TheCharcoalandSeedsfromIronAgeKommos · and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on...

C H A P T E R 7

The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos

C. Thomas Shay and Jennifer M. Shay

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Inferring Past Plant Uses

4. Results

5. Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron Age

6. Acknowledgments

Appendix 7.1. Charcoal Remains from Iron Age Deposits at Kommos

Appendix 7.2. Measurements of Olive (Olea europaea) Pits from Iron AgeDeposits at Kommos

Appendix 7.3. Uncharred Seeds from Water-Screened Samples from Iron AgeDeposits at Kommos

Appendix 7.4. Comparison of Charcoal Totals, 1992 and 1999

Appendix 7.5. Distribution of Pails by Date at Kommos

Appendix 7.6. Charcoal from Miscellaneous Contexts at Kommos

Appendix 7.7. Charred Seed Remains in Bronze Age Levels at Kommos

To thee I have come now, since I have leftThose sanctified shrines which are roofed by theNative beam that was cut with Khalbian axe,Its joints of the cypress fittedExact with the glue from a bull’s hide(From Euripides, The Cretans, cited in Willets 1977: 202)

647

648 The Charcoal and Seeds from Iron Age Kommos

1. IntroductionThis chapter reports on the charcoal and seeds from Sub-Minoan to Early Roman levels atKommos and discusses them in terms of cultural developments and landscape changes.1 FromSM through Hellenistic times (ca. 1020–30 B.C.) the Southern Area of Kommos was a religioussanctuary marked by a series of temples (J. W. Shaw, Chaps. 1 and 8). After the Minoansabandoned Kommos, Temple A, a small rectangular shrine, was built in the late eleventhcentury B.C. This was followed by larger and more elaborate structures, Temples B (800–600B.C.) and C (ca. 375–30 B.C.), with shrines, altars, and associated buildings. During the followingER period (ca. 50 B.C.–A.D. 160/170), use of the Southern Area was only sporadic. Throughoutits role as a sanctuary, Kommos appears to have had only limited habitation, in contrast withthe earlier Minoan settlement and seaport. Given the religious nature of the sanctuary, wewould expect to find that any assemblages of plant remains found in it would differ fromthose from ordinary domestic contexts. We would expect to find, for example, selected seedsand charcoal associated with the burning of sacred offerings and the preparation and consump-tion of ritual meals. This is certainly true of the faunal remains from the sanctuary (D. S.Reese, Chap. 6) and plant remains from Classical period sanctuaries on Cyprus (Buchholtz1988).

2. MethodsField

Most samples of Iron Age plant remains were collected by hand during excavations be-tween 1976 and 1983, although a few were retrieved by water-sieving through a 1.6-mm meshscreen. Ideally, information about provenance and context of each sample should be noted.The analysis is limited by the fact that all contexts on this large and complex site may notbe fully represented, and in some cases there was limited notation of the sample’s context.In the field laboratory, the collected material was examined, excess soil removed, and thefragments carefully wrapped in tissue paper for further study. A number of reference speci-mens of wood and seeds were collected from the local flora. All were air dried and taken toWinnipeg.

Laboratory

From the reference specimens, small pieces (±1 cc3) of dried branch, trunk, and root woodwere wrapped in foil, placed in porcelain crucibles, and charred in a muffle furnace at 350°Cfor approximately one hour. The pieces were subsequently broken to expose transverse, radial,and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on microscope slides.

Inferring Past Plant Uses 649

Ancient charcoal samples from the excavation were weighed to the nearest 0.001 g usinga Mettler electronic balance. Up to fifty pieces and in a few cases, several hundred pieces, ineach charcoal sample were identified. Each piece was placed on a plasticine stub and examinedunder a Wild M5 stereomicroscope at magnifications up to one hundred times with ×20 oculars.Where identification was difficult, specimens were examined in a Cambridge Stereoscan MarkII scanning electron microscope (hereafter referred to as SEM). Selected specimens of fossiland reference woods were photographed using the SEM at ×500 and ×2000 magnifications.In most cases, pieces 3–5 mm wide were large enough for identification if they had beencharred without fusing the wood elements. A piece of wood that has been gently charredand has a clean transverse face or can be broken to expose a clean face can generally be placedin one of several groups: softwoods (conifers), which have no large elements or vessels, andhardwoods, which can be further subdivided into diffuse porous, ring porous, or semi-ringporous groups based on their vessel arrangement. Many hardwood genera have distinctivecharacteristics that can be seen in a 3–5 mm piece, but others may require a larger piece. Wehave named to genus only those fragments that showed an adequate series of characteristics.Pieces resembling a known genus but differing slightly in the size and arrangement of features,such as vessels or rays, or those in which some feature was marred, were either assigned cf.(compare) or to a type, for example, Olea type.

Identifications were aided by use of our modern reference collection of more than onehundred woods and by the use of standard works such as Metcalfe and Chalk 1950, Greguss1955, Tsoumis 1968, and Jane 1970.

Seeds were identified using our reference collections and those of the seed laboratories ofAgriculture Canada and the Canadian Grain Commission, Winnipeg. Both charcoal and seedresults are expressed in terms of the number of samples containing each type (frequency) andthe number of pieces of each type in each period (abundance).2

3. Inferring Past Plant UsesIn soils subject to alternate wetting and drying, plant remains do not preserve for any lengthof time unless they have been charred. The probability that most plant foods would becomecharred, however, is small. One exception is cereal grains, which were usually parched orroasted over a fire. The shells of nuts and the seeds of fleshy fruits might possibly becomecharred if they were deposited by chance around a fire. Olive pits would be especially likely tobecome charred because they have a high oil content and were probably used for fuel, as morerecently they were often used in traditional households (Harriet Blitzer, personal communication).Naturally deposited seeds can also become incorporated into archaeological deposits and, ifcharred by accident, their presence might erroneously be attributed to human use.

The charred residue of wood fuel would undoubtedly constitute the bulk of plant remains


in archaeological deposits. Unless there was a conflagration, wood used for building andcrafts would seldom find its way into deposits. The amount of charcoal produced by variousactivities depends on such factors as the type of wood, its moisture content, and the conditionsof burning. Hot fires such as those produced in a bread oven or household hearth wouldyield much ash but only a small amount of charcoal.

The ash and charcoal produced is usually discarded away from the place of burning butcan find its way into a different context through human trampling or soil erosion. Charcoaland seeds may also be moved within the soil by the action of roots, burrowing rodents, andother soil animals (Miksicek 1987). The charcoal so transported is easily fragmented. Weakwoods such as poplar (Populus) tend to break into small pieces more readily than strongwoods such as oak (Quercus). This differential breakage may lead to the underrepresentationof weak woods (Zalucha 1982; Deck 1989). A portion of a charred branch or a large number ofpieces of charcoal found in close association are unlikely to have been moved very far bynatural processes and are thus more reliable for interpretation than scattered pieces. Thus,details about how pieces of charcoal were distributed when found are important (Boyd 1988).

4. ResultsCharcoal Distribution

In total, charcoal was found in 769 pails (provenances) amounting to over 7,900 pieces witha total weight of 2.65 kg. Of this, the IA deposits contained 3,690 pieces in 317 pails, all fromthe Southern Area of the site. The charcoal was unevenly distributed among the periods, with160 pails in the Sub-Minoan to Archaic, 17 from the Classical, 88 from the Hellenistic, and 26from the ER period; 26 pails came from mixed IA contexts (Appendix 7.1). Two contextsdating to SM times contained one piece each of evergreen oak (Quercus coccifera/ilex) andpossibly thyme (cf. Thymus).

A total of 18 taxa were recognized in the charred wood from the IA deposits (Table 7.1).Descriptions and SEM photographs of most of these are in Shay and Shay 1995. All the taxaidentified now occur in the Kommos area either as wild or cultivated forms (Table 7.1). Thecultivars include olive (Olea), fig (Ficus), and possibly almond (Prunus dulcis) and carob (Cerato-nia siliqua). Almond is represented by both charcoal and seeds, although the seed evidencediscussed later is more convincing of its presence because the charcoal could be from otherPrunus species (Table 7.1). The carob is represented by five pieces of charcoal from a contexteast of the temples dated to the Geometric (53A/11) and one piece from Burned Building B,dated to the Roman period (10A/57). Carob was also found in Bronze Age deposits at the site.Although D. Hillcoat et al. (1980) do not include Crete in the geographical range of the wildcarob, the charcoal matched our reference material and the description in Fahn et al. 1986.

Frequency and abundance were used to quantify charcoal data (Smart and Hoffmann 1988).

Results 651

Table 7.1. Percent frequency and abundance of selected charcoal taxa from Iron Age levels at Kommos;derived from Appendix 7.1.

Probable Equivalent(s) in the Modern Flora

Within 20 km% Frequency % Abundance of Kommos Within Crete

Charcoal Taxon (n = 317) (n = 3,714) (Shay and Shay 1995) (Tutin et al. 1964–1980)

Conifer trees

Cypress (Cupressus) 40.7 50.2 C. sempervirens C. sempervirens*

Pine (Pinus) 8.2 2.0 P. halepensis P. halepensis,* P. brutia,and P. pinea

Juniper (Juniperus) 3.5 0.8 J. oxycedrus J. oxycedrus* and J.phoenicia

Hardwood trees and shrubs

Maple (Acer) 1.6 0.2 A. sempervirens A. sempervirens*

Lentisc (Pistacia) 2.2 1.5 P. lentiscus P. lentiscus* and P.terebinthus*

Heather (Erica) 1.3 0.2 E. manipulifora E. manipuliflora* and E.arborea

Ononis (Ononis) 0.3 0.2 O. natrix O. natrix*

Bean trefoil (Anagyris foetida) 0.6 0.1 A. foetida A. foetida*

Oak, evergreen (Quercus) 1.9 0.7 Q. coccifera Q. coccifera* and Q.ilex*

Oak, deciduous (Quercus) 0.3 1.3 Q. pubescens Q. pubescens,* Q.ithaburensis, Q. cerris,and Q. macrolepsis

Carob (Ceratonia) 0.6 0.2 C. siliqua C. siliqua*

Fig (Ficus) 1.9 0.2 F. carica F. carica*

Olive (Olea) 44.2 25.6 O. europaea (cultivated) O. europaea* and O.and O. europaea ssp. europaea ssp. oleaster*oleaster (wild)

Plane (Platanus) 1.6 0.5 P. orientalis P. orientalis*

Buckthorn/Phillyrea 0.9 0.2 R. oleoides R. oleoides,* R. alaternus,(Rhamnus/Phillyrea) R. prunifolius, and R.

lycoides, Phillyrealatifolia, and P. media

Almond (Prunus) 0.3 <0.1 P. dulcis (cultivated) P. dulcis,* P. webbii,*and P. webbii (wild) and P. prostrata

Tamarisk (Tamarix) 2.5 0.3 T. parviflora T. parviflora* and T.smyrnensis

Monk’s pepper tree (Vitex) 0.3 0.1 V. agnus-castus V. agnus-castus*

*One or more wood reference specimens used in identification


Frequency is the number of pails in which a species is found taken as a percentage of thetotal number of pails. One hardwood, olive, and one conifer, cypress (Cupressus), were themost frequent and together occurred in 84.9% of the samples. Olive charcoal had a frequencyof 44.2% and occurred in about as many samples as cypress, with 40.7%. Pine (Pinus) had afrequency of 8.2%, juniper (Juniperus) 3.5%, tamarisk (Tamarix) 2.5%, and lentisc (Pistacia) 2.2%.Each of the remaining taxa was found in fewer than 2% of the samples. Abundance is thenumber of pieces of charcoal of a particular taxon calculated as a percentage of all the piecesof charcoal. Cypress was first with 50.2%, olive was next with 25.6%, pine was third with2.0%, lentisc was fourth with 1.5%, and deciduous oak (Quercus spp.) was fifth with 1.3%.All other taxa had less than 1% each (Table 7.1).

We also subdivided the samples according to the date of the context in which they werefound. On the basis of changes in frequency and abundance, the charcoal sequence wasdivided into two zones, the first beginning in the SM (ca. 1020 B.C.) and the second beginningin the Classical period (ca. 500 B.C.; Table 7.2).

The first zone included relatively high percentages of cypress and olive, together makingup 82.5% of all pieces. Pine and lentisc had an abundance of 2%. The second zone wascharacterized by high values of olive, which made up 37–53% of all pieces. It spanned theperiods Classical to ER. In this zone cypress ranged from 1.3 to 13.5%. Deciduous oak hadan abundance of 32.9% in the Classical period. In addition, there were small amounts (lessthan 10%) of pine, juniper, tamarisk, fig, plane (Platanus), maple (Acer), buckthorn/phillyrea(Rhamnus/Phillyrea), carob, and Monk’s pepper tree (Vitex) scattered throughout the zone.

Seeds

A total of 26 charred seeds plus fragments were found in 40 IA samples (Table 7.3) withinand around the temple complex. They included the domesticates olive, grape (Vitis), barley(Hordeum), and either wheat or barley (Triticum/Hordeum). One complete kernel from a Geo-metric context in Building Z (36B/21) resembles a dehulled barley grain. It has a prominentventral crease that is wide and V-shaped at the apical end (Pl. 7.1). The apical end is wedge-shaped with a trace of a notch at the center. Two other fragments show the wedge-shapedapex. A wide V-shaped ventral crease is typical of barley grains but not of wheat. Olive wasthe only species to occur virtually throughout the IA. The measurable olive pits (Appendix7.2) are slightly longer and wider than those discovered in the BA deposits at Kommos. Thefragments of almond (Prunus cf. dulcis) shell probably came from domesticated trees. Almondshells have been found in Neolithic and BA sites in Greece and the Near East (Zohary andHopf 1988). The trees were probably domesticated about the same time as the olive and grape,not later than the third millennium B.C. In addition, fragments of acorns (Quercus) were found.A few uncharred seeds were recovered from two water-screened samples (Appendix 7.3), butthese are considered to be modern contaminants.

Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron Age 653

Table 7.2. Percent frequency and abundance of selected charcoal taxa recoveredfrom Iron Age levels at Kommos by major period; derived from Appendix 7.1.

Sub-Minoanto Archaic Classical Hellenistic Roman

n = 160 (2,636) n = 17 (149) n = 88 (427) n = 26 (141)Charcoal Type %F (%A) %F (%A) %F (%A) %F (%A)

Olive (Olea) 44.4 (15.3) 64.7 (53.0) 40.9 (36.8) 34.6 (41.1)

Cypress (Cupressus) 50.6 (67.2) 11.8 (1.3) 26.2 (10.8) 53.8 (13.5)

Oak, evergreen (Quercus) 3.1 (0.6) — — 3.8 (6.4)

Pine (Pinus) 11.3 (2.0) — 5.7 (3.8) 7.7 (1.4)

Ononis (Ononis) 0.6 (0.2) — — —

Lentisc (Pistacia) 4.4 (2.1) — — —

Tamarisk (Tamarix) 0.6 (<0.1) 5.9 (0.7) 2.3 (0.5) 11.5 (2.8)

Oak, deciduous (Quercus) — 5.9 (32.9) — —

Juniper (Juniperus) 3.8 (0.5) 5.9 (0.7) 1.1 (1.4) 7.7 (6.4)

Fig (Ficus) 0.6 (<0.1) — 5.7 (1.6) —

Heather (Erica) 2.5 (0.3) — — —

Buckthorn/Phillyrea(Rhamnus/Phillyrea) 1.2 (0.2) — 1.1 (0.2) —

Maple (Acer) 1.2 (<0.1) — 1.1 (0.2) 3.8 (1.4)

Plane (Platanus) 1.2 (0.5) — — 11.5 (2.8)

Carob (Ceratonia) 0.6 (0.2) — 1.1 (0.2) —

Bean trefoil (Anagyris) 1.2 (0.1) — — —

Monk’s pepper tree (Vitex) — — 1.1 (0.4) —

Charcoal zone . . . Cypress- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olive . . . . . . . . . . . . .Olive . . . .

n = number of sample provenances (pails)(x) = number of pieces%F = percent frequency(%A) = percent abundance

5. Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron AgeClimate, Landforms, and Soils

The climate, landforms, and soils of the Kommos area during the IA (ca. 1000 B.C. onward)would have been rather like those of today. The inhabitants would have been obliged to copewith low and variable rainfall, summer drought, and relatively poor soils prone to erosion.


Table 7.3. Charred seed remains in Iron Age levels at Kommos.

Sub-Minoan Mixed TotalSeed Taxa to Archaic Classical Hellenistic Roman Iron Age Iron Age

Olive (Olea europaea) 12a (5 + f)b — 6 (7) 9 (4 + f) 1 (f) 28 (16 + f)

Grape (Vitis vinifera) 1 (1) — — — — 1 (1)

Barley (Hordeum) 1 (1 + f) — — 1 (1) — 2 (2 + f)

Cereal (Triticum/Hordeum) 1 (1) — — — 1 (1) 2 (2)

Almond (Prunus) 1 (f) — — 1 (1) — 2 (1 + f)

Oak (Quercus) 1 (1) — — — — 1 (1)

Unknown 3 (3) — — 1 (1) — 4 (4)

Total 20 (12�f) — 6 (7) 12 (7 � f) 2 (1 � f) 40 (27 � f)

aNumber of samplesbNumber of specimens (complete or large fragments, f = numerous small fragments)

Lack of soil moisture and low fertility would have resulted in low biological productiv-ity. The diversity of habitats, however, would have provided a range of plant resourcesand agricultural opportunities. Geological studies (Gifford 1995) show that sea levels rosethroughout the first millennium B.C. until they reached their present position. There is evi-dence of uplift of the coast by about 2 m sometime in the first century B.C. This uplift seemsto have coincided with a major episode of sand accumulation near the coast, although mostof the present sand cover seems to have been deposited after Kommos was abandoned ca.A.D. 160/170. Inland from the coast a major episode of hillslope erosion occurred in localstream valleys sometime during the Hellenistic to Roman periods. The sand accumulationand hillslope erosion would have reduced local agricultural potential. As the sand dunesspread in the coastal areas some arable land would have been lost. Continued soil erosionon slopes would also have reduced their agricultural potential.

Vegetation and Wood Resources

The charcoal remains from Kommos and our study of modern plant communities (Shay andShay 1995) suggest a mosaic of cultivated and seminatural communities, perhaps similar tothose of today. Five habitats within 20 km of the site are indicated by the eighteen tree andshrub taxa identified (Table 7.4). Over two-thirds (70%) of these could have come from within2 km of Kommos. Olive, cypress, pine, almond, fig, and carob could have grown in cultivatedorchards, tree groves, or shrub communities. Local shrub types in the charcoal include ononis,

Discussion: Environment and Ecology during the Iron Age 655

Table 7.4. Percent frequency and abundance of charcoal taxa recovered from Kommos and the nearestoccurrence of each tree and shrub in modern habitats in the western Mesara.

Habitats and Distances from Kommos

Local, <2 km Regional, 2–20 km

Damp 5 km north 15–20 km% Frequency % Abundance Stream (Geropotamos (Northern

Charcoal Taxa (n = 317) (n = 3,714) Shrublands Margins Orchards Floodplain) Uplands)

Olive (Olea) 44.2 25.6 x — x — —

Cypress(Cupressus) 40.7 50.2 x x — — —

Oak, evergreen(Quercus) 1.9 0.7 — — — — x

Pine (Pinus) 8.2 2.0 — — — — x

Ononis (Ononis) 0.3 0.2 x — — — —

Lentisc (Pistacia) 2.2 1.5 x — — — —

Tamarisk(Tamarix) 2.5 0.3 — x — — —

Oak, deciduous(Quercus) 0.3 1.3 — — — — x

Juniper(Juniperus) 3.5 0.8 x — — — —

Fig (Ficus) 1.9 0.2 — — x — —

Bean trefoil(Anagyris foetida) 0.6 0.1 x — — — —

Buckthorn/Phillyrea(Rhamnus/Phillyrea) 0.6 0.2 x — — — —

Maple (Acer) 1.6 0.2 — — — — x

Almond (Prunus) 0.3 <0.1 x — x — —

Plane (Platanus) 1.6 0.5 — — — x —

Carob (Ceratonia) 0.6 0.2 x — x — —

Heather (Erica) 1.3 0.2 x — — — —

Monk’s peppertree (Vitex) 0.3 0.1 x — — — —


juniper, lentisc, heather (Erica), buckthorn/phillyrea, and bean trefoil (Anagyris). Evergreenoak, a type in the charcoal, could have been a component of these shrub communities. Speciesof damp stream margins are represented by tamarisk and Monk’s pepper tree.

Habitats to the north of Kommos included floodplains and the uplands below the IdeanMountains. The floodplain of the Geropotamos River in the Mesara Valley lies about 5 kmto the north, where plane trees now grow. About 10–15 km beyond, on the uplands, atelevations above 400 m, oak and maple would have been available. It is possible that thesetrees might have grown closer to Kommos during the IA. Despite the dry climate, there arescattered oak trees in the Mesara Valley, suggesting that, had it not been for extensive treecutting, the forest could have covered a larger area in the past.

Cultural Developments, Changing Land Use, and the Wood Economy

The Kommos area underwent several periods of economic expansion and decline that influ-enced the landscape. Agents of this change would have been land clearance, fire, grazing, theintroduction of crops and weeds, and the gathering of plants for food, fuel, construction, andother purposes.

After the widespread abandonment near the end of Minoan times there was some resettle-ment of the Kommos area, albeit on a much reduced level, during the Protogeometric, Geomet-ric, and Archaic periods (ca. 1000–600 B.C.). There are signs of Archaic settlement on ViglesHill, which overlooks Kommos on the south (Hope Simpson 1995: 360–63). From 1000 to 600 B.C.Kommos itself seems to have served primarily as a religious sanctuary, with the construction ofTemples A and B.

Population and settlement apparently expanded during the subsequent Classical, Hellenistic,and Roman periods, especially the latter two (ca. 500 B.C.–A.D. 160/170; Hope Simpson 1995:360–63). The large settlement of ancient Metallon, on the acropolis south of the present townof Matala, 3 km south of Kommos, was built in Hellenistic times or even as early as theClassical period. At about the same time the extent of occupation in the Matala Valley issuggested by the fact that stone terraces were built on the hillsides, apparently to provide foradditional cultivated land (Parsons and Gifford 1995: 303–5).

At Kommos, Temple B fell into disuse for several centuries except for a small altar whereritual meals were consumed and sacrifices performed. In about 375–350 B.C. a larger temple(C) was built and later enlarged together with several additional altars and buildings. Theexpansion phase of the temple complex seems to have ceased by the end of Hellenistic times,ca. 50–25 B.C., with the abandonment of the buildings and signs of burning. Sporadic use ofthe site ended about A.D. 160/170.

Population fluctuations during these periods influenced both the demand for and the supplyof wood. Relatively low population densities during the PG to Archaic period imply little

Acknowledgments 657

demand (Table 7.5). Agricultural land abandoned at the end of Minoan times would havebeen able to revert to shrubland. This might explain the higher representation in the charcoalof such local shrubs as lentisc and heather during these periods (Table 7.2). There is littleevidence for substantial occupation during Classical times, but in the succeeding Hellenisticand Roman periods (ca. 300 B.C.–A.D. 160/170) there was expanded settlement of the area,particularly in the Matala Valley. This expansion probably meant (1) additional firewoodsupplies from orchard tree prunings and (2) less firewood from shrublands (Table 7.5). Theincrease in the abundance of olive and the reduced representation of local shrub types appearto bear this out. The seed evidence of cereals, olives, vines, and perhaps almonds suggestscontinuity in agricultural crops from the preceding Minoan period.

Charcoal evidence at Kommos offers some insight into the woods used for various purposes.Although many of the woods had several uses, and some charcoal may have been derivedfrom building timber, most of the samples probably represent fuel wood. Olive and cypresswere the most frequent and abundant (Table 7.1). Over time olive charcoal increased infrequency while cypress decreased (Table 7.2). This may reflect changing land use.

The archaeological context may indicate the probable use of wood. Building material issuggested by fragments of uncharred conifer wood found adhering to several iron nails. Thenails were presumably used in the construction of one of the temples (for details, see J. W.Shaw and Harlan, Chap. 5, Section 7). As in the case of the animal bones at Kommos, andthe plant remains associated with sacred altars on Cyprus, it is possible that certain woodswere favored for temple fires. The composition of 11 samples comprising 53 pieces of charcoalfrom altars and hearths associated with Temples B and C does not, however, support thisidea. The samples are dominated by olive, cypress, and pine, the same types that dominatethe entire assemblage. The seed types also occurred in both sacred and secular contexts.

6. AcknowledgmentsWe thank Professor Joseph W. Shaw for the invitation to become associated with the Kommosproject and for his cooperation and financial support. We also thank Charlotte Wall of theSeed Laboratory, Agriculture Canada, for identifying the uncharred seeds; Louise Cook ofthe Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission, who described and photo-graphed the barley grains; and Lucia Flynn for her excellent typing skills. L. Cole Wilson andCharles Burchill aided in processing revisions to the charcoal data.

Tab

le7.

5.Su

mm

ary

ofth

ew

ood

econ

omy

atK

omm

osd

urin

gIr

onA

geti

mes

.C

ypre

ssis

not

incl

uded

inth

ista

ble,

asit

occu

rsin

both

wild

and

cult

ivat

edha

bita

ts.

Cul

tura

lD

evel

opm

ents

Woo

dU

se*

Rel

ativ

eH

ard

woo

dC

onif

erA

ppro

xim

ate

At

Kom

mos

Inth

eA

rea

Dem

and

Shru

blan

ds

Orc

hard

sFo

rest

sFo

rest

sD

ates

Peri

od(J

.W.S

haw

,Cha

p.1)

(Hop

eSi

mps

on19

95)

for

Woo

d%

%%

%L

and

scap

eC

hang

e

160/

170

Kom

mos

aban

don

ed

100

Tem

ple

Ccl

eane

dan

dre

used

A.D

.E

arly

Som

ese

ttle

men

tsM

oder

ate

9.2

41.1

10.6

1.4

Som

efi

eld

sR

oman

Occ

asio

nal

use

ofab

and

oned

tolo

wab

and

oned

Bui

ldin

gB

and

0T

empl

eC

B.C

.

100

Alt

ars

Lan

dM

and

Bui

ldin

gsB

and

Ebu

ilt

200

Hel

leni

stic

Sett

lem

ent

inar

eaH

igh

2.8

50.3

6.7

10.8

Fiel

ds

and

orch

ard

sex

pand

sex

pand

dra

mat

ical

lyIn

crea

sed

graz

ing

pres

sure

onsh

rubl

and

s

300

Anc

ient

Met

allo

nfo

und

ed

Bui

ldin

gsD

and

Wbu

iltT

empl

eC

and

Alt

arC

built

400

Cla

ssic

alSe

ttle

men

tin

area

Low

to1.

353

.032

.9—

Furt

her

land

expa

nds

mod

erat

ecl

eara

nce

for

agri

cult

ure

500

Alt

arH

and

Bui

ldin

gF

built

Hia

tus—

only

occa

sion

alus

e

600

Arc

haic

Bui

ldin

gsQ

and

VSm

all

sett

lem

ent

onL

ow3.

615

.61.

22.

1So

me

land

clea

ranc

ebu

iltne

arby

Vig

les

Hill

for

agri

cult

ure

700

Ori

enta

l-A

ltar

Ubu

iltiz

ing

800

Tem

ple

Bbe

gun

Bui

ldin

gZ

inus

e

Geo

met

ric

900

Prot

o-Sh

rubl

and

sre

clai

mge

omet

ric

agri

cult

ural

land

Tem

ple

Abe

gun

Lit

tle

habi

tati

onin

aban

don

edby

1000

Sub-

area

Min

oans

Min

oan

*Cha

rcoa

lpe

rcen

tage

sap

ply

toth

epe

riod

sSu

b-M

inoa

n–A

rcha

ic,C

lass

ical

,Hel

leni

stic

,and

Ear

lyR

oman

.

Ap

pen

dix

7.1

Cha

rcoa

lR

emai

nsfr

omIr

onA

geD

epos

its

atK

omm

osN

umbe

rof

pails

(pro

vena

nce

unit

s)an

dnu

mbe

rof

char

coal

frag

men

tsby

taxa

and

peri

od.

Sub-

Min

oan

–A

rcha

icC

lass

ical

Hel

leni

stic

Rom

anM

ixed

Tot

al

No.

ofN

o.of

No.

ofN

o.of

No.

ofN

o.of

Pails

No.

ofPa

ilsN

o.of

Pails

No.

ofPa

ilsN

o.of

Pails

No.

ofPa

ilsN

o.of

Cha

rcoa

lT

axa

(n=

160)

Piec

es(n

=17

)Pi

eces

(n=

88)

Piec

es(n

=26

)Pi

eces

(n=

26)

Piec

es(n

=31

7)Pi

eces

Con

ifer

s

Uni

den

tifi

edco

nife

r7

1—

—2

13

1—

—12

3

Cup

ress

us81

1,77

12

223

4614

199

2712

91,

865

Juni

peru

s6

131

11

62

91

211

31

Cup

ress

us/

Juni

peru

s9

11—

—1

12

21

113

15

Pin

us18

56—

—5

162

21

226

76

Har

dw

ood

s

Har

dw

ood

3365

47

1220

24

447

5514

3

Dif

fuse

poro

usha

rdw

ood

12

——

——

11

——

23

Rin

gpo

rous

hard

woo

d—

——

——

——

—1

21

2

cf.P

opul

us/

Salix

11

——

——

——

——

11

Ace

r2

2—

—1

11

21

25

7

Pis

taci

a7

55—

——

——

——

—7

55

cf.P

ista

cia

229

——

——

——

——

229

Eri

ca4

8—

——

——

——

—4

8

Faga

ceae

fam

ily1

2—

——

——

——

—1

2

Que

rcus

cocc

ifera

/ile

x5

17—

——

—1

9—

—6

26

Que

rcus

cerr

isty

pe—

—1

49—

——

——

—1

49

cf.Q

uerc

us3

51

11

1—

——

—5

7

Cas

tane

aty

pe—

——

—1

1—

——

—1

1

Leg

umin

osae

11

——

——

——

——

11

Cer

aton

ia1

5—

—1

1—

——

—2

6

cf.C

erat

onia

——

——

11

——

——

11

Ana

gyri

sfo

etid

a2

3—

——

——

——

—2

3

Ono

nis

16

——

——

——

——

16

cf.O

noni

s1

1—

——

——

——

—1

1

Ficu

s1

1—

—5

7—

——

—6

8

cf.F

icus

23

——

——

——

——

23

Ole

acea

e4

19—

——

——

——

—4

19

Ole

a71

404

1179

3615

79

5813

252

140

950

cf.O

lea

1636

23

1060

320

47

3512

6

Ros

acea

e1

1—

——

——

——

—1

1

Pru

nus

——

——

——

——

11

11

cf.P

runu

s—

——

—2

2—

——

—2

2

cf.P

yrus

/C

rata

egus

/M

alus

218

——

——

——

——

218

Pla

tanu

s2

13—

——

—3

4—

—5

17

Ap

pen

dix

7.1

(Con

tinu

ed) Su

b-M

inoa

n–

Arc

haic

Cla

ssic

alH

elle

nist

icR

oman

Mix

edT

otal

No.

ofN

o.of

No.

ofN

o.of

No.

ofN

o.of

Pails

No.

ofPa

ilsN

o.of

Pails

No.

ofPa

ilsN

o.of

Pails

No.

ofPa

ilsN

o.of

Cha

rcoa

lT

axa

(n=

160)

Piec

es(n

=17

)Pi

eces

(n=

88)

Piec

es(n

=26

)Pi

eces

(n=

26)

Piec

es(n

=31

7)Pi

eces

Har

dw

ood

s(C

ont.)

Rha

mnu

s/P

hylly

rea

26

——

11

——

——

37

Tam

arix

11

11

22

34

12

810

cf.T

amar

ix—

——

—2

47—

——

—2

47

cf.T

hym

us1

1—

——

——

——

—1

1

Thy

mus

/T

hym

elea

12

——

——

——

——

12

Vit

ex—

——

—1

2—

——

—1

2

Uni

den

tifi

ed1

2—

——

—1

——

—2

2

Unk

now

n47

754

626

5412

64

1693

157

Tot

al2,

636

149

427

141

361

3,71

4

Appendix 7.3 663

Appendix 7.2

Measurements of Olive (Olea europaea) Pitsfrom Iron Age Deposits at Kommos

Trench/ Sample Length Width Thickness Width/Date Pail Number (mm) (mm) (mm) Length Ratio

Geometric–Orientalizing 33C/74 436 9.7 5.5 5.0 0.57

Hellenistic 20A/24 209 11.6 5.0 5.2 0.43

10A/53 80 11.7 5.0 5.5 0.43

Roman 29A1/24 349 10.7 5.0 5.1 0.47

Appendix 7.3

Uncharred Seeds from Water-Screened Samplesfrom Iron Age Deposits at Kommos

Trench/Period Pail Taxon Finds

Geometric 33C/60 Euphorbia 1 seed

Archaic 50A/40 Carex 1 seed coatCrepis 1 seedcf. Lactuca 1 seedCruciferae 1 seed coat fragmentGramineae 2 caryopsis fragmentsBromus 1 caryopsis fragmentPhleum 1 caryopsisLeguminosae 1 pod fragmentTrifolium 1 seedLiliaceae 1 seed coatMalva 1 seedPotentilla 1 seedGalium 1 seedViola 1 seedUnknown 4 seeds


Appendix 7.4

Comparison of Charcoal Totals,1992 and 1999

Number Numberof Pails of Pieces

Period 1992 1999 1992 1999

Bronze Age

Dated contents* 308 308 2,821 2,821

Mixed Bronze Age 104 110 1,019 1,056

Total Bronze Age 412 418 3,840 3,877

Mixed Bronze–Iron Age 15 15 263 263

Iron Age

Sub-Minoan (1992) 2 — 2 —

Sub-Minoan–Archaic (1999) — 160 — 2,636

Protogeometric–Archaic(1992) 154 — 2,565 —

Classical (1992 and 1999) 9 17 26 149

Hellenistic (1999) — 88 — 427

Hellenistic–Roman (1992) 140 — 985 —

Roman (1999) — 26 — 141

Mixed Iron Age 11 26 112 361

Total Iron Age 316 317 3,690 3,714

Unknown 26 19 116 56

Total 769 769 7,909 7,910

Note: The totals for 1992 were published in Shay and Shay 1995.*Dates not checked

Appendix 7.5

Distribution of Pails by Date at Kommos

No. of No. of No. ofDate Pails Date Pails Date Pails

MM 8

MM–MM IIB 1

MM–LM 2

MM–LM I 10

MM–LM IA 3

MM–LM II 4

MM–LM III 5

MM–LM IIIA 2

MM–LM IIIA1 6

MM–LM IIIA2 2

MM–LM IIIB 2

MM–LM IIIC 2

MM–GEO 1

MM–ARCH 3

MM–HELLEN 2

MM–Roman 1

MM I 3

MM I–MM IB 1

MM I–MM II 3

MM I–ORIENT 1

MM IB 6

MM IB–MM II 1

MM IB–LM I 1

MM IB–LM IIIB 1

MM II 7

MM II–MM III 6

MM II–LM IA 3

MM II–LM IIIA1 1

MM IIA 13

MM IIA–MM IIB 3

MM IIB 6

MM IIB–MM III 4

MM IIB–LM I 1

MM IIB–LM IA 2

MM III 45

MM III–LM 2

MM III–LM I 9

MM III–LM IA 14

MM III–LM IB 1

MM III–LM III 6

MM III–LM IIIA 2

MM III–LM IIIA2 2

MM III–LM IIIB 1

MM III–CLASS 1

LM 1

LM–LM I 1

LM–LM III 1

LM–LM IIIB 1

LM–GEO 1

LM I 61

LM I–LM IA 2

LM I–LM IB 1

LM I–LM II 10

LM I–LM III 4

LM I–LM IIIA 1

LM I–LM IIIA1 3

LM IA 7

LM IA–LM IB 5

LM IB 1

LM II 9

LM II–LM IIIA 1

LM II–LM IIIA1 2

LM III 45

LM III–ORIENT 1

LM III–ARCH 1

LM IIIA 6

LM IIIA–LM IIIB 4

LM IIIA–HELLEN 1

LM IIIA1 8

LM IIIA1–LM IIIA2 2

LM IIIA1–ORIENT 1

LM IIIA2 10

LM IIIA2–LM IIIB 12

LM IIIB 22

LM IIIB–ARCH 1

LM IIIC 1

Mixed Bronze Age 6

SM 2

SM–ARCH 6

PG 8

PG–GEO 12

GEO 7

GEO–ORIENT 9

ORIENT 68

ORIENT–ARCH 4

ARCH 44

CLASS 17

HELLEN 88

HELLEN–Roman 6

Roman 20

Mixed Iron Age 26

Unknown 19

Total 769

ARCH MM= Archaic = Middle MinoanCLASS ORIENT= Classical = OrientalizingGEO PG= Geometric = ProtogeometricHELLEN SM= Hellenistic = Sub-MinoanLM = Late Minoan


Appendix 7.6

Charcoal from Miscellaneous Contexts at KommosNumber of pails (provenance units) and number of charcoal pieces by taxon and period. Note that notall small pieces were counted. See n. 2.

Mixed MixedBronze Age Bronze–Iron Age Unknown Total

No. of No. of No. of No. ofPails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of

Charcoal Taxa (n = 110) Pieces (n = 15) Pieces (n = 19) Pieces (n = 144) Pieces

Conifer 2 1 — — 2 1 4 2

Cupressus 18 86 2 27 3 8 23 121

Juniperus 1 3 — — — — 1 3

Cupressus/Juniperus — — — — 1 1 1 1

Pinus 12 37 — — 1 1 13 38

Hardwood 23 55 2 19 1 — 26 74

Diffuse-porous hardwood 3 12 — — 2 — 5 12

Acer 2 10 — — — — 2 10

cf. Acer 1 1 — — — — 1 1

Pistacia — — 1 2 — — 1 2

cf. Pistacia 2 2 — — — — 2 2

Erica 1 1 — — — — 1 1

Quercus 3 34 1 3 — — 4 37

Q. coccifera/ilex 36 366 3 8 2 17 41 391

Q. cf. coccifera/ilex 2 12 — — — — 2 12

Q. cerris 3 7 — — — — 3 7

cf. Quercus 6 8 — — — — 6 8

Ceratonia 1 2 — — 1 1 2 3

Ononis 2 4 3 113 — — 5 117

Ficus 2 3 1 1 — — 3 4

cf. Ficus 1 1 — — — — 1 1

Oleaceae 8 16 — — — — 8 16

Olea 51 262 5 35 3 4 59 301

cf. Olea 6 11 3 9 2 9 11 29

Prunus 1 3 — — 1 5 2 8

cf. Prunus 1 3 — — — — 1 3

cf. Pyrus/Crataegus/Malus 5 8 — — — — 5 8Platanus 2 4 — — — — 2 4

Appendix 7.7 667

Appendix 7.6 (Continued)

Mixed MixedBronze Age Bronze–Iron Age Unknown Total

No. of No. of No. of No. ofPails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of Pails No. of

Charcoal Taxa (n = 110) Pieces (n = 15) Pieces (n = 19) Pieces (n = 144) Pieces

Rhamnus/Phillyrea 2 2 — — — — 2 2

cf. Thymus 1 4 — — — — 1 4

Thymelaea 1 3 — — — — 1 3

Calicotome 1 1 — — — — 1 1

Unidentified — — — — 1 3 1 3

Unknown 41 94 5 46 5 6 51 146

Total 1,056 263 56 1,375

Appendix 7.7

Charred Seed Remains in Bronze Age Levels at Kommos

Middle Minoan Late MinoanMixedMiddle

and Late TotalSpecies MM I MM II MM III MM II–III LM II LM III Minoan Minoan

Olive (Oleaeuropaea) 1a(f)b 7 (3+f) 12 (31+f) 2 (f) 8 (6) 18 (12+f) 11 (8+f) 59 (61+f)

Grape (Vitisvinifera) — — — — 4 (4) 3 (12+f) 1 (1) 8 (17+f)

Cereal (Triticum/Hordeum) — — 1 (1) — — 1 (1) — 2 (2)

Almond (Prunus) — 1 (f) — — 1 (f) — 1 (f) 3 (f)

Oak (Quercus) — 1 (f) — — 1 (f) 1 (f) — 3 (f)

Bean trefoil(Anagyris foetida) — — — — — 1 (2) — 1 (2)

Legume(Leguminosae) — — — — — 1 (f) — 1 (f)

Thymelaea(Thymelaea) — — — — — 1 (357) — 1 (357+f)

Unknown — 1 (1) 1 (f) — 1 (1) — — 3 (2+f)

Total 1 (f) 10 (4�f) 14 (32�f) 2 (f) 15 (11�f) 26 (384�f) 13 (9�f) 81 (441�f)

aNumber of samplesbNumber of specimens (complete or large fragments; f = numerous small fragments)


Notes

1. This manuscript was originally submitted 2. The charcoal identifications were enteredinto a computer file that included year excavated,in 1992, but in February 1999 we were informed

that more than 130 of the pottery dates we had trench, provenance (pail), weight, total numberof pieces, taxon, part (wood, knot, twig, bark,been given for the Iron Age charcoal and seeds

were incorrect. Thus we had to adjust the original root, or seed), status (fragments, large piece[s]plus fragments, too badly charred to be identi-numbers not only for the IA but also for totals

for the Bronze Age. For example, the date changes fied, or unidentified), confidence of identification(unknown, cf. family, cf. genus, cf. species, or noresulted in an increase in the number of mixed

BA pails from 104 to 110, and the number of cf.), date of deposit, and the general location onthe site (Hilltop, Central Hillside, or Southernpieces from 1,019 to 1,056. Hence, Appendices

7.4–7.7 were added. The remaining tables for the Area). These data were used to generate the tablesusing the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Insti-BA (Shay and Shay 1995: tables 4.9, 4.12, 4.13,

appendix 4.6) were not recalculated, as none of tute 1982).the percentages would be substantially different.

TheCharcoalandSeedsfromIronAgeKommos · and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on...

Documents

Transcript of TheCharcoalandSeedsfromIronAgeKommos · and tangential faces and mounted on plasticine stubs on...