Observation of “Traditional” Agriculture in Kastamonu, Turkey In Relation to the Evidence of Crop Husbandry at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Central Anatolia

Abstract

In order to better understand how plants were procured and consumed at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, the site’s archaeobotany team examined some of the existing ethnographic examples of “traditional” (non-mechanised) farming in Turkey. The Kastamonu region of the north Turkey is an area where some ’ancient’ wheats (einkorn and emmer) are cultivated in a more or less traditional way and on a small-scale. Fieldwork in this part of Turkey provided first-hand knowledge of some off- and on-site agricultural activities which could have been part of prehistoric village life, but also of ways in which modern technologies challenge non-mechanised farming*. Of particular interest were a) information gathered from field-owners on traditional techniques used to grow crops, b) observation of storage facilities and other ways of storing food in einkorn/emmer-growing villages, and c) observations of mills and other buildings/constructions/items relating to crop processing and food preparation (e.g. oil production); the paper presents obtained information relevant to these three key objectives.

A methodological approach to the study of archaeological cereal meals: a case study at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey)

“…This core set of staple foods confirms that these early crops were used in combination at the household level, reflecting cultivation of annual seed crops alongside gathering of wild resources. While some of these assemblages can be inferred to have come from the use of animal dung as fuel, others are more directly related to the waste from human activities such as crop processing waste (Bogaard et al 2013 ; Filipović 2014 ). Fairbairn et al ( 2005 ) also demonstrated that residues raked out of fireplaces are the most concentrated deposits of charred plant material produced through routine practices; these primary deposits were subsequently re-used and deposited as secondary contexts in middens and as tertiary contexts in building fills and construction material.…”

Re-analysis of archaeobotanical remains from pre- and early agricultural sites provides no evidence for a narrowing of the wild plant food spectrum during the origins of agriculture in southwest Asia

“…Many of the dominant taxa in these samples grow in saline habitats ( Aeluropus, B. maritimus ) or marshy areas (rushes), and others have small or hard-coated seeds (small-seeded legumes), Chenopodiaceae, Brassicaceae, Helianthemum ( ledifolium ) that survive passage through the ruminant digestive system (Miller and Smart 1984; Charles 1996; Wallace and Charles 2013). These, and several less dominant small-seeded taxa ( Sporobolus (saline habitats), Chenopodium chenopodioides, Juncus (marshy areas), Alopecurus, Artemisia annua ), are suggestive of grazing habitats, and the burning of dung fuel has been suggested as a major contributor of the plant remains found in these deposits (Bogaard et al 2013; Filipović 2014). The Çatalhöyük samples are not unique in this respect; for example, Epipalaeolithic samples from Abu Hureyra, including a large mixed sample, which plots with the large Çatalhöyük midden samples, are also composed of taxa consistent with derivation from dung (Miller 1996).…”

Middle-Neolithic agricultural practices in the Oldenburger Graben wetlands, northern Germany: First results of the analysis of arable weeds and stable isotopes

“…For the purpose of elucidating crop-growing conditions and agricultural management, arable weeds are a prime piece of evidence (e.g. Bogaard, 2004, 2010; Filipović, 2014; Jacomet et al, 1989: 180–189; Jones, 2002; Jones et al, 1999; Kreuz, 2012; Kreuz and Schäfer, 2011; Maier and Vogt, 2001: 86–100; Wasylikowa, 1981). In this study, the wild taxa were identified as potential weeds (cf.…”