See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240442074

The economic importance of plant

remains represented on
archaeological sites

Article in Journal of Archaeological Science · September 1976

DOI: 10.1016/0305-4403(76)90057-1

CITATIONS READS

57 414

1 author:

Robin Dennell
The University of Exeter
121 PUBLICATIONS 2,197 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robin Dennell on 06 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Archaeological Science 1976, 3, 229-241

The Economic Importance of Plant Resources

Represented on Archaeological Sites
R. W. Dennell”

Techniques for estimating the economic importance of plants represented on

archaeological sites have usually assumed that plant samples were random in
composition. The effects of crop-processing activities and other factors upon the
composition of each sample have frequently been overlooked, or their importance
minimized. This article proposes an alternative approach and suggests that the
economic value of a prehistoric plant resource can be ascertained by considering
its context within crop-processing activities. It is argued that the merits of this
technique are that it provides a more accurate means, first, of distinguishing
between actual and potential plant resources, and secondly, of evaluating their
importance.

I.utroauctioll
The need to estimate the economic importance of plant resources represented on
archaeological settlements would seem so basic to a study of a prehistoric crop economy
as to require little justification. Only when this fundamental task has been completed can
we then proceed to a more detailed type of enquiry into, for example, the nutritional
composition of the plant diet, the type of crop system to which each cultigen belonged,
or the ways in which seasonal fluctuations in plant foods were overcome. It is neverthe-
less a curious feature of archaeo-botanical research that the problems of estimating the
economic importance of prehistoric plant foods have received only scant attention.
Recent reviews of the issues involved in interpreting other kinds of palaeoeconomic
evidence, such a fauna1 remains (e.g. Payne, 1972) or mollusca (e.g. Bailey, 1975), have
not yet been matched by similar re-assessments of archaeo-botanical data. Most recent
discussions (e.g. Harlan & de Wet, 1973) about this type of evidence have concentrated
more upon how we might establish the phylogenetic history of the major cultigens than
upon the ways of investigating a prehistoric crop economy.
The reasons for the neglect of the economic status of prehistoric plant resources can be
largely ascribed to the differing goals of archaeology and botany, and their resulting lack
of practical and conceptual integration. The archaeologists who recover archaeo-botanical
data have generally been content to learn about the diet rather than the economy of a
prehistoric settlement; i.e. about the range and type of plants that were eaten rather than
the ways and proportions in which they were exploited. On the other hand, the botanists
who examine this evidence have been primarily concerned with tracing the origin and
dispersal of the major cultigens; consequently, the type of research pioneered by Heer

“Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, England.

229
230 R. W. DENNELL

(1878) and developed by de Candolle (1884) has been maintained by subsequent genera-
tions of researchers with little change in research objectives. For these purposes, archaeo-
logical sites were excavated for plant remains primarily to ascertain what plant foods
were used at a particular period or place, rather in the same way as a geologist might
sink a number of bore-holes to gauge the extent of a particular formation. As both
archaeologists and botanists were generally satisfied with obtaining only a list of well-
dated and accurately identified plant species, little further co-operation was needed and
both disciplines successfully maintained their different academic loyalties.
Although this type of research has produced a large amount of essential information
on the phylogenetic history of the major cultigens, it has so far provided little data on the
way these were used in prehistoric economies. Such a degree of emphasis upon the
evolutionary rather than economic history of prehistoric plant resources is inevitably
open to some major criticisms. On the one hand, prehistorians cannot expect to provide
a satisfying explanation of the settlements they are excavating without knowing in what
proportions and ways the available plant resources were exploited. Botanists on the other
hand cannot fully understand the origin and dispersal of cultivated plant foods in
prehistory without reference to the ways they were utilized under different agricultural
conditions, or to the economic pressures which favoured the selection of certain plants
at the expense of others.
During the last decade or so, there has been a welcome shift in emphasis in studies of
prehistoric plant husbandry from phylogenetic to economic goals. This change of
attitude is we11exemplified by contrasting the fieldwork of Braidwood & Howe (1960)
in Iraqi Kurdistan with that of Hole et al. (1969) in Khuzistan. Although both studies
were concerned with the same type of settlement, area and material, and even engaged
the same archaeo-botanist, more attention was paid in the latter than in the former
study to estimating the economic rather than phylogenetic status of each plant resource.
This change in emphasis was partly occasioned by, but also resulted in, some major
improvements in the techniques for retrieving botanical evidence from prehistoric settle-
ments (e.g. French, 1971; Jarman et al., 1972). These have changed not only the amount,
but also the type of archaeo-botanical data that can be retrieved from excavations. When
retrieval techniques were poor, samples of carbonized plant remains were generally
found only when they occurred in sufficiently large concentrations to be visible to the
naked eye during excavations, and often only if a settlement had been destroyed by fire.
Consequently, the major finds from such excavations tended to consist of large, homo-
geneous samples of stored crops. Now that flotation techniques are becoming a commoner
feature of excavations, botanical evidence can be recovered from a large range of con-
texts even if it is not visible during excavation. Much of this plant material was probably
carbonized during everyday life of a settlement instead of during some sudden confla-
gration, and as such, probably represents the residues left after a wide range of domestic
activities. In dealing with such samples, it is clearly a more difficult procedure for both
the archaeologist and the botanist to establish the circumstances under which a plant
sample was preserved, or the part of the plant husbandry that it might represent, than
if one were excavating, for example, a storage room that was destroyed by fire.
Because of these developments in both research objectives and excavation techniques,
it is essential that we consider the problems involved in establishing the economic status
of a prehistoric plant food.
Preliminary Considerations
As I have pointed out elsewhere (Dennell, 1972, 1974a), samples of carbonized plant
remains are not random in composition and thus do not directly represent the prevailing
crop economy. They are biased by numerous factors, notably the type and intended
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 231

usage of each plant, and the circumstances under which the sample was carbonized. For
example, the preservation of plant foods greatly depend upon the characteristics of the
plant. Almost all our evidence of prehistoric plant husbandry is about those plants of
which the seeds, grains or kernels were preserved. As leaves, roots and stalks are poorly
and only exceptionally preserved, the early history of root and leaf crops is only exiguously
documented.
Some seed and grain resources are more likely to be preserved than others, however.
As cereals such as einkorn, emmer or spelt need parching to free the grains from their
spikelets (Helbaek, 1952a, p. 201), they are more likely to be accidentally carbonized than
free-threshing cereals such as bread-wheat. For similar reasons, naked barley is less likely
to be preserved than the hulled form. Large-seeded legumes do not require parching
before they can be eaten, and so are unlikely to be preserved in large quantities except in
unusual circumstances, as when for example, a settlement is destroyed by fire. On the
other hand, small-seeded legumes are often present as weeds in cereal crops, and could
thus be accidentally preserved if part of a cereal crop were carbonized.
The preservation of fruits depends greatly upon the number of seeds per fruit and the
size of the seeds. Some, such as fig or raspberry, contain several hundred seeds per fruit
and may thus be represented by large numbers of seeds. This would happen especially if
coprolites were found, but such occurrences are unfortunately rare in Old World sites.
However, at Muldbjerg (Troels-Smith, 1960, p. 591), raspberry and strawberry seeds
were recovered from what were probably human coprolites, and at Plymouth, the author
(1970, p. 154) found large numbers of fig seeds in a medieval sewer which contained highly
degraded faecal material. Sometimes the seeds of small-seeded fruits are expectorated
and later burnt as refuse; in such instances, they can be scattered and preserved in small
numbers. The seeds of large and single-seeded fruits or drupes such as plum, Cornelian
cherry and olive, and the shells of nuts, are less likely to be preserved in large numbers
than those of small-seeded fruits such as those we have just considered. Nor, on account
of their size, are they likely to be present in coprolites. Occasionally, however, consider-
able finds of nuts or largeiseeded fruits are encountered. At Sesklo for example (Renfrew,
1973, p. 28), large numbers of acorns were found in one deposit; and from a shipwreck
off Kyrenia in Cyprus, a cache of almonds was recovered (Renfrew, 1973, p. 17).
The uses made of a plant will clearly affect its chances of preservation. For example,
there need be little or no direct evidence for plants such as grape, apple or plum if they
were crushed for the juice. Plants such as these are more likely to be preserved if they
were dried and then stored. Such finds occur sporadically: at Bornholm, for example, a
cache of dried apples was found (Helbaek, 19526) and at Rachmani, a deposit of dried
figs (Renfrew, 1973, p. 28). As there is such wide variation in the types and uses of fruits
and nuts, their value in the total plant diet is difficult to estimate from the evidence
obtained by excavation. Similar considerations doubtless apply to other cultigens. A
cereal such as barley, for example, is more likely to be preserved if it were used for
bread-making than for brewing or fodder. The same point applies to fodder crops, of
which our knowledge is extremely poor. As these either require little preparation or are
consumed away from the settlement, they are unlikely to be preserved in archaeological
contexts unless for example a stable or byre was burnt down. Such instances have
occasionally been recorded: at Thayngen-Weier (Guyan, 1954) carbonized leaves and
fronds were found in what was interpreted as a byre.
In some cases, a plant that is regarded as a weed has a better chance of preservation
than if it were a crop. This is because most of a crop will be eaten and will thus leave little
trace, whereas a prevalent weed would be removed from a crop and could thus be
preserved if it was discarded onto a midden, for example. Thus a plant such as pea or
lentil which needs few preparatory processes involving fire or heating need not be
232 R. W. DENNELL

abundantfy represented in a prehistoric settlement as a crop, but might be commonly

found if it were a weed in a cereal crop. It is certainly a disturbing possibility that much
of our archaeo-botanical evidence might provide a more accurate indication of what was
thrown away than of what was actually eaten.
Whilst the preservation of a plant species largely depends upon its type and usage, the
composition of a particular sample of carbonized plant remains is likely to have resulted
from specific human activities during the preparation and consumption of a plant food.
Two types of activities can be distinguished. The first are those which alter the state, but
not the composition of a crop. Threshing for example will comminute a crop but not
alter its composition; grain parching or fruit drying will affect only the moisture content
of the crop. The second type of crop processing activities are those which alter the
composition of the crop which is being prepared for consumption. This type of activity
is especially associated with cereal crops which need several processes of this kind to
remove the straw, weeds and husks before the grain can be stored or eaten. Winnowing
removes most of the straw and some of the weeds, while during grain cleaning, weed
seeds and other impurities are separated from the crop (Dennell, 1972, 1974~).
It is absolutely essential that any method for evaluating the economic importance of
prehistoric plant resources should take account of the differences between these two
types of crop-processing activities. Those activities which alter the condition but not the
composition of a crop would leave a direct indication of that crop in the archaeo-
logical record. On the other hand, those which actually alter the composition of a crop
could leave residues of either the crop itself, or the part which was discarded. Estimates
of crop importance would clearly be ill-founded if a residue which was deliberately
removed from a crop were mistaken for the crop itself.
Because of these factors, plant samples of widely differing composition could be
recovered from the same archaeological horizon. The following instances provide some
indication of the amount of variability which might be expected.
Almost a century ago, Heer (1878, p. 518) observed wide variation in the composition
of plant samples from the Swiss Lake Dwellings, for “Stones and pottery, domestic
implements and charcoal ashes, grain of corn and bones, lie together in a confused mass:
yet they are by no means spread regularly over the bottom, but are frequently found in
patches”.
At Hacilar, the variation in the composition of samples from storage bins and floors in
level VI was interpreted as “Representing different human activities” (Helbaek, 1970,
p. 196).
Van Zeist (1972, pp. 5-6) noted that at Cayijnii Tepesi “the seeds are not evenly dis-
tributed throughout the mound”, for one area was “comparatively rich in botanical
material, whereas from other squares only insignificant numbers of seeds were recovered”.
He thus concluded that “The uneven distribution of plant remains is undoubtedly related
to differences in function of the areas concerned of the prehistoric village”.
Similarly in the New World, Callen (1965) has documented the differences between the
plant foods represented in coprolites and their associated cave deposits.
On account of such variation in sample composition, it is clear that no single sample
can be regarded as representative of the prevailing crop economy. Consequently, there
can be no justification for estimating the economic status of a plant by its numerical
frequency alone. This method may be democratic, in allowing “one seed, one vote”,
but wholly ignores the factors affecting the composition of an archaeological sample of
plant remains. Such attempts-as for example at Beidha (Helbaek, 1966) and Ali Kosh
(Helbaek, 1969)-should thus be treated with the gravest suspicion (see Dennell, 1972,
pp. 157-159).
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 233

Present Techniques for Evaluating the Economic Status of Prehist-

oric Plant Resources
The factors affecting the preservation of plant remains and the composition of macro-
scopic plant samples from archaeological sites have so far proved formidable obstacles
to estimating the economic importance of prehistoric plant resources. In some respects, a
curious situation has arisen. When the plant samples from prehistoric settlements-such
as the Swiss Lake Dwellings (Heer, 1878), Hacilar (Helbaek, 1970) or Cayiinii Tepesi
(van Zeist, 1972)-have been regarded as biased in composition, no attempt has been
made to estimate the economic importance of each plant, and the investigators have
concerned themselves mainly with phylogenetic issues. Yet when estimates of crop
importance have been made, there has rarely been any alternative course for the archaeo-
botanist except to state-or at least suggest-that the numerical frequency with which a
plant species is represented provides a direct indication of its economic importance. It
was on these grounds that, for example, the lentils from Nea Nikomedia (van Zeist &
Bottema, 1971, p. 535) and emmer in neolithic Thessaly (Renfrew, 1973, p. 25) were
regarded as major plant foods. At other times, the numbers of seeds or grains of a plant
species at a prehistoric settlement has raised serious doubts as to whether it was in fact a
resource at all. This problem was encountered by van Zeist & Bottema (1971, p. 536) in
their investigations of the data from the neolithic site of Nea Nikomedia: “From the
fairly small numbers of bitter vetch seeds . . . it is not clear whether this species was
grown intentionally or whether it occurred only as a weed, particularly in lentil fields”.
We might indeed question whether the number of seeds or grains of a plant species on a
site can provide any indication at all of whether or not a plant was used as a food
resource.
To date there has been only one attempt to estimate the economic importance of
plants represented in archaeo-botanical samples that were explicitly recognized as biased
in composition. This method was formulated by Dr J. M. Renfrew in her study of the
plant remains from Sitagroi (in C. Renfrew, 1974, p. 276). As she has stated elsewhere
(Renfrew, 1973, p. 21), “Samples of carbonized grain cannot be considered as truly
‘random’ “, for “they have become carbonized due to some accident in prehistory-
being scorched in a parching oven, spilled by the hearth or singed in the conflagration
of part of a building-and are thus only indicative of their own immediate circumstances,
and not even of the entire harvest of that season”. In order therefore to place the
anomalies of any particular sample within a wider context, as large an areas as possible
of the excavations at Sitagroi was sampled for plant remains. The numbers of seeds or
grains of a species in a sample was regarded as less important than the number of
samples in which a species was commonest. Consequently, the economic importance of
each plant was estimated from the per cent of samples in which it was the dominant
plant. Thus emmer was estimated as comprising c. 50% of the plant foods represented
in the earliest settlement at Sitagroi on the basis that it was the commonest plant in 17
out of 32 samples.
Although this method clearly recognizes that samples of carbonized plant remains
are biased by crop processing and other activities, there are three reasons why it might
not provide an accurate account of the importance of each plant resource. The first is
that a plant would not be counted as a resource unless it happened to be the commonest
plant represented in at least one sample. That is to say, a plant that was used as a food
resource but which was consistently the second commonest plant represented in each
sample would not be incorporated in the estimates. We can imagine for example a
situation where four samples, each of 150 seeds or grains, were recovered from a settle-
ment: the first contained 100 seeds of pea, the second, 100 of lentil, the third, 100 grains
234 R. W. DENNELL

of barley and the fourth, 100 of emmer. Each sample also contained 50 grains of einkorn.
According to this method, pea, lentil, barley and emmer would each be valued at 25 %
of the total plant food; although einkorn was overall the commonest plant represented
in these samples, it would not be counted as a resource. If, on the other hand, one further
sample of only three grains were found, and two of those happened to be of einkorn, its
economic value would then be reckoned at 20% of the total on the grounds that it was
dominant in one of the five samples. We could indeed envisage some curious results if
this method were used consistently. If for example a sample of a mixed crop of beans and
wheat were found, the minor component would not be counted as a resource unless it
happened to be dominant in at least one other sample.
This method also suffers from a severe disadvantage in that it takes no account of those
crop-processing activities which alter the composition of a crop by removing an unwanted
component. Such processes as grain dehusking or cleaning would produce residues
containing large amounts of weeds and commensal plants but only small proportions of
the actual cultigen. As an illustration, we can consider a hypothetical settlement at which
the most important crop was emmer. During the excavation, no storage pits or jars were
found, and the plant samples were recovered from floors where emmer crops had been
cleaned and dehusked. As these activities were performed efficiently, emmer was a minor
component of each sample, most of which contained large numbers of crop weeds. If
the commonest plant in each sample was assumed to be the main plant resource, there
would be no reason to conclude by this method that it was in fact emmer.
Another drawback of this method is that it states the economic importance of a plant
resource in terms of a per cent representation. This is of uncertain value, since it is by no
means clear to what this percentage refers. If, for example, barley is estimated as 50%
of the total plant food, this figure could refer to the number of seeds or grains that one
plant contributed to the total number consumed by a community; or to the proportion
of calories, protein or carbohydrate in the total plant diet provided by one plant resource;
the propor.tion by weight of one plant in the total amount eaten by a community; the
amount of land under one plant resource at any time; or even to the proportion of labour
expended on obtaining one type of plant food. There is no reason to suppose that any of
these are measured by the per cent of plant samples in which one species is commonest.

An Alternative Method for Estimating the Economic Status of a

Prehistoric Plant Resource
As the numbers of seeds or grains by which a plant species is represented on an archaeo-
logical site cannot be used as a basis for estimating the economic importance of a
prehistoric plant resource, it seems essential to take full account of those factors which
affected the composition of each plant sample. Particular attention should be paid to
determining whether a plant species represents a crop, or a residue from it, and the stage
of preparation at which either was carbonized or otherwise preserved.
It would seem a reasonable proposition that the economic importance of a plant
resource should be indicated to some extent by the range and type of domestic activities
to which it was subjected. This is because many of these activities are intended to isolate
those plants that are economically important from those that are not, and to prepare the
major food plants for storage and consumption. Thus in general terms we might expect
the most important plant resources to be most commonly associated with activities such
as food preparation, consumption and storage. On the other hand, unimportant plant
resources should tend to be associated with a different range of activities, such as refuse
disposal, fuel or tempering. Each of these different activities would probably be associ-
ated with distinctive areas of a prehistoric settlement, and result in different kinds of
plant samples. We might therefore assume a relationship between the economic status of
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 235

a prehistoric plant resource, the kinds of processing activities with which it is associated
and its domestic context. A simplified illustration of these relationships is shown in
Figure 1.

1Small, homogeneous 1 whsferogsneousl

[Economc status 1

Archaeological context

Figure 1. Suggested relationship between economic status of a plant, its

archaeological context and sample composition. Width of line indicates
degree of association between economic status and context.

If we assume that the economic status of a prehistoric plant food should be reflected
to some extent by the kind of domestic processing activities performed on a settlement,
it is essential that these should be identifiable in the archaeological record. A few attempts
have been made to identify crop processing and related activities from samples of
macroscopic plant samples retrieved by excavation. Almost a century ago, Heer (1878,
p. 521) attributed much of the variation in sample composition to specific crop processing
activities. When commenting on the numbers of weed seeds in some grain samples, he
concluded that “The straw must have been taken up with it (the grain), otherwise there
would not have been the seeds of so many weeds with the corn. . . Some are charred, and
most unquestionably were mixed with the corn when it was burnt”. Similarly, at Hacilar,
Helbaek (1970, p. 199) suggested that grain in one sample had been threshed, whereas
that in another sample was “unthreshed, as is proven by the tens of thousands of
spikelet fragments”.
In both these cases, the composition of the sample was the main method by which
crop-processing activities were identified. The present writer has attempted to extend
this line of approach further by using grain size and sample context as two further
criteria for identifying crop-processing activities (Dennell, 1972, 1974a). As a result, a
number of activities such as grain dehusking, cleaning and parching were recognized.
Overall, a good degree of association was found between sample composition and grain
size, but there was less marked association between these attributes and context.
If the characteristics of plant samples can provide some indication of the type of crop-
processing activities which took place on a settlement, we should now consider whether
this information provides us with a way of making more accurate estimates of pre-
historic crop importance than has hitherto been possible.
236 R. W. DENNELL

Case Studies
We can consider the botanical data from two prehistoric sites where crop processing
activities have been identified. These are the early neolithic settlements of Chevdar and
Kazanluk in Bulgaria, both dated c. 5300-4700 bc and excavated for plant remains by
the writer in 1970/l with the aid of a froth flotation unit. Information on the variation in
sample composition, the type of crop-processing activities and the purity of full-processed
crops at these sites has been published elsewhere (Dennell, 1972, 19746, b). It is sufficient
here to describe briefly the composition, context and interpretation of each sample type
before we assessthe economic importance of each plant.
Chevdar
As a large area of Chevdar was destroyed by fire, a considerable volume of carbonized
plant remains was preserved in situ. The type of evidence from this settlement is thus
similar to that recovered from other sites such as Hacilar (Helbaek, 1970) and Azmak
(Georgiev, 1963), both of which yielded large and often spectacular finds of plant
material. The plants represented at Chevdar are listed in Table 1 according to the type
of sample in which they were found and the stage of processing at which they were
carbonized. Each sample type can now be described.

Table 1. Plants represented at Chevdar in terms of sample type and crop

processing activities

Type 1 samples Type 2 samples

(fully processed (tail-corn of
species crops) emmer crops) Comment
Triticum dicoccum 3 (xxx) 8(xxx) Cleaned and stored crop; also admixture of
5 (xx) vetch and barley crops.
Hordeum hexastichum 4 04 8 (xxx) Cleaned and stored crop; also admixture of
3w emmer and vetch crops.
Vicia sativa 1w4 8 (x) Cleaned and stored crop; also admixture of
4 (4 emmer and barley crops.
Rumex cf. crispus 1 (xxx) 6 (4 Stored crop; minor component of emmer,
3 04 barley and legume crops.
T. monococcum 6 (4 6 (4 Minor component of cereal crops.
T. aestivum 5 (4 4 (xl Minor component of cereal crops.
Avena sp. 1 09 2w Minor component of cereal crops.
Lens sp. 5 (4 8(xx) Minor component of cereal crops.
Pisum sp. 3 04 Minor component of cereal crops.
Linum cf. bienne 1 09 2 04 Minor component of cereal crops.
Polygonum aviculare 2 09 2w Minor component of cereal crops.
Galium aparine 2 64 3w Minor component of cereal crops.
1w
G. mollugo 1 (4 Minor component of cereal crops.
Chenopodium sp. 1 (4 Minor component of cereal crops.
Malva sp. 1 (4 Minor component of cereal crops.
Cornus mas 1 (4 3 (xl Edible fruit
Rubus fruticosus 2 (4 3 09 Edible fruit.
1 (xx) Edible fruit.
Malus sp. 2 (4 Edible fruit.
Sambucus ebulus 1 09 1(4 Edible fruit.

Numbers refer to number of samples in which a species was represented.

Crosses in parentheses refer to the numbers of seeds or grains of a plant in a
sample: thus x = present, xx = common, xxx = very common. Data are
presented in this way as a convenient means of presenting information but not
as a basis for estimating the economic importance of plants.
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 237

7’Vpe 1. These samples were large and homogeneous, often consisting of over 1000
grains or seeds of one species, together with small numbers of others. Six-row barley
(Hordeum hexastichum) was numerically dominant in three samples; emmer (Triticum
dicoccum) in two ; dock (Rumex cf. crispus) and vetch (Vicia sativa) were each commonest
in one sample. No husks or spikelet fragments were present. As Table 1 shows, other
plants such as einkorn (T. monococcum), bread-wheat (T. aestivum), lentil (Lens sp.), oat
(Avena sp.) and flax (Linum cf. bienne) were also represented sporadically. All these
samples were found in ovens except for the sample of dock seeds, which was in a small
jar, and one of the barley samples which was found on a floor. These samples have been
interpreted as representing crops which had been fully prepared for storage or
consumption.
Type 2. These samples were smaller and more heterogeneous than those we have just
described, but with the exception of Avena, contained the same plant species. As Table 1
shows, however, these samples also contained small numbers of seeds of plants which
were not represented in the Type 1 samples. All the Type 2 samples were found on floors,
and have been interpreted (Dennell, 1972, 1974a) as the residue of “tail-corn” left after
cleaning emmer crops of weeds and other impurities.
Type 3. One sample from inside a building consisted wholly of the siiica skeletons of
emmer spikelet fragments. I have interpreted this sample as the chaff left after dehusking
emmer crops; its presence inside a building might indicate the use of chaff as fodder, fuel
or bedding.
The crop processing activities represented by these samples have been discussed more
fully elsewhere (Dennell, 1974a) and are shown diagrammatically in Figure 2. The

I
- Cleaned - Parched - Stared - Cooked
I ’

Weeds,
Same grain

1 ArC;;;;;gICOI ] 1 Type 3 ] 1 We 2 1 1 Type 1 ]

Figure 2. Reconstruction of crop processing activities represented at Chevdar.

present purpose is to examine the relationship between these activities and the economic
importance of each plant represented in these samples.
Only four plants-emmer, six-row barley, vetch and dock-appear to have been
prepared for storage or consumption at Chevdar. As the Type 1 samples of emmer and
barley contained few weeds and no spikelet fragments, these crops must obviously have
been dehusked and cleaned before they were carbonized. If we accept the interpretation
of the Type 2 and 3 samples, there is additional evidence for these processing activities
238 R. W. DENNELL

in the form of residues which were removed from emmer crops during cleaning and
dehusking. The preparation of vetch and dock would have required a different set of
processes from cereals, but these activities have escaped detection in the archaeological
record.
The sample of Rumex consisted of hundreds of seeds within a small jar, with a capacity
of c. 250 cc; the purity and archaeological context of this sample indicates that this plant
was used as a food resource, although the size of the container might indicate that it was
not used on a large scale. It is interesting to note that the use of Polygonaceae seeds as a
food in Neolithic South-East Europe is also evident from a later context, for at Sitagroi
(Renfrew, 1973, p. 181) a cache of c. 1900 seeds of PoZygonum avidare was found.
Although the seeds of Rumex were probably ground into a flour, the leaves of this plant
could also have been used as a spinach (Sturtevant, 1972, p. 513).
There is no evidence to suggest that the three other cereals-bread-wheat, einkorn and
oats-represented at Chevdar were cultivated as separate crops, or even that they were
important components of other crops. Although bread-wheat may often be under-
represented in the archaeological record because it does not need parching to free the
kernels from the husks (Dennell, 1972, p. 151), it would still have required cleaning, for
which there is no evidence. It also seems significant that the main occurrences of einkorn
were in what has been interpreted as the tail-corn left after cleaning emmer crops and
that little einkorn was found in samples of fully processed grain. Similarly, there is no
evidence that oats were an important part of the crop economy.
Although three types of pulse were presented at Chevdar, Vi& appears to have been
the only one that was prepared in large, homogeneous amounts for storage or con-
sumption. Other potentially domestic legumes such as pea or lentil do not appear to
have been anything other than unimportant components of wheat crops. It is note-
worthy that most of the seeds of pea or lentil were found in what has been interpreted as
the residue left after cleaning emmer crops.
It seems reasonable to suggest that the fruits and drupes represented at Chevdar were
deliberately brought onto the settlement and used as plant foods. As already explained
however, it is difficult to estimate their value to a prehistoric economy solely from their
remains. Large amounts may have been obtained when in season and even conserved,
but need only sporadically be preserved in an archaeological context. As they would have
been a useful source of sugar and vitamin C, they would probably have supplemented
the carbohydrate and protein content of cereals and legumes. Of the fruits and drupes
which are represented at Chevdar, seeds of Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) and black-
berry (RubusJ~uticosus) were more commonly preserved than those of apple (M&s sp.);
this need not of course imply that apple was the least important of the three fruits.
Danewort (Sumbucus ebulus), represented by a few seeds, may also have been used.
Sturtevant (1972, p. 521) records that the plant has “a nauseous smell and drastic
properties” which are not, however, specified. Like its northern counterpart, S. nigra,
its berries can be used for wine, or its flowers as an infusion. In the case of all these fruits,
it is difficult to evaluate their actual importance as they could all have been used in ways
which would not have resulted in the preservation of their seeds.
There is no evidence that the other plants represented at Chevdar were used as food or
other resources, even though almost all have some economic potential. As most of the
seeds of these plants were found in the Type 2 samples-regarded as the residue left after
cleaning emmer crops-it seems reasonable to assume that they were unwanted com-
ponents of that crop. Linum cf. bienne is a case in point. Although it is a valuable source
of oil or fibres, there is no indication that it was used for either purpose and still less that
it was cultivated. Three of the seeds were found in the samples thought to represent
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 239

tail-corn, and one in a large sample of fully-processed emmer. Flax would thus appear
to have been only a segetal plant in emmer crops (Dennell, 1974~).
Similar conclusions apply to other species represented at Chevdar, despite their
economic potential as plant foods. Plants such as knotgrass (Polygonurn aviculare),
bindweed (P. convolvulus) and goosefoot (Chenopodium cf. album) can be husbanded for
their seeds or leaves in the same way as Rumex appears to have been. Various species of
mallow (Malva sp.) have a variety of uses. Sturtevant (1972, p. 531) notes that M.
rotundifoliu was extensively cultivated in Egypt and used as a potherb, and was used until
recently as a salad plant in southern Europe; M. sylvestri’s and M. verticillata can also be
boiled and eaten. Bedstraw (Galiumsp.) could also be utilized as a plant food. Sturtevant
(1972, p. 285) noted that seeds of G. uparine can be used as a substitute for coffee and if
dried, as an infusion; the seeds of G. verum, which are morphologically similar to those of
G. mollugo, can be used to curdle milk. We cannot assume, however, that these plants
were used at Chevdar, since they are mainly present in the samples which have been
interpreted as tail-corn, and there is no evidence that they were prepared for consumption.
It is difficult to imagine the dietary uses of mullein (Verbascum sp.), not least because
several of its species are poisonous. In Greece, for example, mulleins can be used as fish
poisons (Polunin & Huxley, 1967, p. 167); elsewhere they are avoided by grazing animals.
The most likely explanation of this plant at Chevdar, therefore, is that it was a weed of
other crops.
By considering each plant in relation to specified domestic activities concerned with
the preparation of plant foods, it would appear that the inhabitants of Chevdar relied
upon a far smaller range of plant foods than was potentially at their disposal. It would
seem from the available evidence that the bulk of the plant food was derived from two
cereals and one pulse crop and supplemented by a range of fruits and plants such as
Rumex. Although there is no evidence that the other plants represented at the site were
not used, there is conversely no indication that they were utilized to any great
extent.
Kazanluk
The botanical evidence from Kazanluk is quite unlike that from Chevdar in two respects.
First, the early neolithic settlement at Kazanluk was not destroyed by fire and thus large
in situ samples of plant remains were not recovered. Most of the plant remains from
Kazanluk were probably carbonized during the everyday life of the settlement instead of
during one violent conflagration. The second difference lies in the type of deposits which
were sampled. At Chevdar, these largely comprised Boors and ovens inside buildings,
whereas at Kazanluk the bulk of the data was derived from middens onto which the
refuse from a variety of activities had been discarded. Although this source of evidence
is useful, it nevertheless provides an account of what was thrown away as unwanted,
rather than of what was selected as useful.
The samples from Kazanluk are in many respects reminiscent of those from the Bus
Mordeh phase at Ali Kosh (Helbaek, 1969). At both settlements, the majority of the
plant remains were retrieved from midden deposits containing various types of refuse, by
using intensive flotation techniques. The kind of botanical samples which we are about
to consider will undoubtedly become commoner as these techniques gain in popularity
and as excavators come to find middens as informative a source of data as other contexts
such as buildings. It is thus all the more important to realize that the contents of plant
samples from midden deposits are most unlikely to provide a direct account of crop
importance: rather, they will indicate crop unimportance, or the amount and type of
plant material that was deliberately discarded by a community as unimportant or
unwanted.
240 R. W. DENNELL

Table 2. Plants represented at early neolithic Kazanluk in terms of sample

type and crop processing activities

Sample type
Type 3
Type 4 Type 2 refuse from
refuse from tail-corn dehusking
Species stored crops of emmer emmer Comment
T. dicoccum 4 (xx) 2 (=4 1w
1(4
Cultivated crop.

T. monococcum 3 (4 2w 5 w No definite evidence of use.

T, aestivum 3 09 2w 1 04 No definite evidence of use.
H. hexastichum 2 (xx) 2 (4 5 (xx) No definite evidence of use.
3 6)
Lens sp. 4 w 2 (4 1w No definite evidence of use.
l(x)
Vicia sp. 6 (xx) No definite evidence of use.
Linum cf. bienne
4 (4
1w ;;z; 164 No definite evidence of use.
Rumex sp. 4 00 2 (4 2 009 No definite evidence of use.
6 (4
Polygonum sp. 1 (4 4 (4 No definite evidence of use.
Galium aparine 2 (4 6 (xl No definite evidence of use.
G. mollugo 1 04 1(4 No definite evidence of use.
Verbascum sp. 1(xx) No definite evidence of use.
3 (4
Solanum sp. 1 09 2 (4 No definite evidence of use.
Potentilla sp. 3 (4 No definite evidence of use.
Brassica sp. 2 09 No definite evidence of use.
Astragulus sp. 5 (4 No definite evidence of use.
Chenopodium sp. 2w No definite evidence of use.
5 (4
Cornus mas 3 (4 1 (4 1 (xx) Edible fruit.
16)
Sambucus ebulus 1 64 3 (4 Edible fruit.
Rubus fiwticosus 2 09 2 00 1 (xx) Edible fruit.
104
Vitis sp. 1w Edible fruit.
Malus sp. 1 (4 Edible fruit.
Juglans sp. 1 (4 Edible nut.
Data presented in the same way as in Table 1.

The plants represented at early neolithic Kazanluk are shown in Table 2 in terms of
the sample types in which they occurred. These samples can be classified as follows.
Type 2. These were almost identical to the Type 2 samples from Chevdar in that they
were also found on floors, contained grain of a similar size and were of similar com-
position. Emmer was the commonest cereal, although others such as einkorn, bread-
wheat and six-row barley were also present. These samples also contained the seeds of
other plants such as lentil, vetch, flax, Cornelian cherry, blackberry, dock, bedstraw and
mullein. I have interpreted these samples elsewhere (Dennell, 1972, 1974~) as the residue
or tail-corn left after cleaning emmer crops.
.Xype 3. These were found in middens in 1971. Although spikelet fragments were
extremely common, these samples contained a low proportion of the grains of emmer,
einkorn, bread-wheat and six-row barley. Lentil and vetch were commonly represented,
and as Table 2 shows, several seeds of a wide range of fruits and other plants were also
present. The majority of plant remains in these samples have been interpreted as the
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 241

residue left after dehusking emmer crops during the initial stages of crop preparation
(Dennell, 1974~).
Type 4. These samples were also found in middens, in 1970, but differed widely from those
which we have just described. No spikelet fragments were present and the range of
plants was far smaller, and similar to that in the Type 2 samples. Emmer and six-row
barley were more commonly represented than einkorn or bread-wheat. Seeds of legumes
such as lentils and vetch, and fruits such as Cornelian cherry and blackberry, and a few
other species were also found. The cereal grains tended to be larger than those in the
Type 2 and 3 samples, but similar to those in the Type 1 samples from Chevdar which
represented fully-processed crops. It has been suggested that much of the material in the
Type 4 samples were derived from fully-processed crops of emmer which had been
accidentally carbonized during, for example, food preparation (Dennell, 1972, 1974a).
A reconstruction of the crop-processing activities which are thought to be represented
at Kazanluk is shown in Figure 3. It is apparent that they provide a very incomplete

Legume crop
Borley crop -
I I
Wheat crop Dehusked Cleaned Parched Stored Cooked

I I

Figure 3. Reconstruction of crop processing activities represented at early

neolithic Kazanluk.

account of the range of such activities. With the exception of the Type 4 samples, none
of the evidence concerns the actual crops themselves but relates to the residue of crops
left after various activities such as dehusking or cleaning. Our impression of the plant
husbandry is thus a negative one, and consists of the remains of what was not eaten,
rather than of what was intended for consumption but accidentally carbonized. From
such admittedly meagre evidence, we can attempt to evaluate the economic importance
of the plants represented on the settlement.
If we accept the interpretation of the Type 2 and 3 samples, emmer appears to have
been cleaned and dehusked. It would not seem illogical to assume that it was also stored
and consumed, although our only indication for this consists of the Type 4 samples
which might represent the refuse from fully-processed crops of emmer.
We can also assume that those plants which could not have grown amongst emmer
crops would have been brought onto the settlement from elsewhere and thus were
probably used as food resources. This group of plants comprises nuts such as walnut,
and fruits or drupes such as apple, grape, Cornelian cherry and blackberry. Of these,
walnut is the only plant of any potential as a major food resource on account of its
extremely high protein and calorific content (Diem, 1956, p. 236). If walnuts had been
eaten on a large scale, one might expect their shells to be common in refuse contexts.
242 R. W. DENNELL

Only one walnut shell was found however in several samples from middens, and although
we have cast doubt upon numerical frequency as a means of evaluating a plant resource,
one might be forgiven for concluding that one nutshell does not imply a crop of major
importance. The other plants in this group have a low calorific and protein content, but
would have provided useful amounts of sugar and vitamin C to the diet, especiallv if
they had been conserved in some way.
Although a considerable range of other potential plant foods are represented at
Kazanluk, there is no definite evidence that any were actually used. Although einkorn
and bread-wheat are indicated in each sample type, emmer appears to be the only wheat
which was dehusked and cleaned and so these other wheats were probably minor com-
ponents of emmer crops. Whilst the dehusking of a free-threshing wheat such as bread-
wheat might leave little trace archaeologically, there was no evidence that crops of
bread-wheat had been subjected to other processing activities such as cleaning. It may
be significant that at Chevdar, which is less than 100 km away, and where more evidence
was obtained of crops at advanced states of preparation, neither einkorn nor bread-
wheat appears to have been important.
Although barley grains and legume seeds were common in all the samples from
Kazanluk, we have no evidence that barley was dehusked, cleaned or stored, or that
legumes such as pea, vetch or lentil were processed prior to storage. There is therefore no
direct evidence that these plants were in fact cultivated as separate crops. The same
conclusion applies to other potential domesticates such as flax, three seeds of which were
found in Type 3 samples, and one in a Type 2 sample. Despite the potential use of flax for
its oil or fibres, flax was represented only in the residues removed from emmer crops, and
would thus seem to have grown as a segetal plant amongst cereals.
All the other plants represented at Kazanluk have some dietary potential. Most of
these have already been encountered in the samples from Chevdar and so their uses as
plant foods need not be discussed any further. Among those plants represented at
Kazanluk but not at Chevdar, orache (Atriplex sp.) can be used as a spinach in the same
way as Rumex, Polygonum or Chenopodium species (Sturtevant, 1972, p. 76). Various
species of Potentillu (cinquefoil), represented here by a few seeds, are also edible, for
their roots were often eaten in the recent past in the northern parts of both Europe and
Asia (Sturtevant, 1972, p. 452). Species of Brassica have contributed several important
plant foods, such as turnips, swedes or mustard. Small-seeded legumes such as Astragulus
(milk-vetch) are also rich in protein and useful as animal feed. It is perhaps significant,
however, that almost all the seeds of these plants were found in the Type 2 but especially
the Type 3 samples which were interpreted as the unwanted residues of emmer crops.
With some justification, therefore, we can regard these plants as weeds of cereal
crops.
When we consider the plant species represented at Kazanluk in terms of the sample
types in which they occurred, we are forced to conclude that emmer and a few fruits
were the only plants which were deliberately brought onto the settlement and used as
food resources. We are of course justified in suggesting that the lack of definite evidence
for the cultivation and preparation of other plant foods at Kazanluk reflects more the
quality of the excavated evidence than their actual economic importance. Since barley
was found in large, homogeneous samples at Chevdar, and as similar samples of vetch
were recovered from Chevdar as well as Karanovo and Azmak (Renfrew, 1973), these
crops may also have been cultivated at Kazanluk. However, the samples at our disposal
do not allow us to reach that conclusion, any more than they permit us to conclude that
other plants such as lentil, flax or milk-vetch were cultivated simply because they could
have been eaten and are present in an archaeological context.
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 243

Discussion
We have so far attempted to estimate the economic importance of plants represented on
a prehistoric settlement by considering the crop processing and other activities indicated
by the type of sample in which each species occurs. At no point were the numbers of
seeds or grains by which a species was represented assumed to imply crop importance,
nor was the number of samples in which a plant was dominant assumed to be significant.
We can now discuss some points arising from this approach.
The proposed method of study has two main advantages. First, it allows a more
accurate distinction between actual and potential plant foods than has previously been
possible. This is because the principle underlying this approach is that of distinguishing
those plants that were prepared for storage or consumption from those that were not,
rather than assuming that if a potentially edible plant is present on a site, it was neces-
sarily utilized. The second underlying advantage is that it necessitates a more explicit
discussion of the limitations and biases of the botanical data from any archaeological site.
The first of these advantages is evident in the studies of the data from both Chevdar
and Kazanluk, where there were a large number of potential plant foods, of which only
a few appear to have been used. In the case of Chevdar for example, there was no
evidence that potential and current domesticates such as einkorn, bread-wheat, lentil or
flax were intentionally grown and used as plant foods. Whilst on this point, it is interest-
ing to compare the economic status ascribed to lentil at Chevdar and Kazanluk with its
assumed importance at the roughly contemporaneous settlement of Nea Nikomedia in
Greece. Lentil seeds were common at all three sites; at Nea Nikomedia, where the
archaeological context of each sample type was not considered, van Zeist & Bottema
(1971, p. 537) concluded that “Lentils were found in large numbers suggesting that this
pulse played a large part in the diet”. At Chevdar and Kazanluk on the other hand,
lentils were also common but were found almost entirely in what was interpreted as
the residues left after cleaning and dehusking emmer crops of weeds and other impurities
and so there were no grounds for supposing that they were cultivated. Similarly, the seeds
of ffax at both Chevdar and Kazanluk were found in samples believed to represent tail-
corn and refuse (Dennell, 1974~) and despite the potential value of this plant, there was
no evidence that it was used. In this context, it would be interesting to establish whether
the presence of legumes and flax on early neolithic sites elsewhere indicates their actual
cultivation, as recently claimed (e.g. Zohary & Hopf, 1973; van Zeist & Bakker-Heeres,
1975), or simply that they were segetal plants of other crops.
The problem of distinguishing between actual and potential prehistoric plant resources
may well be greater than is often supposed. There has been a tendency to regard the
present range of plant domesticates as more or less representative of those which were
used in prehistory; occasionally, plants such as those represented in the stomach of
Tollund man (Helbaek, 1950), may also have to be considered, although they are wild
today. Yet the range of potentially useful plant resources which might be encountered in
archaeological contexts could be far greater than is often supposed. De Candolle’s (1884)
treatise on the origin of cultivated plants dealt with a total of 444 edible plant species,
itself a large number but insignificant compared with the 2897 species covered by
Sturtevant’s (1972) massive compendium of edible plants. As retrieval techniques
improve, so a greater number of plant species will probably be encountered which could
have had some dietary potential. It is thus all the more important that we can differ-
entiate between those plants which were used and those which might have been but were
not exploited.
The second advantage of shifting attention from the numerical frequency with which
a plant is represented to the type of activity indicated by each sample is that the botanist
244 R. W. DENNELL

must state more fully than before the limitations of his data and the degree of confidence
behind any conclusions on crop importance. Clearly, the archaeo-botanical evidence
from some settlements will permit more accurate and detailed conclusions to be reached
on this topic than that from other sites. It seems essential to know what aspects of the
plant husbandry were sampled during excavation and how the types of activities per-
formed on various parts of a settlement might have affected the preservation or des-
truction of plant material. This point is well borne out by the contrast between the type
of evidence recovered from Chevdar and Kazanluk. As the former site had been burnt
down, and since the excavations sampled domestic areas such as floors and ovens,
abundant evidence was found of crops at advanced states of preparation. One could thus
be fairly confident that emmer, six-row barley and vetch and Rumex were used as foods,
whereas flax, einkorn and lentil were not. At Kazanluk on the other hand, the settlement
was not suddenly destroyed and the samples mainly derived from refuse contexts. Whilst
this evidence provided much information of the initial preparatory processes and of the
type of plants associated with emmer crops, it did not allow us to conclude that any
plant other than emmer was used as a plant resource. Whilst this statement does not
preclude the possibility that other plants were used as food resources, the type of data at
our disposal does not permit any greater resolution of detail.
It is interesting to note how the results obtained in this study would have differed from
those obtained by other methods for evaluating the importance of prehistoric plant
foods. If the numerical frequency by which plants were represented been the sole
criterion, this method of “one seed, one vote” would have suggested that emmer was the
main crop at Chevdar simply because larger amounts of this plant was preserved. This
conclusion would not have been valid, however; the quantity of emmer in some of the
oven samples simply reflects the scale of a prehistoric accident, but not the importance
of emmer relative to other crops preserved in ovens. The emmer in the floor samples
represents only part of a crop at a different stage of preparation from that in the ovens,
and thus does not indicate that there was more emmer on the settlement than other
crops. As lentils were common, this plant would have been counted as an important
resource, which it was evidently not, while less commonly represented plants, such as
flax, would have been counted as subsidiary cultigens. Other plants would also be over-
represented by the numbers of their seeds; Rubus for example would appear to have been
the most important fruit, simply because it contains more seeds per fruit than others
such as Cornelian cherry or apple.
If the same method of numerical frequency had been applied to the data from Kazan-
luk, emmer would still have emerged as the major crop. On the other hand, almost all
the other plants represented in these samples would have been included as food resources
of varying degrees of importance. Some, such as barley, lentil or vetch would have been
regarded as major plant foods, even though there was no definite evidence for their
usage. The small numbers of seeds of other plants, such as flax, orache, milk-vetch and so
on,would have made it extremely difficult to decide which,if any, were used as plant foods.
Estimates of plant importance based upon the percentage of samples in which one
plant was dominant would also have produced very different results from those obtained
in this study and are shown in Table 3. In the case of Chevdar, emmer would have
seemed the most important crop since it was the commonest plant in eight samples.
Four of these, however, consisted of fully-processed grain in ovens, whilst the remaining
four comprised what is thought to have been the tail-corn left after cleaning emmer
crops. Rumex, Rubus and Vicia were each dominant in one sample and would thus have
been counted as of equal importance, despite the considerable nutritional differences
between each plant. It is difficult to envisage how these plants could be of equal impor-
tance, since the main value of Rumex seeds lies in their carbohydrate content, Rubus is a
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 245

source of vitamin C and Viciu, a source of protein. We should also consider the differ-
ences between the characteristics of the samples in which these seeds of plants were
commonest. Rumex was dominant ina small but puresample in a jar, and Vi& in a large,
pure sample in an oven; whereas the sample in which Rubus seeds were the commonest
consisted of a small quantity of tail-corn in which the Rubus seeds need not have repre-
sented more than one fruit.
In the case of the data from Kazanluk, it should be remembered that most of the
samples appear to represent residues which were deliberately removed from emmer
crops. If the value of each plant was reckoned by the proportion of samples in which it
was most abundant, the discarded fraction would emerge as more important than the
part which was prepared for consumption. As Table 3 shows, lentil would have comprised

Table 3. Economic importance of plants represented at Chevdar and Kazanluk

in terms of number of samples in which they were dominant

Vicia Lens Rumex Rubus Chenopodium

T. dicoccum H. hexastichum SP. SP. SP. SP. SP.
Chevdar
No. of samples in
which dominant 8 4 1 1 1
Percentage of samples in
which dominant 53.5 27.5 6.3 6.3 6.3
Kazanluk
No. of samples in
which dominant 3 2 8 1
Percentage of samples in
which dominant 21.5 14.2 57.0 I.2

over half the total plant food since it was the commonest plant in eight out of 15 samples,
even though most of these were regarded as the fraction of an emmer crop which was
removed during dehusking. On similar grounds, the large numbers of Chenopodium
seeds in one sample would warrant its inclusion as a food resource, even though these
seeds were also found in the refuse left after dehusking a cereal crop. Emmer, the only
plant for which there is definite evidence for its cultivation, would thus account for only a
fifth of the total plant foods if this method were used.

Conclusions
The increased interest shown in prehistoric economies, and the recent improvements in
the techniques for retrieving botanical data from archaeological sites, make it essential
that we find a reliable method for estimating the importance of those plants which were
used by a prehistoric community. Traditional methods can be severely criticized on two
grounds as being inadequate. The first is that there is no clear way of distinguishing
between actual and potential plant resources. Clearly, the presence of a potential plant
food-whether defined on morphological grounds as wild or domestic-in an archeo-
logical context need not imply that it was utilized. The second weakness of present tech-
niques is that insufficient attention has been paid to identifying those factors which affect
the representation of plant species and their incorporation into a sample. Neither
problem can be resolved unless more attention is focused onto the types of activities
associated with each plant.
We should, however, define the limitations of any technique for evaluating crop
importance from archaeo-botanical data. I have suggested that by identifying and
considering the activities associated with the preparation and consumption of plant
246 R. W. DENNELL

resources, we can use samples of carbonized plant remains to indicate the relative
importance of plant foods. The resulting information will inevitably be limited in two
respects. First, it will be biased heavily in favour of seed or grain crops, since these
require a larger range of processes likely to leave residues which could be detected in the
archaeological record. Secondly, there are as yet no methods for estimating how each
crop was actually cultivated. We can consider as a speculative illustration three settle-
ments at which wheat, barley and legumes were cultivated as separate crops. At the first
site, the crops were grown within a three-course rotational system; in the second com-
munity, wheat and barley were grown in alternation with each other, and legumes were
grown elsewhere continuously as a minor crop; whilst the third community grew each
crop continuously on the same land without recourse to any rotational system. Clearly,
each community practised a different crop economy from the others, even though all
were based on the same crops. The differences would not, however, be immediately
apparent in the archaeological record, as the same crops would in each case be identified
as major plant resources. It is to be hoped that archaeo-botanical data may eventually
enable us to investigate the crop system as well as the crops of a prehistoric community.
To achieve this, it is first essential that we estimate as accurately as possible the economic
importance of the plant resources represented on a site; we may then develop more
complex procedures necessary for the more rewarding study of prehistoric crop systems
(Dennell, in press).

Acknowledgement
I am grateful for the criticism of M. E. Bryant during the preparation of this article.

References
Bailey, G. N. (1975). The role of molluscs in coastal economies:the resultsof midden
analysis in Australia. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience2,45-62.
Braidwood, R. J. & Howe, B. (1960). Prehistoric investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies
in Ancient Orienta/ Civilisation, p. 31.
Callen, E. 0. (1965).Food habits of somePre-ColumbianIndians. EconomicBotany 19, ’
335-343.
Candolle,A. de (1884).The Originsof Cultivated Plants. London: Kegan Paul.
Dennell, R. W. (1970).Seedsfrom a medievalsewerin Woolster Street, Plymouth.
EconomicBotany 24,151-154.
Dennell, R. W. (1972).The interpretation of plant remains:Bulgaria. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.)
Papersin EconomicPrehistory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,pp. 149-159.
Dennell, R. W. (1974a).Botanical evidencefor prehistoric crop processingactivities. Journal
of ArchaeofogicafScience1,275-284.
Dennell, R. W. (19746).The purity of prehistoric crops.Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety
40,132-135.
Dennell, R. W. (1974~).Neolithic flax in Bulgaria. Antiquity 48, 220-222.
Dennell, R. W. (in press).Botanical evidencefor prehistoric crop systems.
Diem, K. (1956).DocumentaGeigy: Scientific Tables(5th edition). Macclesfield: Geigy
(U.K.) Ltd.
French, D. H. (1971).An experimentin water-sieving.Anatoliun Studies21, 59-64.
Georgiev, G. I. (1963).Glavni rezultati ot raskopkite na Azmashkata selishtnamogila 1961.
Izvestia ArcheologicheskayaZnstitut26, 157-l 76.
Guyan, W. (1954).DasjungsteinzeitlicheMoordorf von Thayngen-Weier.In Das
Pfahlbauproblem.Morwgraphienzur ur-undFriihgeschichteder Schweizl&221-272.
Harlan, J. R. & de Wet, J. M. J. (1973).On the quality of evidencefor origin and dispersal
of cultivated plants. Current Anthropology 14, 51-62.
Heer, 0. (1878).Plants of the Lake Dwellings.In 77teLuke DweIlingsof Switzerlandand
Other Parts of Europe,by F. Keller, 336-354.London: Longmans,Green and Co.
 PLANT RESOURCES ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 247

Helbaek, H. (1950). Tollund mandens sidste maaltid. Aarbeger 311-341.

Helbaek, H. (1952~).Early crops in southernEngland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
12,194230.
Helbaek, H. (1952b).Preservedapplesand panicum in the prehistoric site at Noore
Sandegaardin Bornholm. Actu Archaeologia28, 107-l 15.
Helbaek, H. (1966).Pre-pottery Neolithic farming at Beidha. In Five seasons at the Pre-
pottery Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan, by D. Kirkbride. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 98, 61-67.
Helbaek, H. (1969).Plant collecting, dry-farming, and irrigation agriculture in prehistoric
Deh Luran. In Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran Plain, by F. Hole, K. V.
Flannery & J. A. Neeely. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
pp, 383426.
Helbaek, H. (1970).The plant husbandryof Hacilar. In Excavations at Hacthzr (I) by J.
Mellaart. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,pp. 189-244.
Hole, F., Flannery, K. V. & Neely, J. A. (1969).Prehistory and humanecology of the Deh
Luran plain. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan 1,
l-438.
Jarman, H. N., Legge,A. J. & CharlesJ. A. (1972).Retrieval of plant remainsfrom
archaeologicalsitesby froth flotation. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Papers in Economic
Prehtstory. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,pp. 39-48.
Payne, S. (1972).On the interpretation of bone samplesfrom archaeologicalsites.In (E. S.
Higgs, ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,pp.
65-82.
Polunin, 0. & Huxley, A. (1967).Flowers of the Mediterranean. London: Chatto and
Windus.
Renfrew, C. (1974). The Emergence of Civilisation. London: Methuen.
Renfrew, J. M. (1973). Palaeoethnobotany. London: Methuen.
Sturtevant, E. L. (1972).(U. P. Hedrick, Ed.) Sturtevunt’s Edible Plants of the World. New
York : Dover Publications.
Troels-Smith,J. (1960).The Muldbjerg dwelling-place:an early Neolithic archaeological
site in the AamosenBog, West Zealand, Denmark. Smithsonian Report for 19.59,pp. 577-
601.
van Zeist, W. (1972).Palaeobotanicalresultsof the 1970seasonat Cay&ii, Turkey.
Helinium 12, 3-19.
van Zeist, W. & Bottema, S. (1971).Plant husbandryin Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedia,
Greece, Acta botanica neerlandica 20, 524-538.
van Zeist, W. & Bakker-Heeres,J. A. H. (1975).Evidence for linseedcultivation before
6000 BC. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 215-219.
Zohary, D. & Hopf, M. (1973).Domesticationof pulsesin the Old World. Science, New
York 182, 887-894.