Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T06:49:59.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant stores at pottery Neolithic Höyücek, southwest Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Danièle Martinoli  and
Mark Nesbitt
Danièle Martinoli
Affiliation:
University of Basel
Mark Nesbitt
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eleven samples comprising an estimated 39,000 plant remains were analysed from a burnt destruction level at the pottery Neolithic site of Höyücek, southwest Turkey (radiocarbon dated 7550–7350 uncalibrated bp, 6400–6100 calibrated BC). Large stores of emmer (Triticum dicoccum), free threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum), lentils (Lens culinaris), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) were identified and these plants were interpreted as crops. The low levels of weeds and crop processing by-products suggest most of the samples were remains of stores of human food. Two samples in which wild components (for example, Triticum boeticum, Medicago, Aegilops) dominated were interpreted as crop processing by-products, presumably stored for fodder. The presence of these stores in a structure interpreted as having a religious function shows that domestic activities also took place there. Comparison with other Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of west central Turkey demonstrates a good correspondence in the range of crops. The poor representation of barley at Höyücek doubtless reflects the small number of samples from the site.

Özet

Türkiye'nin güney batısında yer alan neolitik yerleşim Höyücek'teki (Karbon 14 ile G.Ö. 7550–7350 [uncalibrated], MÖ 6400–6100 [calibrated] tarihlenmektedir) yaklaşık 39,000 bitki kalıntısını temsilen 11 örnek incelendi. Önemli miktarda emmer buǧdayı (Triticum dicoccum), kolay harmanlanan bir tip buǧday (Triticum aestivum/durum), mercimek (Lens culinaris), acı bakla (Vicia ervilia) ve nohut bitkisi (Cicer arietinum) belirlendi ve bu bitkiler mahsul olarak yorumlandı. Bu mahsul içinde yabani otların ve yan ürünlerin düşük miktarlarda bulunması, elde edilen örneklerin pekçoǧunun insan gıdası barındıran ambarlara ait kalıntılar olduǧunu göstermektedir. İçinde yabani otların çoǧunlukta olduǧu iki örnek ise (ör. Triticum boeticum, Medicago, Aegilops) mahsulun işlenmesi sırasında ortaya çıkan ve muhtemelen hayvan yemi olarak depolanan yan ürünler olarak yorumlandı. Bu ambarların bir yapı içindeki varlıǧının dini bir fonksiyonu olduǧu şeklinde yorumlanması, bu alanlarda yaşandıǧını da göstermektedir. Bu veriler Türkiye'nin orta-batısında yer alan diǧer Neolitik ve Kalkolitik alanlar ile karşılaştırıldıǧında, genel mahsul skalasına uygun bir ilişki göstermektedir. Höyücek'te az miktarlarda arpa bulunması ise, kesinlikle bölgeden alınan örneklerin azlıǧından kaynaklanmaktadır.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 53 , December 2003 , pp. 17 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boardman, S, Jones, G E M 1990: ‘Experiments on the effects of charring on cereal plant components’ Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 1–11Google Scholar
Butler, A 1992: ‘Pulse agronomy: traditional systems and implication for early cultivation’ in Anderson, P C (ed.), Préhistoire de l'agriculture: nouvelles approches expérimentales et ethnographiques. Paris: 67–77Google Scholar
Davis, P H et al. 1965–1988: Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
de Moulins, D 1997: Agricultural Changes at Euphrates and Steppe Sites in the mid-Eighth to the Sixth Millennium BC (International Series 683). OxfordGoogle Scholar
Duru, R 1995a: ‘Höyücek kazıları – 1990’ Belleten 58: 725–50Google Scholar
Duru, R 1995b: ‘Höyücek kazıları – 1991/1992’ Belleten 59: 447–90Google Scholar
Duru, R 1999: ‘The Neolithic of the lake district’ in Özdoǧan, M, Başgelen, N (eds), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization: New Discoveries. Istanbul: 165–91Google Scholar
Fairbairn, A, Asouti, E, Near, J, Martinoli, D 2002: ‘Macro-botanical evidence for plant use at Neolithic Çatalhöyük’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 41–54Google Scholar
Helbaek, H 1964: ‘First impressions of the Çatal Hüyük plant husbandry’ Anatolian Studies 14: 121–3Google Scholar
Helbaek, H 1970: ‘The plant husbandry of Hacılar’ in Mellaart, J (ed.), Excavations at Hacılar. Volume 1. Edinburgh: 189–244Google Scholar
Hillman, G 1978: ‘On the origins of domestic rye – Secale cereale: the finds from aceramic Can Hasan III in Turkey’ Anatolian Studies 28: 157–74Google Scholar
Hillman, G 1982: ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from the charred remains of crops’ in Mercer, R (ed.), Farming Practice in Bristish Prehistory. Edinburgh: 123–62Google Scholar
Hillman, G 2001: ‘Archaeology, Percival, and the problems of identifying wheat remains’ in Caligari, P D S, Brandham, P E (eds), Wheat Taxonomy: The Legacy of John Percival. London: 27–36Google Scholar
Hillman, G C, Mason, S, de Moulins, D, Nesbitt, M 1995: ‘Identification of archaeological remains of wheat: the 1992 London workshop’ Circaea 12: 195–209Google Scholar
Jones, G 1987: ‘A statistical approach to the archaeological identification of crop processing’ Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 311–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G, Halstead, P 1995: ‘Maslins, mixtures and monocrops: on the interpretation of archaeobotanical crop samples of heterogeneous composition’ Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 103–14Google Scholar
Jones, G E M, Wardle, K, Halstead, P, Wardle, D 1986: ‘Crop storage at Assiros’ Scientific American 254: 84–91Google Scholar
Nesbitt, M 1993: ‘Ancient crop husbandry at Kaman-Kalehöyük: 1991 archaeobotanical report’ in Mikasa, T (ed.), Essays on Anatolian Archaeology. Wiesbaden: 75–97Google Scholar
Nesbitt, M 1996: ‘Chalcolithic crops from Kuruçay Höyük: an interim report’ in Duru, R (ed.), Kuruçay Höyük II. Ankara: 89–93, 134–7Google Scholar
Nesbitt, M, Samuel, D 1996: ‘From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and history of the hulled wheats’ in Padulosi, S, Hammer, K, Heller, J (eds), Hulled Wheats. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats. Rome: 41–100Google Scholar
Nesbitt, M, Martinoli, D in press: ‘The pottery Neolithic plant remains’ in Duru, R (ed.), Höyücek. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
Peltenburg, E, Colledge, S, Croft, P, Jackson, A, McCartney, C, Murray, M A 2001: ‘Neolithic dispersal from the Levantine corridor: a Mediterranean perspective’ Levant 33: 35–64Google Scholar
Renfrew, J M 1968: ‘A note on the Neolithic grain from Can Hasan’ Anatolian Studies 18: 55–6Google Scholar
van der Veen, M 1999: ‘The economic importance of chaff and straw in arid and temperate zones’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8: 211–24Google Scholar
van der Veen, M, Fieller, N 1982: ‘Sampling seeds’ Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 287–98Google Scholar
van Zeist, W 1983: ‘A palaeobotanical study of Neolithic Erbaba, Turkey’ Anatolica 10: 47–89Google Scholar
van Zeist, W, de Roller, G J 1995: ‘Plant remains from Aşıklı Höyük, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4: 179–85Google Scholar
Yakar, J 1994: Prehistoric Anatolia. The Neolithic Transformation and the Early Chalcolithic Period. Supplement No. 1 (Monograph Series 9a). Tel AvivGoogle Scholar
Zohary, D, Hopf, M 2000: Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. OxfordGoogle Scholar