The analysis of crop husbandry, crop processing strategies, storage and consumption

In chapter 2.2.1., a series of stages or subphases of the agricultural process were used in order to approach, at a theoretical level, intensive crop husbandry methods during the Neolithic. These stages were established mostly following well-known ethnographic records by G. Hillman (1981; 1984a, 1984b, 1985). In this chapter, a review of the existing methods to approach each stage is presented (Fig. 3.45). This is not aimed

145

as a thorough compilation, just as a synthesis of the regular analyses that could be taken at any site, meaning one with no extraordinary findings such as ard marks or threshing floors. Besides, it was not the aim of this work to have a very interdisciplinary approach to crop husbandry (it would not have been possible). Instead, it was preferred to have an archaeobotanically based approach with as many hints from other archaeological evidences as possible. I will not go into further detail describing each stage and the different available methods for its scientific investigation (for this, see, for instance Pearsall 1989, Wilkinson & Stevens 2008, Antolín 2010a). In the next lines I will focus on the methods that have been used in this work.

Plant

Fig. 3.45. Summary table of the list of stages or products of the agricultural process of production and scientific fields from where they can be targeted. Only those mentioned in the text are shown.

The first concern one could have in relation to crop husbandry practices during the first stages of the Neolithic is: Are we dealing with farming populations or with hunter-gatherer communities who suddenly started receiving products from farming communities? This question was answered from an interdisciplinary approach to the subsistence strategies of these sites (significance of game in the diet, number of hunting tools, etc.).

146

In later periods of the Neolithic, it was proposed that some sites might be producing enough surplus to feed other communities (see chapter 2.4.2.5.). It would be a comparable situation to that of the producer-consumer sites from the British Iron Age (Jones 1985, Van der Veen 1992, Stevens 2003, van der Veen &

Jones 2006). This issue was also targeted from an interdisciplinary perspective. The presence of cereal pollen was used to confirm a local cultivation or local threshing of the crop, the presence of sickle blades to support the hypothesis that the same group harvested the crop. The weed spectrum was used, in some occasions, to confirm the local origin of the consumed grain.

Once one can assume (if possible) that the crop production was local, questions shift towards where those fields were located. The best indicators are the weed assemblages that accompany crop processing residues.

Through the study of functional traits of the weed spectrum recovered, the possibility that the fields were located in recently burnt woods (e.g. shifting agriculture) or flood plains (Bogaard 2004b, Bogaard 2002) was evaluated. The intensity of the management of the fields was used as an indirect evidence of their proximity to the site (intensively managed fields thought to be closer to the site, in most cases) (Jones 2005).

The type of settlement is equally helpful in that sense. A nucleated settlement requires having more arable land at a larger distance, while disperse settlements can have the plots very close to the huts (Jones, op. cit.).

The permanence of soil cultivation and soil disturbance was approached through the evaluation of some weed functional attributes, namely life-form (Bogaard et al. 1998, Bogaard 2002) as well as their ecological classification (both Ellenberg et al. 1992 and de Bolòs et al. 2005 were used). The evaluation of the data was based on the criteria summarized by L. Bouby (Bouby 2010), Tab. 8, p. 122), which are, in turn, based on work carried out by A. Bogaard, M. Charles and G. Jones, amongst others.

The intensity of soil disturbance was equally approached through the evaluation of weed functional traits, such as their ability to reproduce vegetatively and the flowering period (Bogaard 2004b, Charles et al. 2002).

The qualitative evaluation of the data was based once more on the criteria summarized by L. Bouby (op.

cit.). The identification of wooden tools used for such purposes can be very informative, as well as pathological analyses of cattle bones that can demonstrate the use of animals for traction. Pathologies in cattle bones, however, do not necessarily originate from ploughing activities.

Archaeobotanical identification of the sowing method is not straightforward. On the one hand, some authors report that certain weeds (e.g. Agrostemma githago, Adonis annua, Centaurea cyanus, Lolium temulentum or Bromus sp.) mainly grow when broadcasting is practiced (Wilkinson & Stevens 2008), 190). On the other hand this weed diversity could not only depend on the sowing technique but also on the intensity of the husbandry practices. Two archaeological evidences might help on this issue in sites with waterlogged preservation (in our case, only La Draga): the sowing and the harvesting tools. Both are potential indicators of the distance between the plants to be sown or harvested. Experimental data seem to indicate that certain types of sickle hafts (like curved sickles) were more appropriate for densely-sown fields while others (e.g.

sickles with an appendix) would be more adequate for more sparsely sown plots (Pétrequin et al. 2006).

The identification of the season of cultivation or sowing time was based on a combination of functional attributes (life-form, flowering period and germination period) of the weeds that were recovered with crop processing residues or crop storages (Bogaard et al. 2001, Bogaard 2004b).

Defining the main crops at a site level was not always possible. The quality of the data depends on the sampled contexts, the crop processing stages that are represented, the number of domestic units that are

147

analysed, etc. Usually, only the best-represented taxa could be established. For this, relative frequencies among cultivated taxa were calculated (considering grain and chaff and comparing the results), the ubiquity of each taxon was considered and both data were finally compared using the index of relative abundance.

Finally, particular consideration was given to the largest concentrations of remains. We tended to assume, at least for the cereal crops, that the best-represented ones were likely to be the most economically important ones, especially if the same pattern was observed in several sites. This assumption can only be done after a thorough evaluation of the taphonomic origin of the studied assemblages.

The identification of maslin cultivation in the archaeobotanical record is not easy (van der Veen 1995, Jones & Halstead 1995) and it mainly requires the availability of a good number of representative samples, a proper taphonomic evaluation of the origin of these samples and the detailed sampling of grain storages, avoiding postdepositional mixture of originally separated storages. Other indirect approaches to the identification of monocropping have been performed by finding evidences of separate processing of different crops found in a mixed state, that is through the observation of grain fragmentation produced during processing (Antolín & Buxó 2011c).

Crop rotation is not always easy to interpret from archaeobotanical studies. Ethnographic work shows that legume contaminants in burnt grain storages should not be considered as evidences of crop rotation (Jones &

Halstead 1995), but there have been approaches to cereal crop rotation taking into consideration storages belonging to the same burning event (see e.g. Jacomet, Brombacher & Dick 1989,166-168). Some authors have highlighted the fact that the lack of ethnobotanical studies from multiple cropping systems makes it unlikely for archaeobotanists to identify them properly (Butler 1999b). Weed functional ecology proves itself to be useful to solve this problem (Bogaard et al. 1999) but it was not possible to apply it to our samples, for which this question was not possible to approach in a satisfactory way.

Some practices like weeding and irrigation have not been directly targeted in our studies. Weeding practices are hardly possible to identify from archaeobotanical data, though some inferences can be done from sowing methods and the intensity of the crop husbandry regime (see chapter 2.2.1.). Irrigation has been approached from weed functional ecology, stable isotopes and phytolith analyses (Jones et al. 1995, Charles

& Hoppé 2003, Ferrio et al. 2005, Madella et al. 2009) and all techniques prove to be of high interest.

Nevertheless, no such analyses were carried out on our materials.

The practice of manuring was not evaluated from direct evidences in this work, since the data did not allow a proper insight into this important issue. Until recently, only weed ecological analysis had been used to approach soil productivity (Bogaard et al. 1998) but isotope analysis seems to be a promising technique to obtain more precise information on the manuring of fields in the past (Bogaard 2012, Kanstrup et al. 2011, Fraser et al. 2011, Bogaard et al. 2007). In the meantime, only theoretical inferences can be made considering the type of crops, and the type of animal and crop husbandry practiced (see chapter 2).

The harvesting technique was approached from the weed assemblages accompanying cereal storages or crop processing by-products (following Jones 1990, Sigaut 1991, Maier 1996) as well as other crop processing residues (e.g. culm nodes). Available data on use-wear analyses of sickle blades, as well as from the sickle hafts from La Draga site, was also considered for the evaluation.

148

The threshing and dehusking techniques were analysed as described in chapter 3.2.10.1., considering some ethnographic data, as well as experimental data, along with some inferences from the type of crop husbandry and storage techniques practiced at the site.

The subsequent processing stages were not easy to identify. Taphonomic problems affecting the preservation of winnowing by-products (chaff and straw fragments) have already been discussed by many authors (e.g.

Boardman and Jones 1990, Van der Veen, 1992: 82-83). For this reason it was not possible to specifically deal with this practice in the present study. Coarse and fine sieving might be detected by comparison to ethnographic data concerning weed grain size (Jones 1996) and the overall composition of the sample when dealing with crop processing by-products (Jones 1990).

The slight possibilities of identifying grain washing or soaking in archaeobotanical assemblages were evaluated by S. M. Valamoti (Valamoti 2002) and they were discussed above (chapter 3.2.10.1). No thorough evaluation of this practice was carried out in this work.

Storage practices were dealt both considering in situ charred grain storages and potential storage structures.

No systematic evaluation of the latter was attempted (for this issue, see G. Prats, PhD in process, Universitat de Lleida). A similar approach was taken to grinding practices. In some sites, residue or use-wear analyses from quern stones were available and they were used to discuss the significance of these practices. In other sites, only the recovery of such tools was published. Potential residues or products of grinding or bulgur making are also dealt with at a qualitative level.

Evidences of brewing were considered when available. These consisted of phytolith and lipid residues on quern stones and potsherds. The possibility of identifying sprouted grain for malting was evaluated as described in chapter 3.2.10.1.

Potential baked products were recorded but not analysed. Recent investigations show that there is potential for the characterization of these products (Samuel 1996, Währen 1989, Valamoti et al. 2008, Valamoti 2009, Valamoti, Moniaki & Karathanou 2011, Valamoti 2011) but these techniques were not possible to apply to our material within the framework of this project.

The identification of other consumable products originated from cereals, like friké was difficult to carry out.

Some possible ways of identifying this practice were presented by other authors (Hubbard & al Azm 1990).

The processing of legumes was not analysed in this work, due to the poor number of seeds that were retrieved. This field is rarely dealt with in archaeobotanical publications but recent experimental works demonstrate the potential for identifying some of the stages of processing of legume foodstuffs on the archaeobotanical record (Valamoti, Moniaki & Karathanou 2011). The processing and consumption of poppy is also poorly known. The finding of capsule fragments and the densities of poppy seeds will be used in this work to discuss on potential areas of processing (through smashing dry capsules).