 |
 |
You know, I think you've nailed type 1. A quick Google for archaeological *Chrozophora* yielded a 2015 blog entry (see below) from a Swedish team working at the Cypriot site of Hala Sultan Tekke, which includes a report and photo of seeds identified as *Chrozophora tinctoria* that are essentially an exact match for mine. Also, *C*. *tinctoria* appears to be the only species recorded in the genus for Turkey, which makes for further confidence again in this ID. http://www.fischerarchaeology.se/?page_id=1989 http://www.fischerarchaeology.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fig.-23-Copy.jpg Many thanks! Best wishes, Rhona ________________ *Rhona S. H. Fenwick*PhD (Social Science) *Qld* BSc (Biomed), BA (Hons 1st Class) (Archæology) *Qld* Honorary Research Fellow School of Social Science The University of Queensland St Lucia, Q. 4072 AUSTRALIA On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:33 PM Yoel Melamed <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > For type 1 consider Chrozophora as candidate > Yoel Melamed > The Mina and Everard Goodman Faculty of Life Sciences > Bar-Ilan University > Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel > Phone: 03-5318245 > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:15 PM Rhona Fenwick <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I'm working on site in central Turkey at the moment on some Early Bronze >> Age material, and have a couple of seed types that are really stumping me. >> Each type appears to be found in only a single context (out of 35-odd >> contexts analysed so far), and yet multiple specimens of each appear in >> their respective contexts, which makes me wonder if they may be rare >> economic species each preserved only in a single context. If anyone could >> offer suggestions or identifications, I'd be very grateful. >> >> Type 1 (apologies for the photo quality, but the Dinolite didn't show the >> anatomical features as well as the plain low-mag) is from a pit fill >> containing also cereals and legumes. I had pondered Boraginaceae at first, >> but the morphology really isn't right, and there doesn't appear to be a >> clear detachment scar as one might expect for the usual suspects in this >> area. The pinched appearance of the basal end seems very distinctive, but I >> haven't been able to turn anything up in the standard references. The >> closest match at the moment seems to be something in *Euphorbia*, though >> naturally that's a huge family and even there it doesn't quite seem to fit >> (and while on site my access to reference collections is very limited). >> >> For type 2 (from a general room fill), frankly, I'm beat. In lateral view >> my first thought was *Anethum*, but it definitely isn't Apiaceae, as >> despite the bilateral compression this element is clearly unitary, not an >> undehisced schizocarp. Nonetheless, the ridges and the hole at the hilum >> are clearly anatomical. I suspect this may be the endocarp of some fruit or >> other, but if it is it's one I'm utterly unfamiliar with from this area. >> >> Are any of you familiar with either of these types? Do you know what they >> are? >> >> Many thanks in advance, >> Rhona Fenwick >> >> ________________ >> >> >> *Rhona S. H. Fenwick*PhD (Social Science) *Qld* >> BSc (Biomed), BA (Hons 1st Class) (Archæology) >> >> >> *Qld* >> Honorary Research Fellow >> School of Social Science >> The University of Queensland >> St Lucia, Q. 4072 >> AUSTRALIA >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the ARCHAEOBOTANY list, click the following link: >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ARCHAEOBOTANY&A=1 >> > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the ARCHAEOBOTANY list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ARCHAEOBOTANY&A=1