)

Bouqras (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Knossos

Ramad (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

Erbaba (van Zeist andBuitenhuis 1983 van Zeist and Waterbolk-vanRooijen 1985)

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 74

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Triticum cf dicoccum emmer

E 97(28) EN I 56 28 22 200 255 127

Unit 30 Late EN I 44 23 21 191 210 110

Triticum cf monococcum einkorn

E 97(21) EN I 4 21 25 190 160 084

E 97(25) EN I 41 20 25 205 164 080

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) six-row barley

E 97(25) EN I 67 35 26 191 258 135

Lens culinaris lentils

E 97(5a) MN 34 30 18 113 189 167

E 97(10) MN 31 27 175 115 177 154

E 97(12) EN II 29 25 17 116 171 147

E 97(19) EN II 30 27 17 111 176 159

E 97(25) EN I 37 mdash 17 mdash 218 000

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 21 111 143 129

E 97(30) Aceramic 30 27 18 111 167 150

Table 55 Measurements of Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare and Lens culinaris LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

Figure 54 Graphs of measurements and measurement ratios of Lens culinaris from Neolithic Knossos

a Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Length

3

25

3

35

4

Leng

th (

mm

)

b Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Breadth

27

2

25

3

35

Bre

adth

(m

m)

c Distribution of Lens culinaris Seed Thickness

15

17

19

21

23

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

d Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthBreadth

111

1

104

108

112

116

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

e Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed LengthThickness

1

15

2

25

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

f Distribution of Lens culinaris Ratio of Seed BreadthThickness

12

14

16

18

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

MN MNEN IIEN IAceramic Average

Leng

th (

mm

)

a Distribution of Lens culinaris seed length

25

3

35

4

b Distribution of Lens culinaris seed breadth

Bre

adth

(m

m)

25

3

35

2

c Distribution of Lens culinaris seed thickness

Thi

ckne

ss (

mm

)

19

23

21

17

15

d Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengthbreadth

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Bre

adth

104

1

108

112

116

e Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed lengththickness

Rat

io o

f Len

gth

Thi

ckne

ss

15

1

2

25

f Distribution of Lens culinaris ratio seed breadththickness

Rat

io o

f Bre

adth

Thi

ckne

ss

14

12

16

18

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 75

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 1 mdash 2 10 2 2 7 mdash 24

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

4 (++) 2 (+) mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash (+) 6

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 8 2 1 4 3 mdash mdash mdash 18

Ficus carica (charred)

1 mdash 6 8 3 8 mdash mdash 10 36

Total 6 11 8 11 17 13 2 7 10 85

Legumes

Legume fr 5 mdash mdash 1 5 3 3 mdash mdash 17

Lens sp (cotyl) 2 mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vicia faba fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Trifolium sp (small)

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2 3

cf Medicago sp mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 7 2 2 3 10 6 3 0 3 36

CereaLia

Triticum sp 5 4 2 6 7 mdash 2 mdash mdash 26

Triticum cf monococcum (cf one-seeded)

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 1 5

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

1 3 2 4 7 6 3 5 7 38

Triticum sp glume base

mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled)

1 1 mdash 3 1 3 mdash mdash mdash 9

Table 56 Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 76

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

CereaLia Cont

cf Hordeum sp mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

2 mdash mdash mdash 8 mdash 3 mdash mdash 13

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

1 2 2 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 24

Cerealia fr 4 (++) 18 (++) 1 (++) 11 (+++) 12 12 1 11 mdash 70

cf Cerealia fr 2 mdash mdash mdash 2 (+++) mdash mdash mdash 4

cf Avena sp fr 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2

Total 18 28 9 35 39 21 10 19 17 196

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 50 53

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 2

Linum cf usitatissimum

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 3

cf Linum sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 4

Satureja thymbra L

mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 8 10

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Labiatae (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Total 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 66 74

Weeds

Gramineae fr 2 1 mdash 4 14 mdash mdash mdash 8 29

Gramineae (medium)

2 mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 4 8

Phalaris sp mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Caryophyllaceae 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Silene sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

cf Spergularia sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Potentilla sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 77

Sample NumberE 97(28)

E 97(27)

E 97(26b)

E 97(26a)

E 97(25)

E 97(24)

E 97(23)

E 97(22)

E 97(21)

Total

1997 Level JD Evans

Stratum37VI 35VI 35VI 34VI 34VI 33VI 33VI 32VI 31VI

Liters 14 10 14 14 165 15 10 15 15 1235

Weeds Cont

Malva cf sylvestris

mdash mdash mdash 1 2 mdash mdash mdash 1 4

Malva (type B) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Galium aparine mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Boraginaceae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Verbena officinalis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1

Rubiaceae (cf Valerianella sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Total 8 3 2 7 19 2 1 0 15 57

ignota

Ignota (identifiable)

mdash 7 3 3 9 1 mdash mdash mdash 23

Ignota fr (very damaged)

mdash 1 7 11 23 13 5 (+++) 20 15 95

Ignota (featureless)

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Ignota (shell) fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Total 4 8 10 14 35 15 5 20 15 126

Table 56 cont Early Neolithic I archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

material that sinks is subjected to greater mechan-ical damage than the material that is prone to float Another problem is that pulses often explode when they come in contact with water Nonetheless al-though we used a Siraf-type water flotation ma-chine which made its appearance in the 1970s (and is still recommended see de Moulins 1996) and not a water-sieving or froth flotation machine the legumes were fairly well represented

Among the Leguminosae observed were not only Lens sp but also possibly the pea Pisum sp the horsebean Vicia faba and the cloversmedicks Trifolium spMedicago sp (Table 57) The last-mentioned could either have been remnants of fod-der suggesting that animals were stalled or it could be indicative of the fuel used that is animal dung

(Miller 1984) Its presence is most noticeable in lev-els 33ndash35

The main cereal crop seems to have been the naked wheat T turgidumaestivum but einkorn and emmer also appear to have been present togeth-er with barley An interesting increase in fruit was observed along with the appearance of two plants whose presence needs further study (Table 58) One is the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) which is encountered as a weed of cultivation yet its unusually high presence in some of the Knossos samples suggests that its use should be further in-vestigated Some form of exploitation of this plant may be attested especially as the sample was col-lected from what has been described as a floor on which hearths 5 and 6 were excavated The

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 78

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Trifolium spp

E 97(6b) MN 075 05 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(6b) MN 08 055 mdash 145 mdash mdash

E 97(9) MN 08 05 mdash 160 mdash mdash

E 97(13b) EN II 07 06 04 117 175 150

E 97(13b) EN II 11 07 06 157 183 117

E 97(14) EN II 09 06 05 150 180 120

E 97(14) EN II 11 09 07 122 157 129

E 97(19) EN II 20 15 mdash 133 mdash mdash

E 97(19) EN II 09 06 055 150 164 109

E 97(20) EN II 08 05 03 160 267 167

E 97(24) EN I 075 05 04 150 188 125

E 97(25) EN I 12 08 07 150 171 114

E 97(26b) EN I 09 06 05 150 180 120

Leguminosae

E 97(10) MN 1 08 mdash 125 mdash mdash

E 97(12) EN II 09 06 mdash 150 mdash mdash

E 97(27) EN I 07 05 05 140 140 100

Table 57 Measurements of Trifolium spp and Leguminosae LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

human-plant relationship is impossible to define at present but some would argue that the ances-tor of Raphanus sativus L the cultivated radish is R raphanistrum Koumlrber-Grohne (1987 200ndash202) proposes that the Mediterranean among other areas could have seen the beginnings of its cultiva-tion and she also believes that the origins of radish cultivation are very old

The radish is rarely found in archaeobotani-cal assemblages The root system has not yet been identified as the chance of roots being charred is far less lower for seeds The microscopic work by

Hather (1993 46) has proven that if the R sati-vus tuber is charred it is identifiable if submitted for analysis The chances for the seeds to be pre-served are also minimal for various reasons One would not expect them to be stored except for use in planting most likely in rather small quantities Also the seeds have a very high oil content and as with all oleaginous seeds such as flax several cruciferous crops and sesame they char more than other species and are often so badly damaged that their identification is problematic This is the case at Knossos where it seems that R raphanistrum

Sample Number Phase Length Breadth Thickness LB LT BT

Raphanus cf raphanistrum pod segment

E 97(13b) EN II 56 31 30 181 187 103

Linum cf usitatissimum

E 97(21) EN I 35 195 11 179 318 177

E 97(21) EN I 37 21 10 176 370 210

Table 58 Measurements of Raphanus cf raphanistrum and Linum cf usitatissimum LB = ratio of length (L) to breadth (B) LT = ratio of length to thickness (T) BT = ratio of breadth to thickness

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 79

seeds are preserved but their identification is made difficult for the same reasons Moreover if the crop was used for making oil which is unlikely in the Aceramic as the olive was not found at Knossos at that time it probably would not have been stored for any length of time having been pressed after reaping One should however note the olive pol-len from the Delphinos pollen cores (Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) and the MNndashLN (6200 bp) cores from Tersana as well as the evidence for oil im-bibed in MN and LN pottery from Gerani Cave in the Rethymnon area (see Beckrsquos analysis in Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) Finally the plantrsquos greens could also have been collect-ed and consumed but the archaeobotanical visi-bility of leaves is nil Here again Beckrsquos analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew eds 1999 82ndash83) leaves open the possibility of interpretation

Although the radish is a common weed of cul-tivation and also one that favors acidic soils its high representation in certain samples at Knossos demands another explanation Obviously the resi-dents were collecting this plant perhaps for any or all of its edible parts Even the thin hard root could be used as a condiment as it smells and tastes like radish Therefore we are faced with the ques-tion of whether the wild radish was an intensive-ly collected plant that existed in the wild in Crete (thus exemplifying the exploitation and adaptation of native plants in a new environment) or wheth-er it was a cultivated plant brought together in the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo In the latter case we would expect to find if not R sativus at least evidence of a protondashR sativus since intensive cultivation should be discernible At present as the evidence is poor this question remains unanswered

The other important new species observed is Linum usitatissimum or flax (Table 58) Flax tends to have low archaeobotanical visibility in part because of the high oil content of the seeds which explode when in contact with fire and are damaged beyond recognition It was possible how-ever to measure two seeds from the EN I remains and to determine that they belonged not to L usita-tissimum subsp bienne wild flax but to the culti-vated form Wild flax from the Near East does not exceed 30 mm in length (van Zeist de Roller and

Bottema 2000 141) while cultivated flax mea-sures 30 mm or longer (Zohary and Hopf 2000 130) The Knossos specimens measure 35 and 37 mm It has been shown (Helbaek 1959 van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975 van Zeist and de Roller 1991ndash1992) that flax seeds shrink in length and breadth when charred Van Zeist mentions a de-crease in length of 12ndash15 whereas de Roller increases this to 13ndash21 (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

Flax could have been introduced with the other do mesticates of the ldquoNeolithic packagerdquo found at Knos sos or it could have been indigenously cul-tivated andor domesticated as the distribution of wild flax includes Crete and Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000 129 map 12) So far no wild flax has been identified at Knossos however All the specimens found are within the range of domes-ticated flax and there are no indications of proto- cultivation that is of seeds close to L bienne in size but in the fringe of L usitatissimum as well The presence of cultivated flax at Sabi Abyad II (PPNB) where the specialized production of flax may have been practiced demonstrates that the species was brought under cultivation in the Near East at an early date (van Zeist de Roller and Bottema 2000 141)

As olives did not exist at Knossos flax seeds (and perhaps also the seeds of R raphanistrum) might have served as a source of oil but alter-natively the stems could have been used to make fiber If the seeds had been more numerous it might have been possible to determine the plantrsquos use as flax tends to be reaped at different times ac-cording to the product needed It is harvested early before the seeds are fully ripe when used for fiber but the seeds are usually allowed to ripen to their maximum if they are needed for oil Other archae-ological evidence that might allow us to deduce the processing of fibers is also lacking Spindle whorls only made their appearance in the transi-tional phase between the EN II and MN periods in Evansrsquos excavations (Evans 1994 14) and no such objects are reported from the 1997 dig It is possi-ble however that earlier examples were made out of perishable material

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 80

The EN II Samples The EN II samples (Table 59) show the con-

tinued cultivation of cereals and legumes with an apparent increase in emphasis on the latter (34 legumes 68 cerealia) relative to the preced-ing period The significance of this trend cannot be determined The other archaeobotanical mate-rial attests to the ongoing cultivation of flax the collection or cultivation of wild radish and the col-lection of several other aromatic plants (Labiatae) The trends that made their appearance in the pre-vious (EN I) period (Table 56) seem to have per-sisted and strengthened in the subsequent era A much stronger emphasis on arboriculture with a high presence of almond fragments (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) is evident in the EN II period however and the grape (Vitis sp) ap-peared as well

Early exploitation of the almond tree in the Aegean is attested at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid where two whole almonds dated to the Lower Mes o- lithic were found (Hansen 1991 66ndash68 fig 30a pl 11a 1992) Although we do not know the exact contexts of these finds Hansen (1991 124) men-tions that the seed assemblages were associated with several hearths According to Hansen the al-monds are closer to P webbii a species that exists in the Aegean than the domesticated almond Their presence as whole (uncrushed) almonds may indi-cate the use of wild trees as fuel The use of wild almonds to make oil was definite ly not possible as the prussic acid content would have been fatal Moreover it is reasonable to believe that the extrac-tion of oil was a technological feat achieved after cultivation or domestication

Only fragmented almonds have been recovered at Knossos Their broken condition indicates that they were most likely a product for consumption rather than for fuel or storage These fruits were surely not from totally wild trees which produce intensely bitter seeds This bitterness is a defensive mechanism of the tree against predators and it is caused by the presence of the glycoside amygdalin which becomes the deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing chewing or any other in-jury to the seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 186) The consumption of several seeds would prove fatal for human beings Whether or not the almonds used at

EN Knossos were fully domesticated the inhabit-ants must have eliminated trees that produced bit-ter fruits

Unlike some other fruit trees the almond can be planted from seed (Zohary and Hopf 2000 185) and therefore it could have been imported as seed by the first settlers and cultivated within a few years It has been noted that 75 or more of the trees grown from the seeds of nonbitter specimens produce sweet fruit By the stage of cultivation most if not all trees would have been producing sweet almonds The almond tree also existed in the wild in Greece and Crete however (Browicz and Zohary 1996 232) Zohary and Hopf (2000 186) mention that ldquoA webbii Sprach is native to the Aegean basin and south Italyrdquo and they contin-ue (2000 187) saying that ldquothe local wild species could have facilitated the development of local-ly adapted A Communis cultivarsrdquo Browicz and Zohary (1996 229) claim that wild almond spe-cies (including A webbii the local Greek species) constituted the primary gene pool of the cultivated crop and that they saw (Browicz and Zohary 1996 244) intermediate forms (A webbii and A commu-nis L) at the edges of almond cultivation in Crete Wild forms of A communis L (not feral) abound in the Levant and southern Turkey (Browicz and Zohary 1996 236 map 245) and prior to the ad-vent of agriculture this species was confined to the Levant Perhaps as more data are recovered from Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Greece we will need to challenge the view that cultiva-tion began in the Near East and to include Crete and other parts of Greece among the areas of first cultivation

Cultivation of the almond would have led to do-mestication a process that should be visible in the archaeobotanical remains The changes expected with cultivation include a shift from bitter poison-ous seeds an increase in the size of the drupes and the appearance of softer thinner shells (Browicz and Zohary 1996 246) Unfortunately none of the drupes were preserved whole at Knossos and very few have been found elsewhere so it is not possi-ble to undertake meaningful metric analyses and the same problem applies to the comparison of the shells

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 81

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

12 15 2 4 4 mdash mdash 3 2 42

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+++) (+++) mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash (+++) (++) 0

Ficus carica fr (mineralized)

mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Ficus carica (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus carica charred 63 18 mdash 6 1 mdash mdash 62 17 167

Vitis vinifera (cf sylvestris)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

V vinifera sp vinifera mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Vitis sp fr 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Vitis sp fr 3 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Total 80 38 2 10 5 0 0 65 19 219

Legumes

Legume sp (medium) mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 1 1 3

Legume fr 2 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 4

Lens culinaris 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 3

Trifolium sp (small) mdash 1 1 1 2 mdash 2 2 1 10

Trifolium sp (medium) 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 3

cf Trifolium sp 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1 2

Leguminosae (pod) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Leguminosae (small) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 2

Leguminosae (medium)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash 3

cf Onobrychis sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 7 6 1 1 3 0 2 10 4 34

CereaLia

Triticum sp 12 9 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Triticum sp (cf dicoccum)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Triticum turgidum Laestivum L

6 4 mdash 4 1 mdash mdash 3 1 19

Triticum sp glume base

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Triticum sp awns 4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 5

Hordeum sp (hulled) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp mdash 2 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Table 59 Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 82

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

CereaLia Cont

Hordeum sp (hulled) fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Hordeum sp(cf naked)

mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Hordeum sp rachis (damaged)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Hordeum sp awn 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Cerealia sp (Triticum Hordeum sp)

mdash 7 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 8

Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash (+) mdash 0

cf Cerealia fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Cerealia rachis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

cf Avena sp fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 26 25 2 7 1 0 0 5 2 68

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 5

Gramineae (cf Poa) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Gramineae (medium) mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon)

mdash 1 1 mdash 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 5

Gramineae (type 2 medium)

mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

Gramineae (type 3 small)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae rachis 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Phalaris sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Bromus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (small) 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Lolium sp (medium)

1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Rumex sp (R sanguineusndashtype)

mdash 22 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 22

Rumex sp fr mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Cruciferae (cf Moricandia arvensis)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf Cruciferae mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Silene sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 83

Table 59 cont Early Neolithic II archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 frag-ments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

Sample NumberE 97(20)

E 97(19)

E 97(18)

E 97(17)

E 97(16)

E 97(15)

E 97(14)

E 97(13)

E 97(12)

Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

29IV 29IV 28IV 24IV 23IV 20IV 17IV 14IV 14IV

Liters 215 19 17 29 195 18 16 485 205 209

Weeds Cont

Malva sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Sherardia arvensis mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Galium rivale mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Buglossoides arvensis mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5 mdash 5

Valerianella sp (cf microcarpa)

mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 6 31 3 4 2 1 0 12 4 63

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Raphanus raphanistrum seeds

1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

72 5 1 9 mdash mdash 1 1 mdash 89

Raphanus raphanistrum pod segment

4 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

Thymelaea (cf hirsuta) (lvs)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

1 mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 2 mdash 6

cf Linum sp mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Satureja thymbra L mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 2

Satureja thymbra L sp

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf Thymus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 0

Labiatae (type B) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 78 11 1 11 1 0 1 5 1 109

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) 1 mdash 5 1 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 9

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 90 mdash 90

Ignota drupe fr mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ignota fr (very damaged)

47 (+++) 11 (+++) 5 33 (++) 48 2 37 87 (+++) 21 291

Ignota (featureless) 9 mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 9 9 29

Ignota (shell) fr 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

stem fr mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash 3 5

Total 58 13 11 36 50 4 37 186 33 428

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 84

The fig tree (Ficus carica) presumably exist-ed since very early times in Crete and elsewhere in Greece as it is easily transported in the stom-achs of migrating birds The distribution map of the wild fig drawn by Browicz (1986 map V see also Zohary and Hopf 2000 162 map 16) indicates its wide presence in the Mediterranean The only areas where it has not been found must have been ones that presented unfriendly environmental and climat-ic conditions The earliest sites that have produced fig remains so far are located in the Near East how-ever and they are of PPNA date that is earlier than the Knossos finds (Zohary and Hopf 2000 163) Although the fig was not found in the archaeobo-tanical remains from Franchthi its absence may possibly be explained by the recovery techniques employed the size of the mesh used for sieving was 15 mm and the fig falls well under this size

The grape (Vitis sp) appeared in Knossos EN II level 29 In order to distinguish the wild from the cultivated grape measurements and formulas published by Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) were used Their measurements were obtained from two modern varieties Limnio and Asyrtiko both from Macedonia and from wild populations of grapes found in three different localities in western and eastern Macedonia (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996 410) On the basis of their formulas both the ar-chaeobotanical grape pips found at Knossos appear more likely to have been wild than cultivated (Table 510) This conclusion is surprising to the present

author as the relative lengths of the stalks suggest that one pip was wild and the other one which had a longer stalk was cultivated Application of the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis also categorized as wild the grape pips found at the Late Minoan IB site of Mochlos (Sarpaki and Bending 2004) Although the wild grape was widely distributed in the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 2000 154 for Crete see Bottema and Sarpaki 2003) its dis-covery in the sample of archaeobotanical remains from within the site of Mochlos was totally unex-pected Interestingly the use of another method of Mangafa and Kotsakis by Jacquat and Martinoli (1999) in the study of pips from Petra in Jordan (150 bc to 400 ad) also resulted in an identifica-tion of wild grapes even though the morphology of the remains which displayed a long stalk was more consistent with that of the cultivated species The presence of wild grapes in a private Roman dwell-ing at Petra also seems rather unlikely Therefore while the methods of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) seem to have a great deal of potential they prob-ably need to be refined with measurements from more populations of wild grape and present day ldquoold varietiesrdquo of cultivars

Thymelaea a maquis plant was also represent-ed in the EN II samples and occurred subsequent-ly in the MN period as well It may have been used for fuel and the stems which are very tough are known to be used for making rope (Polunin and Huxley 1972)

The Middle Neolithic SamplesIn the Middle Neolithic samples (Table 511)

the agricultural remains appear to demonstrate a continuation of previous trends but the grape naked wheat and barley are not visible It is un-certain whether their absence is a reflection of a

change in agricultural priorities and practices or the changing function of the excavated area with-in the settlement Whatever the reason the number and density of archaeobotanical finds waned visi-bly in comparison to the preceding period

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 85

Vitis sp

Sample Number

Phase Length Breadth Thickness BF LF LS LCH BCH PCH TS

E 97(19) EN II 47 41 33 mdash mdash 06 1 mdash 22 16

E 97(19) EN II 51 39 33 03 2 1 23 15 19 11

Formula 2 = 02951 + (-1264pCHL - 16416L + 45131pCH + 963LsL)

F2 lt - 02 rarr Wild seed

-02 lt F2 lt 04 rarr 90 wild seed

04 lt F2 lt 09 rarr 63 cultivated

F2 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F2 = -218 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F2 = -232 rarr Wild seed

Formula 3 = -7491 + (17715pCH + PCHL + 956LsL)

F3 lt 0 rarr Wild seed

0 lt F3 lt 05 rarr 935 wild seed

05 lt F3 lt 09 rarr 633 cultivated

F3 gt 09 rarr Cultivated seed

E 97(19) F3 = -191 rarr Wild seed

E 97(19) F3 = -188 rarr Wild seed

BF

Ventral side

LF

LSPCH

LCH

BCH

Dorsal side Lateral view

TS

L

Table 510 Vitis sp measurements from EN II levels analyzed with the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) Sketch of a grape seed showing locations of dimensions BF = breadth of fossete LF = length of fossete LS = length of stalk L = total length LCH = length of chalaza BCH = breadth of chalaza PCH = placement of chalaza TS = thickness of stalk

Ventral Side Dorsal Side Lateral View

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 86

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

mdash 14 4 9 6 23 11 12 16 mdash 95

cf Amygdalus sp mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

(+) 11 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 8 21

Ficus carica (mineralized)

4 1 mdash 1 4 mdash mdash mdash 12 2 27

Ficus carica (charred) 3 1 1 2 (++) 1 1 4 2 2 6 23

Total 7 27 5 12 11 25 15 17 32 16 167

Legumes

Legume fr 2 4 mdash 1 1 3 mdash mdash mdash mdash 12

Lens culinaris 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Lens sp (cotyl) mdash mdash mdash 1 1 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 3

cf Pisum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Trifolium sp (small) 2 mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 5

Trifolium sp (cf arvense)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

cf Trigonella sp mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 4 6 1 3 2 8 0 0 2 0 26

CereaLia

Triticum sp mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash

Cerealia sp (TriticumHordeum sp)

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Cerealia fr mdash 2 6 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 6 3 17

Total 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 20

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

cf Capparis sp mineralized fr

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

mdash 1 mdash 1 1 1 1 mdash 2 mdash 7

Thymelaea hirsuta seed

mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Satureja thymbra L 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 2

Total 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 11

Weeds

Gramineae fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 4

Gramineae (very small cf Arundo sp)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Gramineae (type 1 cf Cynodon) mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2

Table 511 Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 87

Sample NumberE

97(11)E

97(10)E

97(9)E

97(8)E

97(7)E

97(6b)E

97(5b)E

97(6a)E

97(5a)E

97(4)Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

12III 12III 10 10 9 9 8 7 4 4

Liters 21 24 29 17 18 225 27 22 22 27 2295

Weeds Cont

Gramineae (small very damaged) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 1

Euphorbia helioscopia mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 mdash mdash mdash 2

Malva sp (mineralized)

mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1

Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 11

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash mdash mdash 2

Ignota (type A) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 (++) 5 (+++) 1 (+) mdash mdash 8

Ignota fr (very damaged)

6 6 7 8 5 1 10 5 5 1 54

Ignota (featureless) mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 3 mdash mdash mdash 3

stem fr mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 1 mdash 1

cf spores mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash 2 1 mdash mdash 3

Total 6 7 7 8 5 3 21 7 6 1 71

Table 511 cont Middle Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

The Late Neolithic Samples The Late Neolithic archaeobotanical material

(Table 512) is still poorer than that of the Middle Neolithic even taking into account the fact that

fewer soil samples were subjected to flotation Bread wheat barley and grape were absent once again

DiscussionThe rescue excavations of 1997 have paved the

way for a reconsideration of the beginning of the Neolithic in Crete and the archaeobotanical mate-rial provides a tool for reevaluation of ideas about the onset of agriculture on the island This pro-cess which at first proved to have been somewhat different than developments on mainland Greece including the Peloponnese where the Neolithic was established in a landscape of prior Mesolithic

habitation now seems in the light of the new find-ings at Gavdos (Kopaka and Mantzanas 2009) and Plakias (Strasser et al 2010) to possibly have par-allel development

What we can detect beyond any doubt is that the first settlement at Knossos was established by peo-ple who were full-fledged farmers highly acquaint-ed with agriculture The wide range of crops such as almond fig lentil pea horse bean possibly

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 88

cloversmedicks einkorn emmer naked wheat hulled two-row and six-row barley naked barley flax and wild radish() is similar to the intensive horticultural regime already described for main-land Greece (Halstead 1996a) If we had a larger number of samples and weed seeds it might have been possible to identify crop husbandry practic-es through the study of weed phytosociology and the use of discriminant analysis (Jones 1992) Such analyses may be possible in the future when

the study of the material collected by Helbaek is completed

The presence of T turgidumaestivum naked wheat is evident from the earliest Aceramic habi-tation and continues in the EN I and II periods We cannot say whether its absence in the MN and LN periods represents a change in the cultivated crops or is merely a trend within this area of the site The important point is that this cultivar is most proba-bly an import from the east (Turkey or the Levant)

Sample Number E 97(2a) E 97(2b) E 97(1) Total

1997 LevelJD Evans Stratum

3 3 2

Liters 5 6 17 28

Fruit

Amygdalus communis fr

1 1 3 5

Ficus cf carica fr (charred)

3 mdash mdash 3

Total 4 1 3 8

Legumes

Legume fragments mdash 1 mdash 1

Total 0 1 0 1

CereaLia

Cerealia fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Condiment-aromatiC-industriaL()

Raphanus raphanistrum pod fr

1 mdash mdash 1

Total 1 0 0 1

Weeds

Gramineae fr 1 mdash mdash 1

Fumaria sp 1 mdash mdash 1

Total 2 0 0 2

ignota

Ignota (identifiable) mdash 1 mdash 1

Ignota (type A) 1 (+) 1 mdash 2

Ignota fr (very damaged)

5 2 mdash 7

cf spores mdash 2 mdash 2

Total 6 6 0 12

Table 512 Late Neolithic archaeobotanical (seed) samples In addition to counted specimens (+) = up to 10 fragments that cannot be counted (++) = 11ndash50 fragments (+++) gt 50 fragments

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 89

11

10

1415

16

2

55

17 1818

19

3 4

121212

8

77

Melos

KytheraAntikythera

Thera

CyCLades

Rhodes

KarpathosKassos

knossos

Hexaploid

Euphrates

River

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Aegean Sea

bull

N

9

0 50 250 500 km

Figure 55 Early sites including those from mainland Greece where Triticum turgidumaestivum is reported 1 Tell Abu Hureyra 2 Tell Halula 3 Tell Aswad 4 Tell Ghoraife 5 Tell Sabi Abyad 6 Servia 7 Cafer Houmlyuumlk 8 Dhali Agridhi 9 Otzaki 10 Sesklo 11 Sitagroi 12 Haccedililar 13 Aşikli Houmlyuumlk 14 Ccedilatal Houmlyuumlk 15 Can Hasan 16 Cayoumlnuuml 17 El Kown 18 Bouqras 19 Tell Ramad Drawing A Sarpaki

All the early sites where it has been found are noted in Figure 55 The sites in mainland Greece are all later in date than Knossos Due to the low presence of naked wheat in the north of Greece (Valamoti 2004) one would assume that the im-migrants did not come from this region but rath-er from the east and that they most probably used islands of the Dodecanese Karpathos Kasos and perhaps the Cyclades as stepping stones Extensive studies of other aspects of material culture such as chipped stone and bone technology are needed in order to assess the cultural similarities and differ-ences between regions and to elucidate the origins of the the Greek Neolithic agricultural complex (Perlegraves 2001 2005) Even if it is claimed that there was at least one very early immigration from the east we still cannot be sure of how large the ldquocrop packagerdquo was and whether some plants including the almond fig wild radish and others were cul-tivated from local stock The early inhabitants of Knossos were surely masters of the technological skills of agriculture

The changing frequencies of all categories of archaeobotanical remains from the 1997 Knossos rescue excavation are summarized in Figure 56 The main conclusions that emerge from the study of the seed material are as follows

1 In the Aceramic there was an emphasis on cereal cultivation compared to legumes and some form of arboriculture was al-ready present as indicated by the occur-rence of figs Figs might have been part of the natural vegetation and not deliber-ately tended initially however If figs were indigenous then arboriculture may have started as early the EN I period

2 There seems to have been a steady in-crease in the use of fruits from the EN I to the EN II period Although the number of samples is comparable (9 for EN I and 10 for EN II) their volumes are 1235 and 2090 liters respectivelymdasha difference that could have affected the results and

6666666

13

Tetraploid

1

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 90

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

Figure 56 Summary of the distribution of all categories of archaeobotanical remains at Neolithic Knossos

the comparability of the samples Still their proportions (per liter of soil) should be fairly representative of their overall fre-quency and from this perspective the use of fruits is more than double in the EN II period It is to be expected that the inhab-itants would begin with trees such as al-monds and figs that did not need grafting but could propagate vegetatively The EN II occurrence of Vitis is problematic for according to the formulas of Mangafa and Kotsakis (1996) the specimens are both grouped as wild whereas the morpholo-gy of one seems to be that of the cultivat-ed species as discussed above The secure presence of domesticated grape would imply the beginning of grafting andor in-tentional vegetative propagation

3 There was a great emphasis on cereals es-pecially naked wheat in the Aceramic and

EN I periods but there seems to have been a shift toward greater legume cultivation in the EN II period Production of cere-als and legumes seems to have stabilized which might perhaps be an indication of agricultural intensification andor a short-age of land (Sarpaki 1992) This trend continued up to the LN period Even at an early date Knossos must have been a huge settlement by the standards of the time

4 The importation of naked wheat was a con-scious choice as it is much easier to thresh than glume wheats (einkorn and emmer) This would have been an important con-sideration for a people on the move

5 It might be speculated that the appearance of flax in the EN I period is indicative of a new wave of immigration Once the initial

2008 Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Fruit 5 156 434 230 8

Legumes 14 38 34 26 1

Cerealia 38 473 73 20 1

Condiment-aromatic-industrial() mdash 74 109 12 1

Weeds mdash 58 63 11 2

Ignota mdash 181 490 187 16

1438

26

12

12

81112 160

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

See

ds

Aceramic EN I EN II MN LN

Ignota

Weeds

Condiment-aromatic-industrial ()

Cerealia

Legumes

Fruit

5156

38

74

58

181

434

3473

109

473

63

490

230

2011

187

8

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 91

group of settlers arrived all kinds of con-tacts and revisits were possible

6 The wild radish appeared in EN I and re-mained part of the agricultural scene until the Late Neolithic The foraging or culti-vation of this plant might be a local devel-opment At present it is impossible to tell whether it was cultivated as a crop since no cache or storage of these seeds has been detected at Knossos or elsewhere

7 The presence of aromatic plants indicates that garrigue vegetation was available and that the samples retrieved were not strictly from storage contexts but were of mixed provenance Weeds of cultivation were also present

8 There is a total absence of olives at Knos-sos from the Aceramic to the Late Neo-lithic as also observed by Badal and Ntinou (this vol Ch 6)

While the archaeobotanical results may have been affected to some extent by the sampling strategy for the collection of soil samples one would like to believe that they are representative both of the excavated area and of the agricultural tendencies of the site overall The conclusions pre-sented here will be evaluated further once the ma-terial from the rest of the Neolithic excavations is studied in more detail It will then be possible to assess whether the archaeobotanical finds from the 1997 excavation speak only for a part of the site or for more general developments at Knossos

ReferencesArnold ER and HJ Greenfield 2006 The Origins

of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate South Eastern Europe A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Cental Balkans (BAR-IS 1538) Oxford

Blumler MA 1996 ldquoEcology Evolutionary Theory and Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 25ndash50

Bottema S 1992 ldquoCereal-Type Pollen in the Near East as Indicators of Wild or Domestic Cropsrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches ex peacuterimentales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 95ndash106

Bottema S and A Sarpaki 2003 ldquoEnvironmental Change in Crete A 9000-Year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruptionrdquo The Holocene 13 pp 733ndash749

Broodbank C 1999 ldquoColonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegeanrdquo in Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2) P Halstead ed Sheffield pp 15ndash41

mdashmdashmdash 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades Cambridge

Dedication and AcknowledgmentsThis contribution is dedicated to the memo-

ry of Hans Helbaek I thank Alexandra Karetsou and Eleni Banou of the 23rd Ephoreia of Herakleion and Nikos Efstratiou of the University of Thessaloniki for entrusting me with the study of the seed remains from the 1997 excavation I am deeply indebted to Maria Balanou who did the water flotation as well as to Angeliki Kossyva Niki Spanou and Lena Mandalara who sorted the

flots with a stereoscope microscope I would also like to thank Sue Colledge and Tania Valamoti for information on naked wheats I am especial-ly grateful to the British School at Athens and JD Evans for granting me permission to study and photograph the botanical material from Evansrsquos ex-cavations and to the latter for entrusting me with Helbaekrsquos unpublished report

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 92

Browicz K 1986 Chorology of Trees and Shrubs in South-West Asia and Adjacent Regions 5 Kornik

Browicz K and D Zohary 1996 ldquoThe Genus Amygdalus L (Rosaceae) Species Relationships Distribution and Evolution under Domesticationrdquo Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43 pp 229ndash247

Cherry JF 1985 ldquoIslands out of the Stream Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistoryrdquo in Prehistoric Production and Exchange The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25) AB Knapp and T Stech eds Los Angeles pp 12ndash29

mdashmdashmdash 1990 ldquoThe First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands A Review of Recent Re searchrdquo JMA 3 pp 145ndash221

de Moulins D 1996 ldquoSieving Experiment The Con-trolled Recovery of Charred Remains from Modern and Archaeological Samplesrdquo in Early Farm ing in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 153ndash156

Evans JD 1964 ldquoExcavations in the Neolithic Set-tlement of Knossos 1957ndash60 Part Irdquo BSA 59 pp 132ndash240

mdashmdashmdash 1971 ldquoNeolithic Knossos The Growth of a Settlementrdquo PPS 37 pp 95ndash117

mdashmdashmdash 1994 ldquoThe Early Millennia Continuity and Change in a Farming Settlementrdquo in Knossos A Labyrinth of History Papers in Honour of S Hood D Evely H Hughes-Brock and N Momigliano eds Oxford pp 1ndash20

Green FJ 1975 Large Seeded Legumes of the Old World BA diss University of Sheffield

Halstead P 1996a ldquoThe Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece When How Who and Whatrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 296ndash309

mdashmdashmdash 1996b ldquoPastoralism or Household Herding Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandryrdquo WorldArch 28 pp 20ndash42

Hansen JM 1991 The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7) Bloomington

mdashmdashmdash 1992 ldquoFranchthi Cave and the Beginnings of Agriculture in Greece and the Aegeanrdquo in Preacutehistoire de lrsquoagriculture Nouvelles approches expeacuterimen-tales et ethnographiques (Monographies du CRA 6) PC Anderson-Gerfaud ed Paris pp 231ndash247

Hather JG 1993 An Archaeological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification 1 Europe and South West Asia (Oxbow Monograph 28) Oxford

Harris DR ed 1996 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia London

Helbaek H 1959 ldquoNotes on the Evolution and History of Linumrdquo Kuml 1959 pp 103ndash120

mdashmdashmdash 1968 ldquoKnossos Wheatrdquo Unpublished manu-script second draft

mdashmdashmdash 1970 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Haccedililarrdquo in Excavations at Haccedililar I J Mellaart ed Edinburgh pp 189ndash244

Helmer D V Roitel M Santildea and G Wilcox 1998 ldquoInterpreacutetations environnementales des donneacutees archeacuteozoologiques et archeacuteobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 bp agrave 7000 bp et les deacutebuts de la domestication des plantes et des animauxrdquo in Espace naturel espace habiteacute en Syrie du nord (10endash2e milleacutenaires av J-C) (Travaux de la Maison de lrsquoOrient 28) M Fortin and O Aurenche eds Lyon pp 9ndash33

Hopf M 1955 ldquoFormveraumlnderunggen von Ge trei-dekoumlrnern beim Verkohlenrdquo Berichte der Deutschen Botanischer Gesellschaft 68 pp 191ndash193

Jacomet S 1987 Prehistoric Cereal Finds A Guide to the Identification of Prehistoric Barley and Wheat Finds J Greig trans Basel

Jacquat C and D Martinoli 1999 ldquoVitis vinifera L Wild or Cultivated Study of the Grape Pips Found at Petra Jordan 150 bcndashad 40rdquo Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8 pp 25ndash30

Jarman MR CN Bailey and HN Jarman eds 1982 Early European Agriculture Its Foundations and Development Cambridge

Jarman MR and HN Jarman 1968 ldquoThe Fauna and Economy of Early Neolithic Knossosrdquo in ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo P Warren MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans BSA 63 pp 241ndash264

Jones G 1992 ldquoWeed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry Identifying a Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Practicerdquo Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 pp 133ndash143

Kislev M 1979ndash1980 ldquoTriticum parvicoccum sp Nov The Oldest Naked Wheatrdquo Israel Journal of Botany 28 pp 95ndash107

mdashmdashmdash 1984 ldquoBotanical Evidence for Ancient Naked Wheats in the Near Eastrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 141ndash152

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoReconstructing the Ear Morphology of Ancient Small-Grain Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp parvicoccum)rdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

the economy of neolithic knossos the ArchAeobotAnicAl dAtA 93

in Honor of Gordon Hillman A Fairburn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 235ndash238

Kopaka K and Ch Mantzanas 2009 ldquoPalaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos near Neighbour to Crete in Greecerdquo Antiquity 83 (321) httpantiq-uityacukprojgallKopaka321

Koumlrber-Grohne U 1987 Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland Stuttgart

Ladizinsky G 1989 ldquoOrigin and Domestication of the Southwest Asian Grain Legumesrdquo in Foraging and Farming The Evolution of Plant Exploitation DR Harris and GC Hillman eds London pp 374ndash389

Lambeck K 1996 ldquoSea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Timerdquo Antiquity 70 pp 588ndash611

Maier U 1996 ldquoMorphological Studies of Free-threshing Wheat Ears from the Neolithic Site in Southwest Germany and the History of the Naked Wheatsrdquo in Early Farming in the Old World Recent Advances in Archaeobotanical Research (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Special Vol) K-E Behre and K Oeggl eds Heidelberg pp 39ndash55

Mangafa M and K Kotsakis 1996 ldquoA New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seedsrdquo JAS 23 pp 400ndash418

Miller N 1984 ldquoIntentional Burning of Dung as Fuel A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Recordrdquo Journal of Ethnobiology 4 pp 15ndash77

Moody J O Rackham and G Rapp 1996 ldquoEn vi-ronmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Creterdquo JFA 23 pp 273ndash297

Peltenburg E S Colledge P Croft A Jackson C McCartney and MA Murray 2000 ldquoAgro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10th Millennium bp Initial Assessmentsrdquo Antiquity 74 pp 844ndash853

Perlegraves C 1979 ldquoDes navigateurs meacutediterraneacuteens il y a 10000 ansrdquo La Recherche 96 pp 82ndash83

mdashmdashmdash 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece The First Farming Communities in Europe Cambridge

mdashmdashmdash 2005 ldquoFrom the Near East to Greece Letrsquos Re verse the Focus Cultural Elements That Didnrsquot Trans ferrdquo in How Did Farming Reach Europe Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal bc Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul 20ndash22 May 2004 (Byzas 2) G Lichter ed Istanbul pp 275ndash290

Polunin O and A Huxley 1972 Flowers of the Medi-terranean London

Rackham O and J Moody 1996 The Making of the Cretan Landscape Manchester

Renfrew J 1979 ldquoThe First Farmers in South East Europerdquo in Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65 Geburtstag am 14 September 1979 (Archaeo-Physika 8) U Koumlrber-Grohne ed Cologne pp 243ndash265

Roberts N 1979 ldquoThe Location and Environment of Knossosrdquo BSA 74 pp 231ndash240

Sakellarakis Y 1973 ldquoNeolithic Creterdquo in Neolithic Greece DR Theocharis Athens pp 131ndash146

Sarpaki A 1992 ldquoThe Palaeoethnobotanical Approach The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartetrdquo in Ag-riculture in Ancient Greece (SkrAth 4deg 42) B Wells ed Stockholm pp 61ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2009 ldquoKnossos Crete Invaders lsquoSea-goersrsquo or Previously lsquoInvisiblersquo the Neolithic Economy Appears Fully-Fledged in 9000 bprdquo in From Foragers to Farmers Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman A Fairbairn and E Weiss eds Oxford pp 220ndash234

Sarpaki A and J Bending 2004 ldquoArchaeobotanical Assemblagesrdquo in Mochlos IC Period III Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast The Artisansrsquo Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9) JS Soles C Davaras J Bending T Carter D Kondopoulou D Mylona M Ntinou AM Nicgorski DS Reese A Sarpaki WH Schoch ME Soles V Spatharas ZA Stos-Gale DH Tarling and C Witmore Philadelphia pp 126ndash131

Sherratt A 1980 ldquoWater Soil and Seasonality in Early Cereal Cultivationrdquo WorldArch 11 pp 313ndash330

mdashmdashmdash 1996 ldquoPlate Tectonics and Imaginary Pre-histories Structure and Contingency in Agricultural Originsrdquo in Harris ed 1996 pp 130ndash140

Stavropoulos N A Zamanis P Efthimiadis S Samaras and A Matthaiou 1992 ldquoPhenotypic Differences in Greek Populations of Wild Wheat Triticum monococ-cum L subsp boeoticum (Boiss) and of Cultivated Diploid Wheat T monococcum subsp Monococcumrdquo (Greek with English summary) in Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Agricultural Research vol 2 Thessaloniki

Strasser T 1996 ldquoSoils and Settlements on Neolithic Creterdquo in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology 28) DS Reese ed Madison pp 317ndash336

Strasser T N Thompson E Panagopoulou P Karkanas C Runnels F McCoy P Murray and K Wegmann 2010 ldquoStone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5

anaya sarpaki 94

Evidence from the Plakias Region for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Creterdquo Hesperia 79 pp 145ndash190

Tzedakis Y and H Martlew eds 1999 Minoans and Mycenaeans Flavours of Their Time Athens

Valamoti SM 2004 Plants and People in Late Neo lithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece An Archaeo-botanical Investigation (BAR-IS 1258) Oxford

van Andel TH and CN Runnels 1995 ldquoThe Earliest Farmers in Europerdquo Antiquity 69 pp 481ndash500

van Zeist W 1972 ldquoPrehistoric and Early Historic Food Plants in the Netherlandsrdquo Palaeohistoria 14 pp 41ndash173

van Zeist W and JAH Bakker-Heeres 1975 ldquoEvidence for Linseed Cultivation before 6000 bcrdquo JAS 2 pp 215ndash219

van Zeist W and H Buitenhuis 1983 ldquoA Pa laeo-botanical Study of Neolithic Erbaba Turkeyrdquo Anatolica 10 pp 47ndash89

van Zeist W and GJ de Roller 1991ndash1992 ldquoThe Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Cayoumlnuuml SE Turkeyrdquo Palaeohistoria 3334 pp 65ndash96

van Zeist W GJ de Roller and S Bottema 2000 ldquoThe Plant Remainsrdquo in Tell Sabi Abyad II The Prepottery Neolithic B Settlement (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 90) M Verhoeven and PMMG Akkermans eds Istanbul pp 137ndash147

van Zeist W and W Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1985 ldquoThe Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras Eastern Syriardquo Paleacuteorient 11 pp 131ndash147

Warren P MR Jarman HN Jarman NJ Shackleton and JD Evans 1968 ldquoKnossos Neolithic Part IIrdquo BSA 63 pp 239ndash276

Wilson DG 1984 ldquoThe Carbonization of Weed Seeds and Their Representation in Macrofossil Assemblagesrdquo in Plants and Ancient Man Studies in Palaeoethnobotany W van Zeist and WA Casparie eds Rotterdam pp 201ndash206

Zohary D and M Hopf 2000 Domestication of Plants in the Old World The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants on West Asia Europe and the Nile Valley 3rd ed Oxford

Zois A 1973 ΚρήτηmdashἨ Ἐποχή τοῦ Λὶθου Athens

• NK_Frontmatter
• NK_Ch5