Search

The Prunus genus contains many of the most economically significant arboreal crops, cultivated globally, today. Despite the economic significance of these domesticated species, the pre-cultivation ranges, processes of domestication, and routes of prehistoric dispersal for all of the economically significant species remain unresolved. Among the European plums, even the taxonomic classification has been heavily debated over the past several decades. In this manuscript, we compile archaeobotanical evidence for the most prominent large-fruiting members of Prunus, including peach, apricot, almonds, sloes, and the main plum types. By mapping out the chronology and geographic distributions of these species, we are able to discuss aspects of their domestication and dispersal more clearly, as well as identify gaps in the data and unanswered questions. We suggest that a clearer understanding of these processes will say a lot about ancient peoples, as the cultivation of delayed return crops is an indicator of a strong concept of land tenure and the specialization of these cultivation strategies seems to be tied to urbanism and reliable markets. Likewise, the evolution of domestication traits in long-generation perennials, especially within Rosaceae, represents awareness of grafting and cloning practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade research into early domestication has been transformed by the genomics revolution and increased archaeological investigation. Despite clarification of the timing, locations and genetic processes, most scholars still envision evolutionary responses to human innovations, such as sickle harvesting, tilling, selection for docility or directed breeding. Stepping away from anthropocentric models, evolutionary parallels in the wild can provide case studies for understanding what ecological pressures drove the evolution of the first domestication traits. I contrast evolutionary trends seen among plants and animals confined on oceanic islands with the changes seen in the first cultivated crops and animals. I argue that the earliest villages functioned as habitat islands, applying parallel selective pressures as those on oceanic islands. In this view, the collective assemblage of parallel evolving traits that some scholars refer to as either an island syndrome or domestication syndrome results from similar ecological pressures of insularity, notably ecological release. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For well over a century, scholars from across the social and biological sciences have been trying to understand the origins and spread of agriculture. This debate is often intertwined with discussions of climate change and human environmental impact. Over the past decade, this debate has spread into Central Eurasia, from western China to Ukraine and southern Russia to Turkmenistan, a part of the world often thought to have been largely dominated by pastoralists. A growing interest in the prehistory of Central Eurasia has spurred a new chapter in the origins of agriculture debate; archaeobotanical research is showing how important farming practices in this region were in regard to the spread of crops across the Old World. While early people living in Central Eurasia played an influential role in shaping human history, there is still limited understanding of the trajectories of social evolution among these populations. In March 2015, 30 leading scholars from around the globe came together in Berlin, Germany, to discuss the introduction and intensification of agriculture in Central Eurasia and adjacent regions. At the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAI), these scholars presented novel data on topics covering East, South, and Central Asia, spanning a wide realm of methodological approaches. The present special edition volume deals with a selection of the papers given at this conference, and it marks a significant step toward recognizing the contribution of Central Eurasian populations in the spread and development of agricultural systems over the course of the Holocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, researchers have directed greater focus toward understanding Bronze (3200–800 BC) and Iron Age (800 BC–AD 400) economies of Central Asia. In this article, we synthesize paleobotanical data from across this broad region and discuss the piecemeal archaeological evidence for agriculture in relation to environmental records of vegetation and climate change. The synthesis shows that agricultural products were present in northern Central Asia by the mid-3rd millennium BC; however, solid evidence for their spread even further north into the Altai Mountains and southern Siberia only comes from the late 2nd and early 1st millennia BC. The earliest crops introduced into Central Asia likely came as a mixed package of free-threshing wheat, naked barley, and broomcorn millet, an assemblage pioneered further south along the northern foothills of the Central Asian mountains. Further east, in Mongolia, and debatably to the west of Central Asia, in the steppe of northern Kazakhstan and the southern Ural region of Russia, the earliest evidence of agriculture (with a similar mixed assemblage) is considerably later, roughly late 1st millennium BC. The lack of clear-cut early evidence for agricultural goods either east or west of the Central Asian mountain belt suggests that agriculture spread northward along these mountains, based on an agropastoral system pioneered millennia earlier at higher elevations of lower latitudes. Additionally, moister regional environmental conditions in the northern mountains after 3000 cal. BC may have increased the favorability of adopting an agricultural component in the economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archaeological research in Central Eurasia is exposing unprecedented scales of trans-regional interaction and technology transfer between East Asia and southwest Asia deep into the prehistoric past. This article presents a new archaeobotanical analysis from pastoralist campsites in the mountain and desert regions of Central Eurasia that documents the oldest known evidence for domesticated grains and farming among seasonally mobile herders. Carbonized grains from the sites of Tasbas and Begash illustrate the first transmission of southwest Asian and East Asian domesticated grains into the mountains of Inner Asia in the early third millennium BC. By the middle second millennium BC, seasonal camps in the mountains and deserts illustrate that Eurasian herders incorporated the cultivation of millet, wheat, barley and legumes into their subsistence strategy. These findings push back the chronology for domesticated plant use among Central Eurasian pastoralists by approximately 2000 years. Given the geography, chronology and seed morphology of these data, we argue that mobile pastoralists were key agents in the spread of crop repertoires and the transformation of agricultural economies across Asia from the third to the second millennium BC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Societal Impact Statement Summary Agrobiodiversity is central to sustainable farming worldwide. Cultivation, conservation and reintroduction of diverse plant species, including ‘forgotten’ and ‘underutilized’ crops, contribute to global agrobiodiversity, living ecosystems and sustainable food production. Such efforts benefit from traditional and historical knowledge of crop plants' evolutionary and cultural trajectories. This review is a first attempt at systematically gauging species representativeness in studies of archaeological plant remains. Results indicate that, in addition to discipline‐specific methodological sources of bias, modern agricultural biases may replicate themselves in crop history research and influence understandings of ‘forgotten crops’. Recognizing these biases is an initial stride towards rectifying them and promoting agrobiodiversity in both research and practical applications.So‐called ‘forgotten’ or ‘orphan’ crops are an important component of strategies aimed at preserving and promoting biodiversity. Knowledge of historical cultivation, usage, and geographic and evolutionary trajectories of plants, that is, crop history research, is important for the long‐term success of such efforts. However, research biases in the crops chosen for study may present hurdles. This review attempts to systematically identify patterns in crop species representativeness within archaeology‐based crop history research. A meta‐analysis and synthesis of archaeobotanical evidence (and lack thereof) is presented for 268 species known to have been cultivated for food prior to 1492 CE from the Mediterranean region to South Asia. We identified 39 genera with known crop plants in this geographical and historical context that are currently absent from its archaeobotanical record, constituting ‘orphan’ crops of archaeobotany. In addition, a worldwide synthesis of crop species studied using geometric morphometric, archaeogenetic and stable isotope analyses of archaeological plant remains is presented, and biases in the species represented in these disciplines are discussed. Both disciplinary methodological biases and economic agenda‐based biases affecting species representativeness in crop history research are apparent. This study also highlights the limited geographic diffusion of most crops and the potential for deeper historical perspectives on how crops become marginalized and ‘forgotten’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]