Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze

and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrifeh

(Central-Western Syria)
Leonor Peña-Chocarro 1 and Mauro Rottoli 2

.
‫ و‬$‫
* وا‬+
‫ درا‬- /J/ #$‫ ا‬#%  &'
‫
ل‬130
‫ أآ‬، ‫"م  ارا ار ت   ا   
ر‬
.‫م‬$/‫ ا‬#24 "5‫ و‬#‫ت ا‬+‫ء ا‬% ‫*دة‬8%  94 ‫ وا‬#‫
*ت ا‬+‫ا‬
- #
C F‫ و
ا‬G4‫ ا‬- ‫ن‬+‫ ا‬- ‫س‬$% 
‫ زرا* ا"
ل‬، ‫> ا"= اروس‬$ ‫@
ل ا?ول‬4‫ ا‬$ ‫ي‬B‫ ا‬#$‫& ا‬C
.ً2‫
دة أ‬I

J$‫
ن وا‬K‫وا‬
L‫
ات ا?و‬/'‫ وه
 ا‬K‫ه‬I‫@
ل
'
ل و‬4
L‫م إ‬O ‫@
ل‬4

،‫@
ل‬4‫ ا‬#24 #$ ‫
ة‬/O ‫ص‬O F%  
?‫ ا‬Q$%‫و‬
.‫م‬$5 L‫
ب إ‬4‫
 ا‬4
.K'‫م
 ا‬$5 .
SC T ‫
ب‬U "% K# ‫ أن‬F‫  أ>
ا‬VW%
.‫اء  ا\
د*ت‬2'‫ت ا‬+‫^] ا‬U #
Z #"‫ و‬S
‫ل ا@
ا‬K* #" -. ‫ ا "م‬،.#4 - ‫
ب‬4‫ ا‬S
‫
ا‬C ‫ع‬T
‫
ذة‬OZ
‫ذج‬

ABSTRACT

We present the results of the archaeobotanical study from Tell Mishrifeh (Syria). More than 130 samples coming from
different structures from Operation J have been studied producing an interesting and wide-ranging botanical assem-
blage which has allowed to reconstruct aspects of agricultural production and food preparation. Two-row barley is
the main crop followed by emmer and free-threshing wheats. Cultivated legumes are represented by lentils, vetches,
grass peas and possible broad beans. Both olives and grapes are also present.
Some of the samples represent particular crop-processing steps such as coarse and fine sieving which correspond to
the first steps towards the transformation of cereals into food. In addition, it has been possible to identify remains of
cereal based foods such as bread. Samples from the bottom part of silos have been also analyzed. The results have
contributed to understand some of the techniques used to insulate the silos and ensure the conservation of the veg-
etable products stored.

1
Laboratorio de Arqueobotánica. Dept. Prehistoria. Instituto de Historia. CSIC. Duque de Medinaceli, 6. 28014 Madrid. Spain.
2
Laboratorio di Archeobotanica. Musei Civici. 22100 Como. Italy.
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli
1. Introduction
Several decades of excavations in Syria have pro-
duced an interesting corpus of plant remains from
different periods and areas of the country. For
long, most of the research has been concentrated
on the origins of agriculture with particular
emphasis on the Epipalaeolithic and the early
Neolithic. Sites like Abu Hureyra3, Mureybit4,
Ramad and Aswad5 among others have produced
interesting data on cereal domestication and first
farming practices.
For later periods, and particularly for the Bronze
Age, archaeobotanical research seems to have
been mostly concentrated on the north and
north-eastern part of the country, along the val-
leys of two Euphrates tributaries, the Khabur
and the Balikh6.
From the archaeobotanical point of view, the
western part of the country is largely unknown.
Plant remains from the Bronze Age period from
this area are very little as only a few sites have been
investigated: Tell Afis7, al-Rawda8, Tell Nebi
Mend9, Umbashi10 and Tell Shiukh Fawqani11.
Therefore, this study, together with the one carried
out by S. Riehl12 in the Palace of Qatna, is of great
importance to understand the development of
agriculture in this part of the country.
In this report we present the results of the plant
remain study of 130 samples containing seeds
coming from different types of structures. Most of
the samples have been taken from storage facilities
but there are also samples from other structures
from Operation J, excavated in three different sea-
sons from 2002 to 2004 by D. Morandi Bonacossi
and his team. Although some of the samples con-
tained just a few plant remains, e.g. olive stones, or
a small concentrations of grape pips, there were
several characterized by a high density of remains
and diversity of species.
The main objectives of this study are:
– to determine the richness of the deposits exca-
vated as well as the variety and frequency of the
remains;
– to obtain information on the array of plants
both domesticated and wild used by the inhab-
itants of the site;
– to investigate the range of agricultural activi-
ties, e.g. crop processing, practiced during the
Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the site;
– to analyze the evolution of agriculture during
the period of occupation of the site.
114
2. Methodology
During the different seasons of excavation around
400 samples were taken for botanical analysis.
Some of them were randomly collected and float-
ed, whereas others were gathered on the spot
when seeds were visible to the naked eye. Contexts
include different layers of silos, granaries, ovens,
hearths and other structures and features related
to crop processing.
Once in the lab, and in order to make sorting eas-
ier, large samples with high concentrations of plant
remains were sieved through a column of 2 to 0.25
mm meshes. Then, identification was carried out
with the aid of the reference collection of the Lab-
oratorio di Archeobiologia of the Museum of
Como and several seed atlases currently used in
archaeobotany.
Most of the botanical material from Tell Mishrifeh,
which comprises wood fragments, seeds, weed
heads, fruits, chaff, straw, tubers and food
remains, has been preserved by charring. In addi-
tion, in some samples, particularly from the Iron
Age, there is a fairly great number of un-charred
grape-vine pips. According to Wachter-Sarkady13,
Iron Age pips may have survived for a long time in
the soil. Grape pips have been also preserved by
partial or complete mineralization. Un-charred
silicified seeds of Boraginaceae (Lithospermum) are
also common in the site. According to van Zeist
and Buithenhuis14, nutles of this family, due to the
presence of silica, may become grey or white when
burned and be preserved in the soil. The interpre-
tation of such seeds is always very complicated as
we do not really know whether they are modern or
contemporary to the material under analysis.
However, a recent study from Jordan15, involving
the dating of the carbonate contained in Lithos-
3
HILLMAN et al. 1989: 240-268; id. 2000: 327-399.
4
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1986: 171-199.
5
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.
6
MCCORRISTON 1992: 315-333; MCCORRISTON - SANFORD 2002:
485-498; VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256; VAN
ZEIST 1999: 350-372; id. 2001: 111-125.
7
WACHTER-SARKADY 1998: 451-480.
8
HERVEUX 2004: 79-91.
9
MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.
10
WILLCOX 1999: 711-716.
11
KLESLY 2005: 1051-1060.
12
See this volume.
13
WACHTER-SARKADY 1998: 451-480.
14
VAN ZEIST - BUITHENHUIS 1983: 47-89.
15
PUSTOVOYTOV - RIEHL - MITTMANN 2004: 207-212.
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
permum seeds, has proved the antiquity of many of
these seeds.
3. Results
3.1 Early Bronze Age III (EBA III)
Several storage structures (silos, pits, floors, basins
and small storage spaces), soils of occupation,
basins, a hearth and accumulations of plant
remains from this period have been sampled pro-
ducing a total of 19 samples. In general, the num-
ber of remains is limited (Table 1), apart from a
storage pit which produced a larger amount of
items.
Seven silos (6249, 6259, 6428, 6432, 6444, 6445,
6446 and 6495) have been examined showing a
very similar plant assemblage. Barley is the main
cereal whereas hulled wheats, free-threshing
wheats and legumes are testimonial (Table 2).
Chaff is completely absent and wild plants are just
represented by two indeterminate seeds.
A single sample (6483) was recovered from a small
space interpreted as a little cell for storage. The
assemblage of plant remains was extremely
reduced producing only two wheat grains and one
olive stone. This scarcity of material makes diffi-
cult to confirm the function given to this structure.
Samples from the remaining structures (basin,
hearth and floors) have yielded small amounts of
seeds. In any case, the composition of the plant
assemblages is very similar: cereal grains, a few
legumes and some olive stones.
3.2 Early Bronze Age IV (EBA IV)
A total of 61 samples from different structures
have been studied (10 silos, 8 granaries, 4 basins, 2
storage pits, different fills from floors and a
hearth) giving a total of almost 10000 seeds (Table
3).
Silos
– Silo 2184. Only one sample has been examined
from this silo which contained very few remains
(Table 4) consisting of cereal grains and legumes.
– Silo 2442. A total of nine samples have been
studied. Samples 2957-701, 704, 705, and 708
have been counted together (Table 5). Samples
contained basically cereal grains (mainly barley,
hulled wheat grains and a few free-threshing wheat
grains) and a few grape pips and legumes. Wild
plant seeds were absent apart from a single Lolium
sp. seed.
– Silos 3061 and 3063. Silo 3061 produced a very
small amount of seeds (Table 6) represented by
cereals (wheat and barley) and grape pips. Two
samples have been examined producing a limited
number of specimens represented by a mixture of
cereals (barley, free-threshing and hulled wheats)
together with some olive and grape remains (Table
6).
– Silo 3303. Eight samples from five different sub-
phases have been studied. Table 7 shows the
species present in each sub-phase. Sample 3302-
701, 704, 705 and 709 have been joined as all came
from the same sub-phase b. The same has been
done with samples 3691 and 3695. It is clear that
sub-phase c has produced the largest amount of
plant remains as well as the greatest diversity of
species. The main cereal crop is barley which
appears in all samples in large numbers, but there
are also other cereals represented such as hulled
wheats (mostly emmer wheat) represented by both
caryopses and chaff and free-threshing wheats
which correspond to the group T. aestivum/durum
which includes both hard (T. durum) and bread
wheat (T. aestivum). Cereal chaff from barley,
hulled wheats and free-threshing wheats has been
identified. Cereal culm nodes are also frequent.
Wild plants are present in high numbers showing
a great diversity of species.
– Silos 3763, 4053 and 5129. Two samples from
silo 3763 have been analyzed showing a limited
number of remains consisting of cereal grains and
some legume seeds (Table 8). Instead, silo 4053
(Table 8) which corresponds to the great round
silo and silo 5129 (Table 8) are represented by a
greater number of remains including many seeds
from wild plants and numerous cereal culm nodes.
In both cases, the main cereal is barley but there
are also remains of hulled wheats (both caryopses
and chaff), free-threshing wheats and legumes
– Silos 6245 and 5127. Contrary to the examples
discussed above, these two silos show a limited
number of plant remains. In silo 5127, barley is the
main component, followed by indeterminate cere-
al grains. Cyperus sp. is the only wild plant present
(Table 9). From silo 6245, three samples belonging
to sub-phase 39 have been studied. The composi-
tion is very uniform with just barley and wheat
grains (Table 9). Again, Cyperus sp. is the only wild
115
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli
species present. In both cases (apart from sample
6252 from silos 6245), samples contain less
remains that the samples discussed above. There
are not remains of chaff (apart from a single culm
node in silo 5127) nor of weed seeds.
– Storage pit 3084. Two samples from two differ-
ent sub-phases have been studied (Table 10). The
number of remains is limited. Cereal grains are the
main elements. Chaff is absent.
Granaries
A total of seven granaries from different sub-phas-
es of the site have been analyzed. Of these, only
four have yielded a reasonable number of remains
(3763, 3773, 3935 and 3937). The remaining ones
(3310, 2184, 3670 together with sample 5637 from
a granary within Building 10) have produced a
small number of seeds.
Granaries 3763, 3935, 3937 and 3773
Three samples from granary 3763 belonging to
sub-phases 31b, 31d and 36b have been examined
(Table 11). Samples from phase 31 show a similar
composition whereas the earliest phase 36b has
produced less items. Barley is the better represent-
ed crop followed by hulled wheats and free-
threshing wheats which are present in lower num-
bers. Chaff is also represented, particularly in the
earliest phase. The main differences between them
is the massive presence of wild plant seeds in the
sub-phase 31d whereas in 31b and 36b these are
almost absent. In addition, in sub-phase 31d there
is an important amount of culm nodes. The com-
position of granary 3935 (Table 11) and 3937
(Table 11) is very similar to that of 3763. Granary
3773 (Table 11) shows a similar composition but
the number of remains is lower.
Granaries 2184, 3310, 3670 and storage structure
from Building 10
These group of granaries (Table 12) as well as the
storage structure from Building 10 have yielded a
very limited number of plant remains.
Basins
This is a type of structure thought to have been
used for grain cleaning-processing. Two basins
have been analyzed (3927 and 5145).
Basin 3927
Three samples were studied, two of which (3899
and 3900) came from the same sub-phase and,
therefore, were amalgamated. The third sample is
116
3925 from sub-phase 31c. This basin has yielded a
fair amount of plant remains whose composition
and percentages are very similar to that found in
the silos and granaries (Table 13).
Basin 5145
Two samples from basin 5145 have been analyzed.
Both of them belonged to the same sub-phase 34b
and therefore they have been joined together. The
number of remains is relatively low and it is char-
acterized by the presence of cereal grains. The
presence of chaff and weed seeds is testimonial
(Table 13).
Samples from different floor fills
Samples from four different floors and phases (27,
30, 31 and 33) have been studied. The most inter-
esting one is sample 3764 (Table 14) which has
yielded a great amount of seeds. Its composition is
very similar to that from silos with a dominance of
barley grains, followed by hulled and free-thresh-
ing wheats. Legumes are represented by lentils.
Wild plants and chaff are very abundant.
The remaining samples (2678, 3752 and 5100)
contained less remains mostly cereal grains. Wild
plants and chaff are almost absent.
Building
Four samples from a building containing several
basins identified as areas of cereal processing have
been analyzed. Samples came from a hearth and
three of the basins. Samples did not yield many
seeds (Table 15). The assemblages contained mainly
cereal grains, a few legumes and some grape pips.
3.3 Middle Bronze Age (MBA II)
Two samples from the Middle Bronze Age II have
been examined. They come from a tannur (sample
5668) and from a basin thought to have contained
the ashes of a nearby tannur (sample 5670). The
analysis revealed the presence of a very scarce
number of items which are represented by cereal
grains (barley and free-threshing wheats). No evi-
dence of chaff has been detected, whereas wild
plants seem to be represented by a single indeter-
minate seed (Table 16).
3.4 Late Bronze Age I (LBA I)
Five samples from this period have been studied, two
from a pottery oven, one from a pit and two from a
floor. In all cases remains are scant (Table 17).
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
3.5 Iron Age II-III (IA II-III)
Most of the samples analyzed from the 43 Iron
Age II-III samples (Table 18) come from storage
pits although there are also some from hearths,
basins and floors. A total of 36 storage pits have
been sampled. Iron Age samples, as was also the
case for the EBA III, have yielded a considerable
less amount of seeds (ca. 2100) than those from the
EBA IV. As far as plant composition is concerned,
cereal taxa remain unchanged: barley (predomi-
nant) followed by hulled wheats and free-thresh-
ing wheats, but these are only present in some of
the samples. Several species of legumes are pre-
sent: lentil (predominant), grass pea and bitter
vetch and a possible broad bean. Wild plants are
very scarce, represented by a few seeds of several
families in only nine samples. Chaff is absent apart
from a single cereal culm node. The new aspect of
this period is the relative frequency of grape pips
and olive stones which appear in almost all sam-
ples. In addition, sample 2656 contains ca. 50
seeds of saffron (Carthamus cf. tinctorius).
4. Plant husbandry at Tell Mishrifeh
4.1 Crops
The crop plant record from Tell Mishirife is char-
acterized by presence of several cereals and
legumes. Cereals are represented by two-row
hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare distichum) fol-
lowed by emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) where-
as free-threshing wheats (T. aestivum/durum) and
einkorn (T. monococcum) are present in much
lower numbers.
Two row hulled barley is the predominant crop.
Although some grains have been badly affected by
charring, most of the specimens were well pre-
served, showing symmetrical and straight grains.
There are however, a limited number of twisted
grains which could be either examples of the six
row type or just deformations of the two-row type
kernels during carbonization. Chaff, on the con-
trary, was seriously damaged, so it has been impos-
sible to identify the characteristic stalks from the
lateral spikelets of the two-row barley.
This dominance seems to match the pattern
observed in other Bronze Age sites from the north
Syrian Euphrates16, as well as that from other near-
by Syrian sites such as Tell Nebi Mend17 and al-
Rawda18. As already pointed out by other
authors19, in terms of climate and soil require-
ments, barley is less demanding than wheat, and
therefore it adapts better to drought and extreme
conditions, so this may point to its predominance
in the area. Regarding uses, barley could have been
used for both human and animal consumption,
and this may perhaps account for its prevalence in
the archaeobotanical record.
Together with barley, emmer (T. dicoccum), einko-
rn (T. monococcum) and free-threshing wheats (T.
aestivum/durum) are also part of the crop assem-
blage. Emmer appears frequently in the samples
whereas free-threshing wheats and particularly
einkorn are present in lower numbers. The latter
seems to be residual. According to van Zeist and
Bakker-Heeres20 emmer would disappear from the
crop assemblages of northern sites after the Early
Bronze Age. For Tell Mishrifeh, the samples exam-
ined from this period seem to point to the same
pattern. In fact, during the Early Bronge Age IV
emmer appears in almost every sample with both
grains and chaff whereas in later periods, this
species is greatly reduced being represented by
only a few grains and not in all samples. Einkorn
seems to be present in just a few samples during
the EBA IV. As for the free-threshing wheats, dis-
tinction between the two species involved (T.
durum and T. aestivum) on the base of grains alone
is not possible. Only the presence of rachis intern-
odes can help to separate both species. Rachis of
both the hexaploid T. aestivum (bread wheat) and
of the tetraploid T. durum (hard wheat) have been
identified for the EBA IV while in later periods
chaff is absent.
Legumes must have also played a role within the
economy of the site even if, as it usually happens,
they are underrepresented in the archaeological
record. At Tell Mishrifeh, different species have
been identified: lentil (Lens culinaris), grass pea
(Lathyrus sativus), pea (Pisum sativum), bitter
vetch (Vicia ervilia) and probably broad beans (cf.
Vicia faba) and common vetch (cf. Vicia sativa).
Lentil is the commonest legume throughout all
periods whereas the other legumes appear in both
the Bronze and the Iron Age. However, the only
bitter vetch identified comes from the Iron Age. It
16
MC CORRISTON 1992: 315-333; MCCORRISTON - SANFORD 2002:
485-498; VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256; VAN
ZEIST 1999: 350-372; id. 2001: 111-125.
17
MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.
18
HERVEUX 2004: 79-91.
19
VAN ZEIST 1999: 350-372.
20
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.
117
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli
is likely that legumes were part of the vegetal diet
of the inhabitants of Tell Mishrifeh even if the evi-
dence is little. The tendency of lentil being the
more abundant legume crop is also evidenced at
other sites such as Tell Shiukh Fawqani21 but in
this site other legume species are much more
abundant than at Tell Mishrifeh.
4.2 Fruits
The plant assemblage from the site has yielded
grape pips, remains of grapes and olive stones.
From the Early Bronze Age grape pips (Vitis
vinifera) appear in almost every level of the site,
but it is during the Iron Age that higher concentra-
tions occurred. The identification of remains of Vitis
(seeds, fruits and wood charcoal) outside the natural
area of distribution of this species (e.g. at the Chal-
colithic site of Thell Shuna in Jordan, and at the Early
Bronze Age sites of Jericho and Arad) suggests the
cultivation of this species already during the second
half of the fourth millennium BC22.
Distinction between wild and cultivated species is
based on morphological traits. The use of the Stum-
mer index in charred material needs to be particular-
ly cautious as charring tends to produce shorter and
plumper pips which resemble the wild specimens23.
No statistical analysis have been applied to the
samples from Tell Mishrifeh, but some of the pips
have been carefully measured (10 pips from the
Iron Age sample 6421, two from the EBA IV from
sample 3062 and one from sample 3757. In gener-
al, the specimens from the earliest phases show
similarities with the wild types, whereas those
from the most recent period (IA II) exhibit char-
acteristics compatible with the domesticated
grape. The presence of morphological traits char-
acteristic of the wild type does not necessarily indi-
cate that cultivation was not practised. In fact, the
wide morphological variability of the wild type
proves that cultivated specimens can either main-
tain ancestral traits or secondarily acquire a mor-
phology very close to the wild type24. In addition,
the measurements carried out on several
uncharred pips from the IA II (sample 2892.701)
confirms the preservation of ancestral morpholog-
ical traits. All the pips measured showed an index
lower than 76 but always above 66 (wild index: 76-
83; cultivated index: 44-53; index between wild
and cultivated: 54-75). The pips exhibit, however,
morphological features which resemble the culti-
vated form.
118
Grapes could have been already cultivated during
the EBA. Cultivated grapes are present too in con-
temporaneous sites in the northern part of the
country25 as well as in the nearby site of Tell Nebi
Mend26. Apart from the pips, the site has also
yielded grape fruits which perhaps suggests the
consumption of dried raisins. One of the samples
(sample 6421 from phase 8H) has yielded a con-
centration of pips collected from a round basin.
This concentration could perhaps indicate some
kind of processing, but evidence is still limited.
The palynological study27 shows a limited presence
of Vitis pollen at the beginning of the sequence
during the Middle Bronze Age which became less
significant in later periods. Valsecchi indicates that
the characteristics of the basin where the samples
were taken from (a narrow basin surrounded by a
high rampart) may have determined the pollen rep-
resentation. In other words, the pollen samples ana-
lyzed may just represent the local past vegetation.
As for the olive, the remains from Tell Mishrifeh
are scarce during the Bronze Age whereas during
the Iron Age, remains of olive stones are much
more abundant. Valsecchi’s study of the pollen
remains shows the presence of Olea pollen in low
percentages along the sequence, which does not
confirm with accuracy its cultivation. As in the
case of the Vitis, it should be remember that the
pollen analysis may just reflect the local vegetation.
In terms of charred macro-remains, olive stones
appear across the site with high frequency suggest-
ing a strong use of this resource which could have
been locally cultivated, and perhaps not properly
registered in the pollen analysis. Further palyno-
logical research would certainly help to throw
some light into the subject of olive cultivation.
Other possibilities to explain the frequency of
olive stones is the possibility of Olea being the
product of commercial exchanges with the
Mediterranean area.
A few remains of fig (Ficus sp.) has been identified
in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. It is like-
ly that it is a cultivated form as fig cultivation is
21
KLESLY 2005: 1051-1060.
22
ZOHARY - SPIEGEL-ROY 1975: 319-327; HOPF 1978: 64-82; id.
1983: 576-621; ZOHARY - HOPF 2000.
23
SMITH - JONES 1990: 317-327.
24
JACQUAT - MARTINOLI 1999: 25-30; LEVADOUX 1956: 59-116;
PERRET 1997; CASTELLETTI - DI VORA 1995: 333-358.
25
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256; WACHTER SARKADY
1998: 451-480.
26
MOFFETT 1989: 29-32.
27
Cf. VALSECCHI, this volume.
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
well documented in Syria from the third millenni-
um BC onwards28. Other Bronze Age Syrian sites
such as al-Rawda29, Tell Nebi Mend30 and Tell
Shiukh Fawqani31 as well as some sites in the north
of the country32 have also produced fig seeds.
4.3 Other possible cultivated plants
Several achenes of saffron (Carthamus tinctorious)
have been found in a few samples from both the
Early Bronze and the Iron Ages. The water insolu-
ble dye extracted from its red flowers has been
used in the past for dyeing textiles. Only recently,
Carthamus has been used for oil extraction and so,
it is possible than in the past it was also an oil crop.
Carthamus cf. tinctorius has been also identified in
northern Syria at the site of Selenkahiye33, as well
as in other sites such as Tell Shiukh Fawqani34.
In addition, a possible single coriander fruit (cf.
Coriandrum sativum) has been also identified from
an Early Bronze Age sample. The presence of
coriander in the archaeobotanical record goes
back as far as the PPNB when some remains were
retrieved from Nahal Hemar Cave in Israel35.
4.4 Wild plants: weeds of arable fields or natural
vegetation?
For agrarian sites, such as Tell Mishrifeh, whose
economy is largely based on the exploitation of
cultivated plants, it is very difficult to asses the role
of wild plants. Based on numerous ethnographic
examples36, it is reasonable to presume that the
plant-based subsistence included a wide range of
wild plant foods. Gathering was certainly a com-
mon activity, and it probably included many
species for which evidence is not provided by the
archaeological record. Many different parts of the
plants such as seeds, fruits, leaves, tubers, roots,
rhizomes, bulbs, stems etc. were involved. These
could be edible and/or palatable at different
moments of their growth period. Two main ele-
ments make difficult the interpretation of wild
species: on the one hand, the diversity of uses that
a single species may have had, and on the other,
the limits imposed by identification. In other
words, as it has happened in Tell Mishirifeh, iden-
tification to species level has not been always pos-
sible, and this poses an important constraint to the
interpretation of the wild plant assemblage. Van
Zeist and Bakker-Heeres37 highlight the fact that
in sites situated in steppe environments, as it is the
case of our concern, it is very difficult to distin-
guish between species occurred as field weeds and
those typical of the natural steppe vegetation
The samples from Tell Mishrifeh, particularly
those from the Early Bronze Age, have yielded
high numbers of seeds from wild plants. Many
families are present such as Caryophyllaceae,
Rubiaceae, Ranunculaceae, Polygonaceae,
Chenopodiaceae etc., but those better represented
are the grasses (Poaceae) and the small seeded
legumes (Fabaceae).
Although some of the families identified include
edible or useful species, their clear association to
cereal remains points to a more probable role as
crop weeds. In most cases, weeds appear together
with cereal grains and chaff remains suggesting a
clear relationship between them. The following
genera are the main small seeded legumes at the
site: Astragalus, Coronilla, Medicago, Melitotus and
Scorpiurus species. All of them are common weeds
of cereal fields across the Levant, and what is
more, they are currently identified in Bronze Age
plant assemblages in Syria. In many cases, species
belonging to these genera are part of the steppe
vegetation, but there are also species typical of
arable fields. As for the grasses, Lolium is one of
the few identified. There is a high percentage of
grasses which has not been identified due to the
lack of reference material, but which probably
include many of the species usually identified in
other Syrian sites. Members of the segetal present-
day communities are Adonis dentata, Fumaria
parviflora, Malva aegyptia38, genera which are all
present at Tell Mishrifeh. Compositae such as Cen-
taurea or Hippocrepis as well as Rubiaceae such as
Galium are also definitely arable weeds. The latter
shows a great variability in sizes which probably
reflects the presence of several species.
Some of the samples containing abundant remains
of cereals and weed seeds have also produced seeds
of the genera Rumex and Cyperus which commonly
grow in damp areas. The palynological study39 sug-
28
ZOHARY - SPIEGEL-ROY 1975: 319-327.
29
HERVEUX 2004: 79-91.
30
MOFFETT1989: 29-32.
31
KLESLY 2005.
32
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985.
33
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.
34
KLESLY 2005: 1051-1060.
35
KISLEV 1988: 76-81.
36
ERTUG-YARAS 1997.
37
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.
38
VAN ZEIST - BAKKER-HEERES 1985: 165-256.
39
Cf. VALSECCHI, this volume.
119
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli
gests that there was a trend towards lower water
levels and a possible extinction of the existing
pond lake 1550 cal. BC, even if afterwards there
were two episodes of lake regeneration. This
implies that, at least during the EBA IV water was
relatively available and therefore these species
could develop in the area.
Based on the charred plant assemblage, there is
not indication of irrigation.
As has been already stated by many authors40,
weed seeds provide with an invaluable information
regarding agrarian practices and crop husbandry
regimes. Weed ecology can theoretically give infor-
mation on the array of operations involved in the
growth of a particular crop and its management41.
However, caution should be taken when extrapo-
lating modern analogues to prehistoric situations.
A further limitation is imposed by the problems
encountered in identifying the remains. As
described above, only in a few cases the precise
species identification has been achieved whereas
in most cases identification has only occurred at
genus level. In some of the samples, the important
presence of culm nodes and low-growing taxa
such as Androsace maxima, Coronilla scorpioides,
Trigonella, Fumaria etc. suggests the practice of a
low harvesting. In other words, cereals were prob-
ably harvested by cutting low in the culm. Straw
was probably an important product not only for
animal fodder but also for other purposes such as
tempering, fuel, bedding etc.
4.5 Crop processing
Based on ethnographic studies of traditional farm-
ing systems42, it has been possible to establish that
more than 30 distinct operations are involved in
the growing and processing of any crop. After har-
vesting, crops are processed following a series of
steps which include threshing, several rounds of
winnowing and sieving with meshes of different
sizes to remove contaminants (straw, chaff frag-
ments, weed seeds, etc.) from the crop. Most of
these operations produce samples with a specific
and unique composition which correspond to par-
ticular activities that can be recognized in the
archaeological record. Crop processing is, there-
fore, one of the main factors that influence varia-
tion in plant assemblages from agrarian sites43.
Along the sequence, a few products and by-prod-
ucts come in contact with fire and then become
charred and eventually appear in the archaeologi-
120
cal record44. The early stages of the crop process-
ing sequence such as threshing and winnowing are
rarely represented. Instead, later stages such as
cereal cleaning (sieving) are frequently document-
ed.
In present-day traditional agriculture, sieving is
carried out at several points along the crop pro-
cessing sequence to eliminate contaminants such
as chaff and weed seeds from the grain45. Different
mesh sizes are then used according to the stage of
the sequence when sieving is applied. Coarse siev-
ing using a medium/large mesh is applied after
winnowing to remove the coarser contaminants
(e.g. weed heads, rachis segments and straw
nodes). A fine sieve mesh is used to eliminate con-
taminants smaller than prime grain, i.e. small weed
seeds, small rachis segments, awn fragments and
tail grain (grain smaller than prime grain). This
activity could be carried out prior to bulk storage
or just on piecemeal basis.
Some of the samples studied from EBA IV (sam-
ples from silos 3303, 4053 and 5129, granaries
3763, 3935 and 3937, basin 3927 and one of the
floors corresponding to sample 3764) show a sim-
ilar composition characterized by the presence of
high numbers of cereal grains (different species
dominated by barley), large numbers of weeds
seeds (in most cases smaller than prime grain or
similar in size to cereals) and cereal chaff. This
type of composition is compatible to the product
originated after coarse sieving using a large-middle
riddle which leaves grain and items smaller than
grain to pass through. Samples showing this com-
position coming from storing structures represent,
probably, the storage of a semi-cleaned barley
crop.
The presence of different wheat species within the
samples can be explained as a result of some mix-
ing occurred after processing. This is particularly
true for the hulled wheats (einkorn and emmer) as
these species require a processing different from
that of the free-threshing cereals such as barley or
the naked wheats. This different processing
40
HILLMAN 1973: 241-244; JONES 1992: 133-143; VAN DER VEEN
1992.
41
CHARLES - BOGAARD 2001: 301-326.
42
HILLMAN 1981: 123-162; id. 1984a: 1-41; id. 1984b: 114-152;
id. 1985: 1-31; JONES 1984: 43-61.
43
DENNEL 1974: 275-284.
44
HILLMAN 1981: 123-162; id. 1984a: 1-41.
45
HILLMAN 1981: 123-162; id. 1984a: 1-41; id. 1984b: 114-152;
id. 1985: 1-31; JONES 1984: 43-61; PEÑA-CHOCARRO 1999.
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
involves the dehusking of the hulled grains before
consumption. It is also possible that some mixing
occurred within the storage structures between the
crop being stored and remains of the previously
stored product. Even if evidence is scant, we can-
not rule out that some mixcropping may have also
existed. For examples different legumes could
have grown together or even barley could develop
together with naked wheat.
Regarding the dehusking of hulled wheats, it is
interesting to note that both spikelet forks and
glume bases of both einkorn and emmer have been
identified at the site. Dehusking is an operation
intended to eliminate the tough glumes that
enclose the grain of the hulled wheat species. Such
an operation can be performed in several ways, but
the commonest one is the use of mortars and pes-
tles. By pounding, the spikelets break up freeing
the grain from the glumes and produce the char-
acteristic spikelet forks frequently identified in the
archaeological record. In many cases the spikelet
forks break up as well and we then only recover
the glume bases. The presence of both spikelet
forks and glume bases indicates that some dehusk-
ing was carried out on site.
One interesting aspect of these weed rich samples
is the abundance of cereal culm nodes. Straw
nodes are generally eliminated after winnowing by
coarse sieving together with the largest items such
as weed heads, awns, weed seeds, etc. By-products
from winnowing and coarse-sieving are character-
ized by the richness of culm nodes. One could
think that the presence of straw nodes together
with prime grain and small weed seeds could be
the result of some mixing between different prod-
ucts and by-products originated along the crop
processing sequence. However, the archaeological
evidence suggests another explanation.
During the excavation, fragments of a kind of plas-
ter with clear impressions of straw were retrieved.
These remains were clearly associated to the bot-
tom layers of the silos as if at the base of the stor-
age pits there had been some kind of straw accu-
mulation. Ethnographic data from Morocco46
regarding the construction and use of silos in tra-
ditional communities, show that after digging the
pit, farmers generally insulate the walls and the
floor by placing a carpet of cereal straw, which in
the specific case of the Moroccan Rif is from
einkorn (T. monococcum). Einkorn straw is partic-
ularly indicated for this operation due to its insu-
lating properties47. The walls of the pit are also
wrapped up with a layer of einkorn straw fixed to
the sides with a series of belts made with the stems
of a reed species (Arundo donax). Thus, the abun-
dance of cereal straw nodes can be also related to
the presence of straw within the silo in order to
insulate the harvest from the floor. The charring of
the straw or part of it may have caused its occur-
rence in the archaeobotanical record.
Several samples of the sediment from the bottom
part and from the walls of the silos have been ana-
lyzed. This analysis has helped to understand some
of the techniques used to insulate the silos and
ensure the conservation of the product stored. The
study of samples 3691.701 and 5524.701 has
revealed the presence of a mixture of earth and
straw. The straw has been preserved in minuscule
white and fragile fragments partially mineralized.
The SEM analysis has been particularly difficult due
to the fragility of the remains and the difficulties to
insulate these fragments. Therefore, it has not been
possible to identify with precision the species
involved. The material analyzed resembles, however,
barley straw. This obviously would match with the
high presence of this species across the site.
A second sample from one of the above silos
(3691.701) shows the presence of a mixture of
earth and tiny fragments of thin wood branches
(diameter between 0,5 and 3-5 mm) from a non
identified species. The wood has been preserved
by desiccation and appears little mineralized.
Other samples have been studied such as sample
5545.701 which did not produce any plant mater-
ial. In other cases such as in sample 3768.701 the
sediment has preserved only the straw imprints.
The presence of such material poses the question
of the differential preservation of the botanical
material. In other words, how can we explain the
presence of mineralized and/or desiccated materi-
al together with charred plant remains? One pos-
sible explanation is that the charred remains com-
ing from another area/structure were only secon-
darily deposited in these silos. An additional rea-
son could be that the fire event that occurred
inside the silo was relatively brief and therefore,
enough to burn the remains recovered but insuffi-
cient for the straw mixed with the sediment to be
charred. The ethnographic study carried out in
46
PEÑA-CHOCARRO et al. 2000: 403-420; GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO et
al. 2005: 21-32.
47
PEÑA-CHOCARRO et al. 2000: 403-420; PEÑA-CHOCARRO - ZAP-
ATA 2003: 99-113.
121
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli
Morocco48 shows that after preparing with clay
and straw the walls and floors of the silos, a fire is
lighted inside to dry up the surface of the silo.
Such an event could perhaps help to understand
the remains of Tell Mishrifeh. However, only fur-
ther research and perhaps bigger samples will help
throw light into this interesting subject.
Apart from the silos and granaries, this type of
sample characterized by the large quantity of weed
seeds, chaff and cereal grains has been also found
in one of the EBA IV basins studied. One of the
samples from basin 3927 from sub-phase 31c have
produced a very rich assemblage. Contrary, a sam-
ple from a later sub-phase has yielded a clean bar-
ley cereal sample (mixed with some wheat grains
and legume seeds). This difference can be
explained as the evidence of crop processing activ-
ities taking place in these structures, in particular
fine-sieving to eliminate the smaller contaminants
(those items smaller than prime grain) from the
cereal crop. Sample 3925 from sub-phase c could
then represent the crop just extracted from storage
with all the contaminants mixed together with the
grain, while sample 3900 from phase 31a could be
interpreted as the product resulting from fine siev-
ing where no chaff remains nor weed seeds are
present. The presence of wheat and legumes is
likely the result of mixing episodes as described
above. These elements are only removed by hand
sorting as they are more or less the same size as the
prime grain. The second basin studied (5145)
shows a clean product.
Similar situation has been also found in some of the
samples (3764) from a floor from sub-phase 31.
Assemblages containing weed seeds in such num-
bers have not been found in samples from the
EBA III, MBA, LBA and Iron Age. First of all, the
total number of items identified is much lower,
and the remains consist basically of cereal grains
and legume seeds. In some cases, as for example
during the Iron Age, samples contained just a few
wild species. This difference is difficult to explain.
On the one hand, sample size may account for this
difference between periods, but it is also possible
that a change in storing practices may have
occurred. It is also significant that none of the
samples from silos from the EBA III and the Iron
Age contained cereal culm nodes.
5. Foods
Although today in the Near East, most the barley
is grown as fodder, particularly for sheep and
122
goats, there is a small part used for human con-
sumption. Before barley is prepared into food, it
has to be hummeled, in other words, it is necessary
to remove the basal bit of the awn. This operation
is applied to both the barley used for fodder and
the barley used as human food. Hummelling is
done with a mortar and a pestle, and then the crop
is cleaned by winnowing or sieving. Another oper-
ation related to the preparation of barley foods for
human consumption is the removal of the adher-
ent paleas and lemmas by dehusking.
Barley can be prepared in different ways: as roast-
ed grains or as porridge. In the first case, dehusk-
ing is not necessary whereas in the second barley is
first dehusked and then milled or crushed. Pliny
mentions that the Greeks used to eat barley por-
ridge mixed up with coriander (an anti-flatulant)
and in the form of bread. The documentary sources
and the ethnographic record show that barley bread
was very popular. Barley flour generally can be
mixed with other flours (from cereals or legumes)
and baked into bread. Barley could also be used in
the preparation of fermented drinks.
Several samples from Tell Mishirife have yielded
remains of what has been identified as some kind
of ‘food’. Some of these remains have been studied
with the SEM and it has been possible to identify
the presence of cereal-based food remains, frag-
ments of bread and of a kneaded food with either
flour or semolina. Some of these fragments display
a high porosity which would indicate that the
dough was leavened prior to be accidentally
charred. In some cases fragments of broken cereal
grains are visible.
Cereal grain outer layers, the pericarp and
perisperm, enclose the endosperm which is the
proteinaceous storage tissue of the grain. When
the grains are milled, the pericarp is removed pro-
ducing what is commonly known as bran. This
fraction is usually removed from the flour by siev-
ing, and depending on the amount of bran pre-
sent, the flour can be more or less fine. The exam-
ples examined from Tell Mishrifeh show the pres-
ence of a very coarse flour in which fragments of
cereal grains are noticeable. In many cases, the
pericarp of the grain is still present. However, it
has not been possible to distinguish the species
(wheat or barley) involved in the production of
these ‘foods’.
48
PEÑA-CHOCARRO et al. 2000: 403-420; PEÑA-CHOCARRO - ZAP-
ATA 2003: 99-113.
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
6. Concluding remarks
The site of Tell Mishrifeh has produced a most
interesting botanical dataset characterized by both
richness and diversity of species which has allowed
to reconstruct interesting aspects of the agricultur-
al production of the site.
In terms of crop diversity, the site has yielded a rel-
atively large array of cultivated plants even if some
of the species documented appear in very small
numbers. Two row barley is the main crop, which
could have been used for both human and animal
consumption. In addition, it is likely that its straw
was used for tempering. The fact that this species
appears as the predominant crop throughout the
periods indicates that barley was a major crop.
This is also the case of other sites in the area.
Emmer wheat seems to be also relatively impor-
tant, even if all the remains identified are always
mixed with barley. Emmer looses its importance
after the Early Bronze Age as it is shown by the
samples from later periods.
The presence of glume bases and spikelet forks
point to dehusking activities on site even if the evi-
dence is still very thin. Free-threshing wheats are
present in low numbers.
Cultivated legumes are attested but the archaeob-
otanical record does not provide with much data.
Several species are represented: lentil, vetches,
grass pea, possible broad beans, but all apart from
lentils are testimonial. Lentils are frequent
throughout all periods.
Both olives and grapes are represented in the list
of edible plants from the site but the archaeob-
otanical study has given as yet only limited infor-
mation about these two species. Olives are little
represented during the Bronze Age whilst during
the Iron Age are quite frequent. Grapes are pre-
sent from the beginning with both charred and
mineralized speciments. In both cases it is possible
to speak of local cultivation even if the palynolog-
ical record does not seem to confirm it. As sug-
gested by the palynologist49, this relatively low per-
centages could be determined by the characteris-
tics of the sampling area. Figs are also represented
by very few remains. No evidence of other fruits is
available from the site.
Several seeds of saffron have been also retrieved
which could be tentatively indicate its use and per-
haps its cultivation. Saffron has been also identi-
fied in other Syrian sites. Summarizing, the assem-
blage of plant remains identified in Tell Mishrifeh
follows the pattern found in other contemporane-
ous Syrian sites.
Some of the samples represent particular crop-
processing steps such as coarse and fine sieving.
Barley was probably stored in a semi-cleaned stage
after coarse-sieving while fine-sieving to remove
small contaminants from prime grain was proba-
bly performed on piecemeal basis. The mixing of
different products and byproducts during the crop
processing sequence is clear. Different crops
unlikely to have been grown together (emmer and
barley) appear often together in the same sample
suggesting the mixing of products.
This study has demonstrated that the variety of
crops throughout time has remained more or less
invariable even if the amounts of remains recov-
ered are much lower for later periods. Barley was
the main crop from the EBA III to the Iron Age,
and only emmer seems to have decreased during
later periods. It is interesting to note that after the
EBA IV, weed seeds and chaff fragments disap-
peared from the storage structures as did the culm
nodes. This difference may be related to the dif-
ferent function of the storage structures analyzed
or to a change in the storage practice. During the
EBA IV, the site appears to be an urban site with
large scale storage facilities50, perhaps depending
on a public institution, whereas later (Iron Age)
the silos and other structures for cereal storing
were used at smaller scale.
This study has focused in only one of the areas of
the site (Operation J) from which a great amount
of information has been obtained. However,
future work on other operations will certainly help
to complete our knowledge on the subsistence of
the site as well as to get a better understanding of
the ancient agronomy of Tell Mishrifeh.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank D. Morandi Bonacossi for the opportu-
nity of studying the material from the site as well as for pro-
viding a great deal of information. Simone Reihl has shared
with us her results from the Palace and V. Valsecchi her
palynological results. L. Peña-Chocarro has worked with a
post-doctoral contract within the I3P Program, funded by
the European Social Fund.
49
Cf. VALSECCHI, this volume.
50
MORANDI BONACOSSI et al. 2003: 65-120.
123
 Table 1.y Table gshowing
, p gthe plant remains from the Early Bronze Age III.

124
Phase 41b Phase 41 Phase 41 Phase 41 Phase 42 Phase 42 Phase 42 b Phase 44c Phase 40b Phase 42 Phase 44a Phase 44c Phase 42 Phase 44c Phase 44c Phase 39 Phase 45
EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III
6257-6258
6426 6427 6430 6431 6443 6445 6485 6494 6265 6483 6540 6562 6436 6565 6598 6238 6599
701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 703 701

silo silo silo silo silo silo silo silo storage storage EBAsin EBAsin room room
6249 6428 6259 6432 6444 6446 6499 6495 pit room 6563 6563 floor floor floor wall hearth TOTAL
Cereals
Cf. Triticum monococcum grain 1 1
Triticum dicoccum grain 1 2 3 13 2 3 8 32
Cf. Triticum dicoccum grain 1 1 2 4
Triticum aestivum/durum grain 1 1
Cf. Triticum aestivum/durum grain 1 1
Triticum sp. grain 1 1 2
Triticum/Hordeum grain 3 3
Hordeum vulgare straight grain 74 20 34 13 29 17 28 105 9 2 8 2 9 37 14 401
Hordeum vulgare undecided grain 26 7 18 7 1 1 17 42 2 5 13 4 143
Hordeum vulgare grain frags. 15 4 11 4 14 42 1 7 8 1 107
Cereal indet grain 2 1 3 2 4 1 3 2 4 8 30
Cereal indet grain frags. 13 2 2 17
Cereal indet culm nodes 1 1
Legumes
Vicia/Lathyrus sp. seed 2 3 5
Lens culinaris seed 1 1
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli

Cf. Fabaceae seed 2 2

Fruits
Oleaeuropaea seed 2 2 1 1 2 4 3 15
Oleaeuropaea seed fragments 7 3 10
Vitis vinifera pip 1 4 5
Wild plants
Gramineae seed 1 1
Indet. seed 2 1 3
TOTAL 116 45 57 38 34 22 3 67 197 3 46 13 22 12 13 60 37 785

Table 2. Table showing the plant composition of the EBA III silos.
Tab. 2 - Silos from the EBA III, carpological remains
Phase 41b Phase 41 Phase 41 Phase 41 Phase 42 Phase 42 Phase 42 b Phase 44c Phase 40b
EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III EBA III

6257-6258
6265
6426 6427 6430 6431 6443 6445 6485 6494
701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701
silo 6249 silo 6428 silo 6259 silo 6432 silo 6444 silo 6446 silo 6499 silo 6495 storage pit TOTAL
Hulled wheat grains 1 1 3 4 9
Free-threshing wheat grains 1 1
Barley grains 100 32 54 25 31 18 1 50 160 471
Cereal indet grains 8 1 3 2 2 4 20
Lentil seeds 1 1
Cf. Fabaceae 2 2
Olive stones 2 2 4
Grape pips 1 1
Wild plants 2 1 3
TOTAL 109 35 55 32 32 22 3 58 166 512
 Table 3. Plant remains from the Early Bronze Age IV.
Phase 25 Phase 26 Phase 27 Phase 28 Phase29 Phase 30 Phase 31 Phase 32 Phase 33 Phase 34 Phase 38 Phase 39
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV

Number of samples 1 3 13 12 3 3 11 1 4 4 1 3 TOTAL

Cereals
Triticum monococcum grain 1 18 15 4 2 3 3 1 47
Triticum monococcum chaff 22 1 1 24
Triticum dicoccum grain 3 8 55 64 5 8 97 4 45 28 317
Triticum dicoccum chaff 1 6 70 15 1 93
Triticum monococcum/dicoccum grain 15 37 5 3 3 1 64
Triticum monococcum/dicoccum chaff 23 2 1 26
Triticum aestivum/durum grain 1 6 39 57 7 3 113 2 44 12 5 289
Triticum aestivum/durum chaff 5 2 7
Triticum aestivum chaff 22 22
Triticum durum chaff 26 2 1 1 30
Triticum/Hordeum grain 3 31 211 29 35 30 51 10 35 435
Hordeum vulgare grain 5 57 357 527 54 147 1921 95 462 181 3 259 4068
Hordeum vulgare chaff 51 71 5 5 1 133
Cerealia grains 4 4 52 1 4 94 4 109 19 2 293
Cerealia culm nodes 1 187 342 49 88 27 694
Cerealia chaff 2 2
Legumes
Lathyrus sativus/cicera seed 1 cf 1 1 2+1cf
Lathyrus /Vicia sp. seed 1 1
Lens culinaris seed 3 10 62 4 3 211 14 40 13 360
Pisum sativum? seed 1 1 cf 1 2+1cf
Leguminosae seed frags 2 2
Vicia cf. sativa seed 1 1
Cf Vicia faba seed 1 1
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pips 3 28+2min 27 7+1min 23 143 9 17 14 1 272+3min
Vitis vinifera grapes 3 7 10
Oleaeuropaea seed 3 3 6
Oleaeuropaea seed fragments 41 1 4 1 47
Wild plants
Adonis sp seed 5 31 6 3 45
Aegilops sp. spikelet fork 1 1
Alkanna sp seed 1 1 1 3
Androsace maxima seed 3 7 1 11
Astragalus type seed 35 161 16 28 17 257
Atriplex sp. seed 1 1
Bromus type seed 1 12 1 14
Cf Bromus type seed 2 2
Carex sp. seed 1 1
Caryophillaceae seed 1 2 3 6
Carthamus sp seed 2 1 2 5
Centaurea sp. seed 2 58 2 5 2 69
Cerastium sp. seed 2 2
Chenopodiaceae seed 4 4

125
Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
 Table 3. Continued.

126
Cf. Coronilla seed 1 1
Coronopus squamatus seed 2 2
Cf. Coriandrum sativum seed 1 1
Cruciferae seed 1 1
Cyperus sp. seed 4 26+2 fr 2 6 2 1 41+2fr
Cf. Cyperus sp. seed 1 1
Fumaria seed 5 23 2 9 39
Galium sp. seed 9 89 6 43 147
Galium sp. frags. 3 4 7
Cf. Galium sp. seed 1 1 2
Graminaceae tipo Phalaris grain 4 9 1 2 16
Gramineae indet grain 4 51 7 22 84
Gramineae indet frags. 18 18
Gramineae indet (minute) seed 1 1
Heliotropium sp. seme 3 15 2 2 22
Cf. Heliotropium seme 1 1
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli

Hippocrepis sp. seme 42 71 10 11 9 143

Hippocrepis sp. frags. 19 19
Hordeum sp. grain 36 6 2 44
Hypericum sp capsule 2 1 3
Leguminosae(small seeded) seed 4 30 18 24 76
Linaria type seed 1 1
Linum sp seed 2 2 3 cf 4+3cf
Linum sp capsule frag.? 1 1
Lithospermum seed 5 35 2 1 43
Lolium sp. grain 2 8 184+8 fr 27 38 51 310+8fr.
Cf. Lolium sp. grain 12 12
Malva sp. seed 3 9 12
Medicago sp seed 11 102 11 14 3 141
Cf. Medicago sp. seed 2 2
Melitotus type seed 16 38 2 56
Peganum harmala seed 1 1
Polygonum sp. seed 1 1
Rumex sp seed 22 72 12 8 3 117
Rumex sp fruit 1 1 2
Scorpiurus muricatus seed 23 45 20 10 12 110
Cf. Scorpiurus seed 7 3 10
Silene sp seed 3 1 4
Stachys sp seed 1 1
Stipa sp. grain 2 2
Teucrium sp. seed 2 4 2 1 9
Trifolium sp. seed 6 11 1 1 19
Trigonella astroites seed 1 1
Trigonella type seed 18 1 11 30
Valerianella dentata seed 5 3 8
Verbascum sp. seed 8 8
Verbascum sp. capsule 4 4
Indeterminate seed 6 37 156 17 48 15 279
Indeterminate fruits 4 3 2 2 2 13
Indeterminate pedicels 3 30 1 34
Indeterminate rhizome 2 2 3+7 cf 1 8+7cf
"bread" frag. 1 5 1 7
TOTAL 12 120 819+2 min 1490 124+1 min 232+7 cf 4628+14fr 356 1161 516+3 cf 6 265 9756
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh

Table
Tab. 44. Plant
- Silo remains
2184, from Siloremains
carpological 2184.
Phase 26
EBA IV
2698
702
silo
2184
Hulled wheat grains 3
Free-threshing wheat grains 3
Wheat/Barley grains 11
Barley grains 6
Legumes 4

Table 5. Plant
, remains
p g from Silo 2442.
Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase 27 Phase27B
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
2812 2814 2846 2957 3070 3692
701-704
705-708 701
701 703 703 701
silo silo silo silo silo silo
2442 2442 2442 2442 2442 2442 TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 12 1 4 23 6 46

Hulled wheat chaff 1 1
Free-threshing wheat grains 8 1 5 14
Free-threshing wheat chaff 26 26
Wheat/Barley grains 8 96 2 106
Barley grains 26 3 33 111 1 23 197
Cereal indet. grains 4 4
Cereal indet. culm nodes 1 1
Legumes 2 1 2 2 7
Grape pips 1 1 1 min 9 1+1min 14
Wild plants 1 1
TOTAL 49 5 43 278 2 40 416

Table
Tab. 6. Plant
6 - Silos 3061 remains from Silosremains
& 3063, carpological 3061 & 3063.
Phase 27 Phase 27
EBA IV EBA IV
3060 3062
703 702-703
silo silo
3061 3063 TOTAL
Hulled wheat grains 4 32 36
Free-threshing wheat grains 4 19 23
Wheat/Barley grains 8 83 91
Barley grains 10 129 139
Legumes 7 7
Grape pips 5 12 17
Olive stones 18 18
Wild plants 2 2
TOTAL 31 302 333

Table 7. Plant remains from Silo 3303.

Tab. 7 - Silo 3303, carpological remains
Phase 28 Phase 28c Phase 28d Phase 28e
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3691
3302 3695 3695 3698
701-704
705-709 704 702 701
silo silo silo silo
TOTAL
3303 3303 3303 3303

Hulled wheat grains 44 50 3 5 102

Hulled wheat chaff 26 26
Free-threshing wheat grains 14 31 3 4 52
Free-threshing wheat chaff 7 7
Wheat/Barley grains 11 11
Barley grains 238 133 42 50 463
Barley chaff 50 1 51
Cereal indet. Grains 13 25 2 40
Cereal indet. culm nodes 176 11 187
Legumes 7 47 6 60 120
Grape pips 13 3 3 3 22
Olive stones 1 1
Wild plants 5 260 67 332
TOTAL 346 808 138 122 1414

127
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli

Table 8. Plant
Tab. 8 - Silos 3763,remains from Silos
4053 and sample 3763, 4053remains
5129, carpological and sample 5129. Table 9. Plant remains from Silos 5127 & 6245.
Tab. 9 - Silos 5127 & 6245, carpological remains
Phase31 Phase 32 Phase 34 Phase 34 Phase 39
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3757 6243
4052
3761 5129 5347 6244
701 701 701 6252
round silo 701 701
silo
4053 silo TOTAL silo silo
3763
5127 6245 TOTAL
Hulled wheat grains 12 7 7 26
Hulled wheat chaff 1 3 4 Free-threshing wheat grain 5 5
Free-threshing wheat grains 10 2 7 19 Wheat/Barley 14 14
Wheat/Barley grains 14 15 29
Barley grain 58 258 316
Barley grains 96 95 71 262
Cereal indet. grain 3 3
Barley chaff 5 1 6
Cereal indet. culm nodes 1 1
Cereal indet. Grains 4 10 14
Grape pips 11 11
Cereal indet. culm nodes 49 25 74
Wild plants 1 1 2
Legumes 6 14 13 33
TOTAL 88 264 352
Grape pips 2 9 2 13
Grape fruits 2 2
Wild plants 2 166 172 340
TOTAL 144 352 326 822

Table 10. Plant remains from a storage pit (sample 3084).

Phase 25
EBA IV
3084
701
storage pit

Hulled wheat grains 5

Free-threshing wheat grains 1
Wheat/Barley grains 23
Barley grains 10
Wild plants 6

Table 11. Plant remains from granaries 3763, 3935, 3937 and 3773.
Phase 31b Phase 31d Phase 36b Phase 33 Phase 33 Phase 30b
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3915 4004 5579 3934 3936 3891
701 701 701 701 701 701
granary granary granary granary granary granary
3763 3763 3763 3935 3937 3773 TOTAL

Hulled wheat grains 9 16 6 15 30 6 82

Hulled wheat chaff 34 9 8 51
Free-threshing wheat grains 11 21 4 34 10 1 81
Free-threshing wheat chaff 4 1 5
Wheat/Barley grains 17 10 30 57
Barley grains 104 100 26 313 130 89 762
Barley chaff 22 3 2 27
Cereal indet. Grains 6 35 3 39 70 153
Cereal indet. culm bases 1 103 35 52 36 227
Cereal indet chaff 2 2
Laegumes 4 27 3 28 14 2 78
Grape pips 26 4 9 7 21 67
Grapes 4 4
Olive stones 2 7 9
Wild plants 4 255 17 244 62 582
TOTAL 184 621 94 765 370 153 2187

128
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh

Table 12. Plant remains from granaries 2184, 3310, 3670 and storage room.
Tab. 12 - Granaries 2184, 3310, 3670, storage room, carpological remains
Phase 26 Phase 28 Phase 28c Phase 29a Phase 38b
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3618 3316 3310 3689 5637
703 701 701 701 701
granary granary granary granary storage
2184 3310 3310 3670 room TOTAL
Hulled wheat grains 4 6 1 11
Fre-threshing wheat grains 3 2 1 6
Wheat/Barley grains 6 17 23
Barley grains 46 3 15 3 67
Cereal indet. Grains 4 6 1 2 13
Grape pips 2 1 1 4
TOTAL 57 3 37 21 6 124

Table 13. Plant remains from basins 3927 & 5145.

Phase 31 a Phase 31c J Phase 31 J Phase 34b J
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3899 5144
3900 3925 3894 5423
701 701 701 701
basin basin basin basin
3927 3927 3927 5145 TOTAL
Hulled wheat grains 19 19 2 22 62
Hulled wheat chaff 18 18
Free-threshing wheat grains 24 7 5 36
Free-threshing wheat chaff 1 1
Wheat/Barley grains 16 1 6 23
Barley grains 109 145 32 52 338
Barley chaff 16 16
Cereal indet. Grains 7 12 1 6 26
Cereal indet. culm nodes 1 68 1 70
Legumes 9 16 1 1 27
Grape pips 34 25 1 1 61
Wild plants 1 262 3 100 366
TOTAL 204 605 41 194 1044

Table 14. Plant

, remains
p from
, various
, , floors
, (samples
p g 3764, 2678, 3752, 5100).
Phase 31 Phase 27 Phase 30 Phase33
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3764 2678 3752 5100
701-703
704 701 701 701 TOTAL
floor floor floor floor
Hulled wheat grains 26 10 6 5 47
Hulled wheat chaff 41 41
Free-threshing wheat grains 40 1 2 43
Free-threshing wheat chaff 20 20
Wheat/Barley grains 3 14 58 75
Barley grains 1335 21 19 1375
Barley chaff 33 33
Cereal indet. Grains 33 4 37
Cereal indet. culm nodes 169 169
Legumes 150 1 151
Grape pips 51 2 1 54
Grapes 1 1
Olive stones 1 1
Wild plants 789 1 790
TOTAL 2692 46 74 25 2837

129
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli

Table
Tab. 1515. Plant remains
- Building phase 29,from a building
carpological from phase 29.
remains
Phase28b Phase29 Phase 29 Phase 28b
EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV EBA IV
3620 3666 3672 3622
701 702 701 702
basin basin
basin hearth
3621 3667 TOTAL
Hulled wheat grains 8 13 21
Free-threshing wheat grains 3 6 9
Wheat/Barley grains 12 33 2 47
Barley grains 45 30 7 1 83
Cereal indet. grains 6 6
Legumes 3 4 7
Grape pips 2 5 +1 min 1 1 10
Wild plants 2 2
TOTAL 73 94 10 8 185

Table
Tab. 1616. PlantBronze
- Middle remains
Age,from the Middle
carpological Bronze Age II.
remains
Phase 11 Phase 11
BM BM
5669 5670
701 701
tannur basin for ashes
5668 from tannur TOTAL
Triticum aestivum/durum grain 2 2
Hordeum vulgare straight grain 2 1 3
Hordeum vulgare undecided grain 3 2 5
Cerealia grain fragments 16 16
Indeterminate seed 1 1
TOTAL 24 3 27

Table 17. Plant remains from the Late Bronze Age I.

Phase 7 Phase 7 Phase 7 Phase 5 Phase 6
LBA I LBA I LBA I LBA I LBA I
3087 3059 2994 2849
718 702 701 702
pottery oven pottery oven
pit fill fill floor
3056 3056 TOTAL
Cereals
Triticum aestivum/durum grain 1 4 5
Hordeum vulgare straight grain 1 1 2
Hordeum vulgare undecided grain 1 1 2
Hordeum vulgare grain fragments 1 1
Triticum/Hordeum grain fragments 1 1
Fruits
Oleaeuropaea stone 5 6 1 12
Oleaeuropaea stone fragments 31 45 12 88
Oleaeuropaea seed 1 1
cfr. Ficus sp. fruit (fragments) 3 3
Indeterminate fruits 1 1
TOTAL 36 58 6 15 1 116

130
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh

Table 18. Plant remains from the Iron Age II-III.

Tab. 18 - Iron Age II, carpological remains (synthesis)
Phase 1 Phase 5 Phase 6b H Phase 8H
Iron Age II Iron Age II Iron Age II Iron Age II

Number of samples 4 37 1 1 TOTAL

Cereals
Triticum dicoccum grain 1 14 15
Cereals cf dicoccum
Triticum grain 2 1 3
dicoccum
Triticum aestivum/durum grain 1 14
5 15
5
Triticum cf dicoccum
Triticum/Hordeum grain 2
7 1
19 3
26
Triticum aestivum/durum
Hordeum vulgare grain grains
twisted 5
1 5
1
Triticum/Hordeum
Hordeum vulgare grain grains
straight 7 19
68 26
68
Hordeum vulgare twisted grains
undecided grains 3 1
34 1 381
Hordeum vulgare straight
grain grains
fragments 68
53 68
53
Triticum sp.
Hordeum vulgare undecided grains
grain 3
1 34
4 1 385
Hordeum vulgare
Cerealia grain fragments
grains 3 53
2 53
5
Cerealia grain fragments 6 19 25
Cerealia grainsnodes
culm 3
1 2 5
1
Cerealia
Legumes grain fragments 6 19 25
Cerealia culm nodes 1 1
Lathyrus/Vicia sp. seed 2 2
Legumes
Lens culinaris seed 1 13 14
Lathyrus/Vicia
Lens culinaris sp. seed
frags. 2
3 2
3
Lens culinaris
Pisum sativum? seed 1 13
3 14
3
Lens culinaris
Vicia ervilia frags.
seed 3 3
Pisum
Cf. sativum?
Vicia faba seed 3
1 3
1
Vicia ervilia
Fruits seed 3 3
Cf. Vicia
Vitis faba
vinifera pips
seed 2 1
11 1 112 1
126
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pip fragments 32 15 47
Vitis europaea
Olea vinifera stone 10 234 3 247
Vitis europaea
Olea vinifera pip fragments
stone fragments 75 32
990 15 47
1065
Oleaeuropaea stone
seed 10
2 234
41 3 247
43
Oleaeuropaea
Carthamus cfr. tinctorius stone fragments
seed 75
41 990 1065
41
Oleaeuropaea
Carthamus cfr. tinctorius seed fragments 2
11 41 43
11
Carthamus
Cf. Ficus sp.cfr. tinctorius seed 41 1 41
1
Carthamus
Wild plantscfr. tinctorius seed fragments 11 11
Cf. Ficus
Adonis spsp. seed 2 1 1
3
Wild
Cf. plants
Adonis sp. seed 1 1
Adonis sp type
Astragalus seed 2 1
2 3
2
Cf. Adonis
Fumaria sp.
sp. seed 1 1
Astragalus
Galium sp. type seed 2
4 2
4
Fumaria sp.indet
Gramineae seed
grain 4 41 1
8
Galium sp.
Leguminosae(small seeded) seed 4
3 4
3
Gramineae indet
Lithospermum sp. grain
seed 4
7 4
33 8
40
Leguminosae(small
Cf. Malva sp. seeded) seed 3
2 3
2
Lithospermum
Medicago sp sp. seed 7 33
4 40
4
Cf. Malva sp.
Scorpiurus muricatus seed 2
4 2
4
Medicago sp
Indeterminate seed 4
21 4
21
Scorpiurus muricatus
Indeterminate seed
fruits 1 4
55 4
56
Indeterminate seed
spine 21
1 21
1
Indeterminate
"bread" fruits
fragments 1 55
133 56
133
Indeterminate spine TOTAL 180 1
1823 1 131 1
2135
"bread" fragments 133 133
TOTAL 180 1823 1 131 2135

131
Leonor Peña-Chocarro and Mauro Rottoli
Bibliography
CASTELLETTI L. - DI VORA A. 1995: Indagine preliminare sul-
l’archeologia della vite (Vitis vinifera L.) in base ai
caratteri diagnostici del vinacciolo. Rivista Archeologi-
ca dell’Antica Provincia e Diocesi di Como (RAC), 176,
333-358.
CHARLES, M. - BOGAARD, A. 2001: Third millennium BC
charred plant remains from Tell Brak, in: D. Oates, J.
Oates, H. McDonald (eds.): Excavations at Tell Brak.
Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC, McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research/British School of
Archaeology, Cambridge, 301-326.
DENNEL, R.J. 1974: Botanical evidence for prehistoric crop
processing activities, JAS 1, 275-284.
ERTUG-YARAS, F. 1997: An ethnoarchaeological study of sub-
sistence and plant gathering in Central Anatolia,
Unpublished PhD Thesis Washington University.
GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO, J.E. - IBÁÑEZ ESTÉVEZ, J.J. - MORENO GAR-
CÍA, M. - PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. - ZAPATA, L. 2005: An eth-
noarchaeological project in the western Rif (northern
Morocco): first results, in: Laboratorio di Archeobiolo-
gia. Ricerche e Studi 1998-2000 = Archeologia dell’Italia
settentrionale 9: 21-32.
HERVEUX, L. 2004: Étude archéobotanique préliminaire de
tell al-Rawda, site de la fin du Bronze ancien en Syrie
intérieure, Akkadica 125: 79-91.
HILLMAN, G.C. 1973: Crop husbandry and food produc-
tion: modern basis for the interpretation of plant
remains, AnSt 23, 241-244.
HILLMAN, G.C. 1981: Reconstructing crop husbandry prac-
tices from charred remains of crops, in: R. Mercer
(ed.), Farming Practice in Prehistoric Britain, Edin-
burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 123-162.
HILLMAN, G.C. 1984a: Interpretation of archaeological
plant remains: the application of ethnographic models
from Turkey, in: W. van Zeist, K. Casparie (eds.), Plants
and ancient man: studies in palaeoethnobotany, Rotter-
dam: A.A. Balkema, 1-41.
HILLMAN, G.C. 1984b: Traditional husbandry and process-
ing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations,
products and equipment which might feature in
Sumerian texts. Part I: the glume wheats, BSA 1, 114-
152.
HILLMAN, G.C. 1985: Traditional husbandry and processing
of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, prod-
ucts and equipment which might feature in Sumerian
texts. Part 2: the free-threshing wheats, BSA 2, 1-31.
HILLMAN, G.H.C. 2000: Abu Hureyra 1: The Epipalaeolith-
ic, in: A.M.T. Moore, G.H.C. Hillman, A.J. Legge
(eds.), Village in the Euphrates. From Foraging to farm-
ing at Abu Hureyra, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
327-399.
HILLMAN, G.H.C. - COLLEDGE, S. - HARRIS, D.R. 1989: Plant
food economy during the Epipalaeolithic period at Tell
Abu Hureyra, Syria: dietary diversity, seasonality and
modes of exploitation, in: D.R. Harris, G.H.C. Hill-
man (eds.), Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant
exploitation, London: Unwin Hyman, 240-268.
HOPF, M. 1978: Plant remains, Strata V-I, in R. Amiran
(ed.), Early Arad, IES, Jerusalem, 64-82.
HOPF, M. 1983: Jericho plant remains, in: K.M. Kenyon,
132
T.A. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, British
School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London, 576-621.
JACQUAT, C. - MARTINOLI, D. 1999: Vitis vinifera L.: wild or
cultivated? Study of the grape pips found at Petra (Jor-
dan); 150 BC-AD 40, Vegetation History and Archaeob-
otany 8, 25-30.
JONES, G.E.M. 1984: Interpretation of archaeological plant
remains: Ethnographic models from Greece, in: W. van
Zeist, K. Casparie (eds.), Plants and ancient man: stud-
ies in palaeoethnobotany, Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema,
43-61.
JONES, G.E.M. 1992: Weed phytosociology and crop hus-
bandry: identifying a contrast between ancient and
modern practice, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynol-
ogy 73, 133-143.
KISLEV, M. 1988: Nahal Hemar cave: desiccated plant
remains, an interim report, ‘Atiqot 38, 76-81.
KLESLY, G. 2005: Analyse des macro-restes végétaux du site
de Tell Shiukh Fawqani, Syrie. Premiers résultants, in:
L. Bachelot, F.M. Fales (eds.), Tell Shiukh Fawqani
1994-1998, HANE/M 6, Padova, 1051-1060.
LEVADOUX, L. 1956: Les populations sauvages et cultivées
de Vitis vinifera L., Annales de l’Amélioration des
Plantes 1, 59-116.
MCCORRISTON, J. 1992: The Halaf environment and human
activities in the Khabur drainage, Syria, JFA 19, 315-
333.
MCCORRISTON, J. - SANFORD, W. 2002: Spatial and temporal
variation in Mesopotamian agricultural practices in the
Khabur Basin, Syrian Jazira, JAS 29, 485-498.
MOFFETT, L. 1989: Appendix. Early Bronze Age plant
remains from Tell Nebi Mend. A preliminary report,
Levant 21: 29-32.
MORANDI BONACOSSI, D. - LUCIANI, M. - BARRO, A. - CANCI, A.
- CREMASCHI, M. - DA ROS, M. - EIDEM, J. - FINZI CONTINI,
I. - IAMONI, M. - INTILIA, A. - TROMBINO, L. - SALA, A. -
VALSECCHI, V. 2003: Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna 1999-2002. A
preliminary report of the Italian component of the joint
Syrian-Italian-German Project, Akkadica 124, 65-120.
PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. 1999: Prehistoric agriculture in Southern
Spain during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age; the
application of ethnographic models, BAR Int. Series 818,
Oxford: Archaeopress.
PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. - ZAPATA, L. - GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO, J.E. -
IBÁÑEZ ESTÉVEZ, J.J. 2000: Agricultura, alimentación y
uso del combustible: aplicación de modelos etnográfi-
cos en arqueobotánica, Saguntum. Extra 3, 403-420.
PEÑA-CHOCARRO, L. - ZAPATA, L. 2003: Post-harvesting pro-
cessing of hulled wheats. An ethnoarchaeological
approach, in: P.C. Anderson, L.S. Cummings, T.K.
Schippers, B. Simonel (eds.), Le traitement des récoltes:
un regard sur la diversité, du Néolithique au présent.
Actes des XXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéolo-
gie et d’histoire d’Antibes (2002), Antibes: Editions
Apdca, 99-113.
PERRET, M. 1997: Charactérisation et évaluation du polymor-
phisme des génotypes sauvages et cultivés de Vitis
vinifera L. à l’aide de marqueurs RAPD et de certains
traits morphologiques, Travail de Diplôma, Université
de Neuchâtel.
 Crop Husbandry Practices During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Tell Mishrif eh
PUSTOVOYTOV, K.E. - RIEHL, S. - MITTMANN, S. 2004: Radio-
carbon age of carbonate in fruits of Lithospermum
from the early Bronze Age settlement of Hirbet ez-
ZeraqÙn (Jordan), Vegetation History and Archaeob-
otany 13/3, 207-212.
SMITH, H. - JONES, G. 1990: Experiments on the effects of
charring on cultivated grapes, JAS 17, 317-327.
VAN DER VEEN, M. 1992: Crop husbandry regimes. An
archaeobotanical Study of farming in northern England,
Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 3, Sheffield:
Sheffield University Press.
VAN ZEIST, W. 1999: Evidence for agricultural change in the
Balikh basin, northern Syria, in: C. Gosden, J. Hather
(eds.), The Prehistory of Food. Appetites for change,
New York, London: Routledge, 350-372.
VAN ZEIST, W. 2001: Third to first millennium BC plant
remains on the Khabur, North-eastern Syria, Palaeohis-
toria 41/42, 111-125.
VAN ZEIST, W. - BAKKER-HEERES, J.A.H. 1985: Archaeolotan-
ical studies in the Levant 1. Neolithic sites in the Dam-
ascus Basin: Aswad, Ghoraifé, Ramad, Palaeohistoria
24, 165-256.
VAN ZEIST, W. - BAKKER-HEERES, J.A.H. 1986: Archaeobotan-
ical studies in the Levant 3. Late Palaeolithic Mureybit,
Palaeohistoria 26, 171-199.
VAN ZEIST, W. - BUITHENHUIS, H. 1983: A palaeobotanical
study of Neolithic Erbaba, Turkey, Anatolica 10, 47-89.
WACHTER-SARKADY, C. 1998: Archaeobotanical investigations,
in: S.M. Cecchini, S. Mazzoni (eds.), Tell Afis (Siria). Scavi
sull’acropoli 1988-1992, Pisa, Edizioni ETS, 451-480.
WILLCOX, G. 1999: Charcoal analysis and Holocene vegeta-
tion history in southern Syria, Quaternary Science Reviews
INQUA symposium Ankara, The Late Quaternary in the
Eastern Mediterranean (Special issue), 711-716.
ZOHARY, D. - SPIEGEL-ROY, P. 1975: Beginnings of fruit grow-
ing in the Old World, Science 187, 319-27.
ZOHARY, D. - HOPF, M. 2000: Domestication of plants in the
Old World, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
133