the evolution of neolithic farming from sw asian origins to nw european limits

http://eja.sagepub.comArchaeology

European Journal of

DOI: 10.1177/1461957105066937 2005; 8; 137 European Journal of Archaeology

Sue Colledge, James Conolly and Stephen Shennan Limits

The Evolution of Neolithic Farming from SW Asian Origins to NW European

http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/137 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: European Association of Archaeologists

can be found at:European Journal of Archaeology Additional services and information for

http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://eja.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

unauthorized distribution.© 2005 European Association of Archaeologists, SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or

at TRENT UNIV on September 4, 2007 http://eja.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.e-a-a.org

http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eja.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eja.sagepub.com

138 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OFARCHAEOWGY 8(2)

social and economic changes associated with the transition to food production arewell documented, what remain poorly understood are the variables influencingthe evolution of farming (i.e. changes in the types of crops grown and thecultivation and processing technologies) during its early history. We havedocumented and investigated these changes and we show here that the differencebetween central European agriculture and its ancestral form in SE Europe and SWAsia is not determined entirely by climatic factors (e.g. that would restrict thegrowth of some species and not others). Although climate was a barrier for certainelements of the crop package, we suggest that the disparity between the tworegions is best explained by a combination of cultural preferences for certaindomestic species and a cultural transmission system that inhibited the diffusion ofnew or altemative crop types during the earliest phases of the spread of farming inEurope. In addition to which, we propose there was a reluctance to innovate withalternative crops, even as they became available.

The relative importance of demic expansion versus cultural diffusion to accountfor the spread of farming has been the subject of intense debate (see, for examples,contributions in Harris 1996a and Price 2000). However, regardless of whether theprocess was caused by the movement of people or ideas, the spread of farmingalways involved the physical transport of stocks of domestic grain crops into areasbeyond the natural range of their wild progenitor species. Analyses of archaeo-botanical data from early sites provide the opportunity to investigate similarities anddifferences in the constituent elements of the Neolithic crop package and can thuscontribute to this long-standing archaeological debate. Using the first systematicdatabase of records of plant taxa recovered from pre- and early Neolithic sites inEurope and SW Asia (Colledge et al. 2004), we present a comparative analysis ofdomestic crops and weed species, focusing in particular on the developmentalchanges associated with the extremely rapid establishment of Linearbandkeramik(LBK) farming settlements across Europe, that provides direct evidence for theevolution of the crop package.

THE DATA SET

We have constructed a data base of c.7500 records of plant taxa recovered from 250pre- and early Neolithic sites that are linked to c.1000 radiocarbon dates (betweenc.10,000 BP to 4500 BP) and an additional c.500 dates compiled by Shennan andSteele (2000; see Colledge et al. 2004, fig. 1 for data model). The archaeobotanicalinformation was taken from published reports, some dated as early as the 1960s, inwhich identified taxa were recorded. The data comprise primarily plant remainsthat were preserved by charring, with very few mineralized or waterloggedspecimens, or identifications based on impressions in pottery and daub. Manyarchaeologists and archaeobotanists have been responsible for the excavation,sampling and analyses of the sites included in the data base and over a period ofsome 40 years (i.e. from the earliest publications we have referred to in the 1960s)their methods and approaches have differed greatly. It is inevitable, therefore, thatthe resultant data, in part, reflect these disparities. Anomalies may stem from

EuRoPEAN JOURNALoF ARcHAEoLoGY80138




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32894182_Archaeobotanical_Evidence_for_the_Spread_of_Farming_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

COLLEDGE, CONOLLY & SHENNAN: THE EVOLUTION OF NEOLITHIC FARMING

Figure 1. The location and distribution of sites used in this analysis.

inconsistencies in on-site and laboratory techniques, or from the vagaries ofdepositional and taphonomic processes (see Colledge et al. 2004, s44-s46). How-ever, in spite of the possible biases, we demonstrate here how our statisticalanalyses indicate that there is considerable integrity in the primary data, whichhas enabled us to make interpretations based on variations in the taxonomiccomposition of sites located across wide geographical areas.

The data set we refer to in this article is based on Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites inSW Asia (Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Syria and Turkey) and earlyNeolithic sites in SE Europe (Greece, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia), centralEurope (i.e. LBK sites; Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, northernFrance, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland) and NW Europe (Sweden,Denmark, Britain and Ireland), and the central and SW Mediterranean (Italy,southern France, Spain and Portugal) - a total of 163 sites (see Table 1 and Fig. 1).

To compare the taxonomic composition of the sites we have applied corres-pondence analysis to presence/absence data (Geenacre 1984). The suitability ofthis method of analysis has been demonstrated in previous work (Colledge 1998,2001; Colledge et al. 2004) and it has been shown that presence/absence dataare sufficiently robust to enable exploration of the spatio-temporal changes incomposition of taxa within countries and between regions. We present here theresults of correspondence analysis on a data set that comprises 160 sites (with 207cultural phases) and 210 taxa (taxa occurring in fewer than five sites or phases havebeen excluded, see Lange 1990: 75-76). This shows a spatio-temporal chine from theSE to theNW along axis 1 (Figs 2A and 2B); Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in SW Asia atthe left are separated from the central and NW European early Neolithic sites to the

139






140 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OFARCHAEOLOGY 8(2)

CD0 CDOD CD CDN LO CO~L

"~U co CD.0C0' N ~~~~~~~~~~LO

o4 0 0D 0D 0D 0CD 0Ot 0 0 0

CO'.0 ~~~~~~LO LO

(UCZ

o R4C14OO10' O COy- (ONt4a'' Nl4OCClO 4Lrm- 00LOG\C4v- --4r--44 r-4 C4 ~ ClCl-4 Cl 4

(U

~0

z

U)~~~~~~~~~~(

0

CU

U)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(

;W4 ~~0

U) (

o CU U)~~~~~~~~~U)1

(U ~ ~ U

U)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Q

- C~~~~U CU .

0~~~~~~

4i lb~~~~~~~~~~~U





A

SPECIES

* wild/progenitor species

* domestic crop speciesA wild/domestic species

* other taxa

2-row hulled barley faba bea

einkom (10I

grass petbitter vet%ulledbarley

wild grass pe t thre

wild flat * naked bchick pe& * free threshin

will einkornK %Ih amrn III

** . hulled barey cha'fwild barley A*wild din4orN/sye free threshing wheat

free threshing'fyt raehis wildrye.

wild einksorgi t1t . einkom/emmer chaff

.a

cmJ.W

co

hulled barley

hulled barley chaff

3lume wheat chaff

tulled barley tree tfreshing wheat (x6)

(2g)lume wheat cha*millet

,paked barleyhaff. * +hulled/naked barleyhulled/naked.baley ciTff

.ine wheamet * einkom *emmer/speltwreeychaff len %tIwheat chaff *emmer chaff

* glume wheat - - -

einkorm/emmer * peahap. S * emmer chaff

rye + einkom ChaffI einkom/emmer chaff

*

I*f1ax * *-.

Figure 2a. Correspondence analysis plot of species. Note the discrimination along axis 1 of thewild and domestic species.

right of the axis, and the SE European sites are at the mid-way point. These resultsemphasize the difference between regions where the Neolithic founder cropsevolved and those in which a modified suite of the original crop package was

cultivated; all the wild species (and the indeterminate wild or domestic taxa) are

positioned on the left of axis 1 and correspond, therefore, with the SW Asian sites;the domestic species are- ubiquitous, but a majority (68%) are located on the right ofthe axis and are allied with the central and NW European sites. Most striking in the

distributions represented in the plots is the coherence of the different regional groupsreflecting the similarity in their taxonomic composition. The strong correlation

141

axis 1al hrl -h-duma n::nav anas - E . * 1 emKom rn:ans _rlolfnm rhnff unauthorized distribution.

© 2005 European Association of Archaeologists, SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or at TRENT UNIV on September 4, 2007 http://eja.sagepub.comDownloaded from


142 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8(2)

BWASWi

U CrtE15 itirpe

* NWEuro~pe

0...

M

:1

S

S

SLi

S0

C;' '

J:

:.......

..U

Figure 2b. Correspondence analysis plot of sites. Note the discrimination along axis 1 of the SWAsian and SE, central andNW European sites.

between the patterning of sites in the correspondence analysis and the well-established spatio-temporal spread of domestic crops thus provides both an

objective measure of the sensitivity of the archaeobotanical data and an indicationof the changes that the early Neolithic crop production system underwent. Aswe demonstrate in this article, insight into the nature of these changes is gainedby comparing not only the types and variety of cereals and pulses, but also theassociated weed assemblages found on early Neolithic sites.

axs---t

Li-.: C):Dsf.<

C.W

142 EuRopEw JouRNAL oFARcmEoLwy80

A




143~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

THE CROPS

CerealsThe range of cereal species found on Pre-Pottery and early Neolithic sites in SW Asia,SE Europe, and in the central and SW Mediterranean is the same as that in central andNW Europe; however, the frequency of occurrence of the different crops is strikinglydifferent. The three founder crop cereals of einkom (Triticum monococcum), emmer(Triticum dicoccum) and hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) are present in a majority of thesites in SW Asia (74%), SE Europe (78%) and central and SW Mediterranean (58%).1Later additions to the list of domestic cereals grown at this time include free-threshingwheat (Triticum aestivum and/or Triticum durum) and naked barley (Hordeum vulgarevar. nudum) and these are present in at least half of the sites in the three regions (50%,55% and 79% respectively; Fig. 3). Other cereals are represented on only a smallminority of early Neolithic sites in our data set in these three areas: two sites haveevidence of common millet (Panicum miliaceum), 11 have rye remains (Secale cereale),two have oats (Avena sativa) and on nine sites spelt wheat (Triticum spelta) is present.In contrast, the full complement of founder crop cereals is present on a minority (23%)of the central European LBK sites in our data set (hereafter in the text we refer to theseas LBK sites); whereas for a majority (56%) of these sites the only cereals representedare the glume wheats, einkom and emmer. This situation occurs on only a smallproportion of sites in SW Asia (12%) and SE Europe (8%; in our data set the twoglume wheats are not recorded at all as being present in isolation on the central andSW Mediterranean sites, however,recently published archaeobo- "*t - V

tanical reports for sites in Spainpresent examples of where theyhave been found in co-ccurrence --without evidence of other cereals,e.g. Stika 2005). Again, in contrastwith the other areas of Europeand SW Asia, free-threshing iXwheat and naked barley occur ina similarly low percentage of theLBK sites (25%; of relevance to -.gthe discussions that follow is thatthe hexaploid species has beenidentified in 90% of the sites withfree-threshing wheat).

There is a marked difference,therefore, between the LBK sitesand those in SW Asia and the 4other regions of Europe in termsof the diversity of the suites ofofrthe drops.Thit ofithesuites ofy Figure 3. Percentage ofsites in different regions with evidencecereal crops. This is most clearly for only einkorn and/or emmer and percentage of sites withdemonstrated by the fact that free-threshing wheat and/or naked barley.

CoLLEDGE, CoNoLLY & SHENNAir. THE EVOLUTION OF NEOLITHIC FARMING 143




144 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8(2)

*110w - w~ ~ * 34~~on over half the LBK sites onlytwo or fewer cereal taxa are rep-resented, whereas a minority ofsites in the other regions havethis number (SW Asia: 29%, SEEurope: 18%, central and SWMediterranean: 13%) and on thevast majority three or more taxa

--co-occur (Fig. 4). These dataemphasize not only how uniformthe cereal component of the LBKsites is, but also how narrowlyfocused agriculture became as itentered central Europe.

In NW Europe, at the western-most extreme of the Neolithicagricultural expansion, the over-

all composition of the cereal crop.

:0 tf 0 i--"^000:0t_* i:X(-i;E* 1s distinct from that manifest iniwMPi SW Asia, SE Europe and in the

Figure 4. Percentage of sites in different regions with central and SW Mediterranean,evidence of two or fewer cereal species and with three or most notably because only amore cereal species. minority of the sites (24%) have

evidence of the three foundercrop cereals; thus showing a further evolutionary divergence from the ancestralform. The sites in this region are also dissimilar to those within the LBK culturalsphere: free-threshing wheat and naked barley are present on a majority of the sites(58%) and the two glume wheats, einkom and emmer, have been found withoutevidence for other cereals on only a small minority (12%). However, inNW Europe,as has been demonstrated for the LBK, there is a similarly reduced diversity of thecereal crop in terms of the proportion of sites with two or fewer taxa; a majority(55%) of theNW European sites have two or fewer cereal species in co-occurrence.

PulsesThe same trend is apparent with respect to the founder crop pulses represented onthe sites in the different regions. On the sites in SW Asia, SE Europe and centraland SW Mediterranean in our data set a total of five pulses is recorded (pea -Pisum sativum, lentil - Lens culinaris, bitter vetch - Vicia ervilia, chick pea - Cicerarietinum and grass pea - Lathyrus sativus; grass pea is not one of the founder cropsbut has been included here because it occurs in high numbers on sites in SW Asiaand SE Europe and was an early addition to the original crop package). In contrast,only three (pea, lentil and bitter vetch - the latter is only present on one site) arerepresented on LBK sites. Of those sites with pulses (SW Asia: n=44, SE Europe:n=32, central and SW Mediterranean: n=10, LBK: n=37), two or more (and up tofive) co-occur on the majority of the SW Asian (86%), SE European (84%) and

EuRoPEAN JOURNAL oF ARcHAEoLoGY80144





central and SW Mediterranean 0 X *(60%) sites, whereas well overhalf the LBK sites (65%) haveevidence of a single species onlyi(Fig. 5). As with the cereals,these data confirm how limitedand lacking in diversity the suiteof crops cultivated on the LBK --sites was in comparison with therange of domestic species found -on sites both where Neolithicagriculture originated and alsowhere the subsistence system wasfirst adopted in Europe.

The evidence from the pulses -_verifies that in the regions at thewestern limits of our study area,beyond the range of LBK settle- _ments, evolutionary divergence SW "4 ItrQp *: to pfrom the original Neolithic crop-package was more pronounced. Figure 5. Percentage of sites in different regions withUnlike the cereals, there was not evidence of only one pulse species and with two or more

widespread use of the pulses pulse species.beyond areas in which the wildprogenitors were found; and from east to west there is a gradual decrease in theproportions of sites that have pulses. For example, on 93 per cent of the NWEuropean sites in our data set these taxa are absent from the records, and of theremaining seven per cent of sites (n=3) in this region, where there is evidence ofpulses, only a single species (pea) is present.

The differences in terms of the suites of crops grown between LBK sites andearly Neolithic sites elsewhere in Europe are well known and have already beendescribed in several publications (Bakels 1990, in press; Kreuz 1990, in press; Kreuzet al. 2005; Maier 1996). We suggest the importance of our numerical analyses liesin the fact that they not only validate earlier findings (many of which were basedon the results of qualitative rather than quantitative assessments) but also providea means by which we can explore more fully the processes that gave rise to andsustained such a distinctive farming system. Our approach also benefits from theanalysis of data from sites covering a wide geographical area; while others havefocused either on SW Asia, where the founder crops evolved, or on Europe to theexclusion of regions further to the east, it was our intention to investigate both theorigins of farming and its subsequent spread to mainland Europe.

The weedsThere is a gradual reduction from SW Asia across to NW Europe in the numbers ofnon-crop taxa (i.e. wild or weed species) represented on the early Neolithic sites in

145





Figure 6. 1Wean ubiquity and number of non-crop taxa in different regions of Europe.

Table 2. Mean numbers of wild or weed taxa on early Neolithic sites,

by region (all crop species, trees and shrubs and indeterminate

identifications have been deleted from the data set; total number oftaxa represented is 108).

totalnumber mean

SW Asia (n = 44) 92 2.09SE Europe (n = 40) 58 1.45Central & SW Med (n = 24) 22 0.92Central Europe (n = 61) 47 0.77NW Europe (n = 42) 31 0.74

the different regions (Table 2; Fig. 6; it has not been assumed that all the wild taxaare weeds of cultivation, a majority are identified to genus level only (58%, n=63)and these could not, therefore, be assigned with certainty to a particular ecologicalgroup).

The fact that there are much higher numbers of wild or weed taxa on sites in SWAsia is unsurprising as this was where many of the segetal species originated(Zohary 1973:647-650). The subsequent decrease in diversity across Europe is apattern that mimics the trend manifest in the crop species. Careful cleaning of thecereals and pulses after harvest would result in removal of many or all of the weedseeds and the grains sown on in subsequent years, either in the same fields or onnew land, would comprise fewer contaminant species. This could, in part, accountfor the overall trend of a decrease in numbers of wild or weed taxa representedon the early Neolithic sites in Europe. However, the weed floras in the differentregions comprise not only those species that have been transported with the crop(anthropochores) but also native species (apophytes: Kreuz et al. 2005; Rosch 1998;Willerding 1986) and so the composition of assemblages (e.g. both in terms of thenumbers and variety of taxa) is determined in part by the relative mobility of thefarmers and by their farming techniques (e.g. in terms of how they prepared land

EuRopEm JouRNAL oFARcmEowGy80146





for cultivation and processed the crops;Rosch 1998:121-122).

Of more significance is that our dataemphasize the distinctiveness of the wild orweed taxa that are found in association withthe LBK crops, as these also characterize theLBK farming system. Our findings validatethose reported in previous works; for exam-ple, Knorzer (1971) recognized a consistencyin the weed assemblages occurring incrop-rich samples recovered from 10 earlyNeolithic sites in the Rhineland. He listedseveral species and genera present on all thesites and commented that these contributedover 90 per cent of all the weed taxa at eachsite; on this basis he proposed the existenceof an ancient phytosociological association,the so-called 'Bromo-Lapsanetum praehis-toricum' after the two characteristic weedspecies: Bromus secalinus and Iapsana com-munis (Knorzer 1971). The same taxa weresubsequently recorded as appearing consist-ently on LBK sites in other areas of centraland NW Europe (Bakels 2000; Willerding1986).

Analysis of the frequency of occurrence

Table 3. Wild or weed taxa with ubiquity onLBK sites ofgreater than 10%. Species in boldhave previously been identified as typical LBKweeds.

Taxon

Avena sp.Bromus secalinusBromus sterilisBromus sp.Chenopodium albumChenopodium hybridumChenopodium sp.Echinochloa crus-galliGalium aparineGalium spuriumGalium sp.Lapsana communisPhleum sp.Polygonum convolvulusPolygonum lapathifoliumPolygonum persicariaRumex sp.Setaria sp.Solanum nigrumVeronica arvensisVicia hirsutaVicia sp.

Ubiquity

9.827.914.829.562.39.8

14.818.027.932.813.123.013.165.618.013.124.69.8

11.59.8

13.111.5

of wild or weed taxa on the sites in the different regions in our data set indicatesthat nine of the species that occur in more than 10 per cent of the LBK sites (46% ofthe wild or weed taxa identified as being present in the LBK occur in 10% or more(i.e. n=6) of the LBK sites in our data base) are those named by previous authors asbeing typical LBK weeds (Table 3).

Thus our results are in accord with earlier findings and, as we have alreadyemphasized, the fact that they are based on qualitative assessment of thetaxonomic composition of sites covering a wide geographical area enables us toput local patterns in a broader continental perspective. Our data also show thatfour of the nine species were present in SW Asian Pre-Pottery Neolithic assemblages(Bromus sterilis, Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus and Polygonum persicaria)and thus were possibly transported westwards with selected elements of the originalcrop package, and that three species were probably immigrants from SE Europe(Bromus sterilis, Galium aparine and Galium spurium); for two of the weed species(Lapsana communis and Vicia hirsuta) there are no records in our data set of occurrencesother than on LBK sites.

Knorzer (1971:101-103) concluded from his study that the homogeneouscomposition of the weed floras could only have resulted from cultivation andharvesting methods that did not change over long periods of time (see also

147




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225414856_Urgeschichtliche_Unkrauter_im_Rheinland_Ein_Beitrag_zur_Entstehungsgeschichte_der_Segetalgesellschaften?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

148 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OFARCHAEOLOGY 8(2)

Table 4. Counts of taxa by maximum growing height, by region.

Region >100cm >50<100cm <50cm total

SW Asia 13 37 42 92SE Europe 16 23 19 58Central & SW Med 3 12 7 22Central Europe 13 25 9 47

total 45 97 77 219

Willerding 1988), aided by the nutrient-rich loess soils on which LBK settlementswere located. These soils would have enabled many years of cultivation withoutdepletion, which would thus have permitted a degree of permanence of farming.In a similar investigation of the weed assemblages on ten sites in west Germanyand Austria dated to the earliest LBK, Kreuz (1990) concludes that the specific floradescribed by Knorzer was possibly the final outcome of a development thatspanned the entire Bandkeramik period. Discussions by these authors and others(see Bogaard 2004, 2005; Kreuz in press; Kreuz et al. 2005) of LBK farming systemshave focused on the possible regirmes that sustained such distinctive suites ofcrops and weeds; harvesting methods are considered, for example, whether thecrops were harvested by sickle (and if this was done high or low on the plants) orby plucking the ears. Initial results suggest that our data may inform on this aspectof LBK farming practices; comparison of the maximum heights of the wild or weedtaxa in the data set shows that on SW Asian sites there are greater numbers ofshorter-growing taxa than on sites in SE and central Europe (Table 4: X2=13.37,df=6, p<0.05), and thus, in accordance with other authors, could indicate that thecereals were reaped higher on the culms by LBK farmers (e.g. Knorzer 1971:103;Kreuz et al. 2005:23; the latter authors demonstrate an increase in weed height fromthe earliest LBK, I, to the later LBK phases II, III-IV).

DISCUSSION: THE EVOLUTION OF THE NEOLITHIC CROP PACKAGE

There are two simple explanations for the reduction in diversity of the centralEuropean early Neolithic (LBK) crop package. The first is that a bottleneckoccurred during the initial expansion into Europe, causing a loss of diversity insubsequent Neolithic groups; or second, that the environmental conditions ofEurope were not suitable for the cultivation of many of the SW Asian crop species.The first explanation we cautiously reject, and the second does not fully accountfor the observed patterning, leaving cultural choices as significant factors affectingthe nature of the early Neolithic farming systems.We cannot find evidence to support the occurrence of a bottleneck; our

conclusion that there was reduced taxon diversity in the LBK is a generalizationand some LBK sites in central Europe do have evidence of the less frequentlycultivated crops (e.g. free-threshing wheat and naked barley; certain authors

EuRopEm JOURML oFARcimEowGy80148




COLLEDGE, CONOLLY & SHEHNAN: THE EVOLUTiON OF NEOLITHIC FARMING

consider free-threshing wheats merely as 'weeds' because their remains occurinfrequently and in low numbers on LBK sites; see Bakels in press; Kreuz et al.2005:12; Maier 1996:48), so there are exceptions to the rule. This then raises thequestion of why only a few LBK sites adopted a wider range of domestic speciesgiven the advantages that a diverse suite provides over the more narrow focus oncultivation of just a small number of grain crops (Halstead 1996).

Environmental reasons provide a stronger argument for the disparity between thefarming systems of the LBK and those of early Neolithic sites in SW Asia andelsewhere in Europe. The differences in climate between regions in which the earliestdomestic crops evolved and those where they eventually became established areconsiderable. A Mediterranean climate predominates in SW Asia, which is charac-terized by mild, rainy winters and long, hot and dry summers. Here the amount andregularity of distribution of annual precipitation is critical in determining thecomposition of the vegetation (Zohary 1973:22-28); most of the rain falls during thewinter months and for four or five of the summer months there may be drought.In contrast, a temperate climate, without extremes of temperature and precipitationand where the seasonal differences are far less pronounced, prevails in Europe. Thespread of farming from SW Asia to central and NW Europe involved the transitionbetween areas not only where summer drought or extreme winter temperatureswere decisive factors governing plant growth but also where seasonal differences inday length determined whether or not certain crops could be cultivated successfully(Harris 1996b:562).

It has been suggested of the founder crop cereals that they remain remarkablysimilar to their wild progenitors in terms of basic physiology and environmentaltolerance (Blumler 2002:102). All the wild species are suited to the extremeseasonality of the Mediterranean climate where they evolved (Zohary and Hopf2000:36, 46, 67); slight differences in tolerances do exist, however, for example wildbarley is more drought resistant than the wild wheats (Zohary and Hopf 2000:67)and wild einkorn can withstand drier conditions than wild emmer (GordonHillman pers. comm.). It follows that the domestic glume wheats and hulled barleywere not pre-adapted for growth in temperate Europe. Delays in the spread ofagriculture across the continent (e.g. in Hungary, the north European plain, theAlpine foreland: Biagi et al. 2005; Guilaine 2003) have previously been explained, inpart, by the time taken for these crops to adapt to new conditions (e.g. with respectto cold tolerance, photoperiodicity and vernalization: Bogucki 1996; Halstead 1989).By contrast, free-threshing hexaploid wheat (i.e. bread wheat) thrives in areas withtemperate and continental climates (Zohary and Hopf 2000:54-55). The addition ofthe D genome (from the wild grass Aegilops squarrosa, whose centre of distribution iscontinental/temperate central Asia) to tetraploid emmer extended the range ofadaptation of the free-threshing species, so its virtual absence from the LBK is all themore surprising.

In terms of their adaptability to a temperate climate, it would seem the cerealsthat were adopted were not the most suitable for cultivation in central or northernEurope; conversely, which pulses were grown was determined largely according totheir ability to tolerate the new conditions. For example, the failure of lentil and

149




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259060789_The_Spread_of_Early_Farming_in_Europe?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

chickpea to grow further north in Europe is due to the length of growing seasonrequired; maturation of the pods and seeds does not occur reliably in the cool,moist autumn conditions typical of the more northern latitudes (Smartt 1990:242).By contrast, pea is well adapted to both warm Mediterranean and cool temperateconditions (Smartt 1990:176; Zohary and Hopf 2000:101). It is significant, therefore,that in our data set pea is present on 83.8 per cent of the LBK sites that haveevidence of pulses and is the only species present on theNW European sites.

In sum, while the pulses are influenced by a reduction in the length of thegrowing season and an increase in moisture levels, we cannot find any evidence tosupport the proposal that climatic factors were responsible for the preferentialcultivation by the LBK farmers of the glume wheats, einkorn and emmer. Nor canwe find data to support the proposition that these species were more productivethan other cereals that occurred less frequently on early Neolithic sites in centralEurope. In contrast, the narrow focus on glume wheats is surprising given thatthey have much lower yields in comparison with the free-threshing species andare less tolerant of temperate conditions (Percival 1974:171, 188, 407-432). Theadditional labour and time necessary for processing the harvested glume wheats incomparison with the effort required for the free-threshing wheats makes it equallysurprising that they were the favoured crops of the LBK farmers.

However, the preferential use of glume wheats may have been reinforced bytheir advantages, in certain conditions, over free-threshing wheats. The robustglumes that surround the grains in the spikelets serve as protection from pestswhen the crop is in the fields (e.g. particularly from birds) and when it is storedafter harvest (Nesbitt and Samuel 1996). In areas of wetter climates storage of thecrop in spikelets rather than as fully threshed or processed grains was beneficialbecause the glumes ensured that the grains were safeguarded against insect orfungal attack until they were required for consumption (Hillman 1981, 1984;Nesbitt and Samuel 1996). Small-scale processing (i.e. pounding to release thegrains from the glumes and grinding or milling) could take place at the householdlevel, as and when groats or flour were needed. On a majority of the LBK sites inour data set (55%), for which adequate information has been recorded on thenumbers of items identified in the archaeobotanical samples (n=47), chaff (e.g.glume bases) outnumbers grains (numbers of chaff items and grains are equal on2% of sites, chaff only has been found on 4%, and on the remaining sites grainsare equal to, or outnumber chaff); our results are thus in accordance with thoseof other authors who conclude that a dominance of glume wheat chaff inarchaeobotanical assemblages is evidence of waste (i.e. burnt as fuel) from routineand regular processing of spikelets taken from storage (Fuller et al. in press;Meurers-Balke and Luning 1999:239; Stevens 2003). There is much present-day andarchaeological evidence indicating that glume wheats, as with the free-threshingwheats, have a wide range of uses, for example, in making bread, porridge, gruel,and beer (Nesbitt and Samuel 1996) and so no doubt they satisfied dietaryrequirements, both nutritionally and culturally. The chaff and straw of glumewheats are documented as being useful commodities not only for fodder and fuel,

150 EuRoPFAN JOURNAL oFAwmEowGy80




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233631863_An_Investigation_of_Agricultural_Consumption_and_Production_Models_for_Prehistoric_and_Roman_Britain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

COLLEDGE, CONOLLY & SHENNAM THE EVOLUTION OF NEOLIThiC FARMING

but also for a wide range of other domestic purposes (e.g. as roofing and beddingmaterials, for basketry, and as temper for pottery and daub, and so on); modemand ancient records suggest that in certain instances they were as valuable as thegrain (Murray 2000:526).

Archaeological evidence indicates that during the LBK there was long-term,intensive cultivation of 'garden-type' plots coupled with population growth of upto 1.5 per cent per year (Bentley et al. 2002; Bogaard 2004, 2005; Bogucki 2000).Resultant migration into uncolonized areas, in which a few members moved fromtheir birth community to found new settlements, taking with them a suite of cropsand requisite knowledge of cultivation and processing techniques, was theprimary engine for the spread of agriculture in its earliest phases. The loess soilson which LBK fields were located would have sustained cultivation for longperiods without depletion of fertility (Bogaard 2002, 2004; Bogucki 2000; Knorzer1971). The stability of the farming system enabled accumulation of acquiredknowledge about the requirements of the crops and the soils in which they grew;Bogucki (2000) proposed that after the initial investment of knowledge in how toadapt crops and livestock to central European habitats it would have beenpossible for farming to spread rapidly into new areas with suitable cultivable landwithout further modification. It is also likely that there was little subsequentmodification during the LBK because the rate of expansion inhibited the horizontaltransmission (i.e. cultural diffusion) of alternative crop species, possibly reinforcedby strong conformist tradition within these communities that biased againstinnovation. The mode of agricultural production was thus confined within limitsof inherited knowledge and resulted in conservative or 'locked-in' technologies(Bogucki 2000).

Our results indicate that the observed changes to the LBK farming system fromits ancestral form are partly, but not exclusively, environmentally driven. There arealso cultural choices against the use of crop types, principally free-threshing wheatspecies, which could succeed in temperate conditions. The selective bias in favourof glume wheats may partly be driven by the fact that they were successfullycultivated on the loess soils thus leading to a bias against innovation, as theperceived costs of experimentation with new species outweighed the uncertainbenefits (cf. Perales et al. 2005:953, with regards to a similar situation in pre-hispanic Mexico). This in turn was reinforced by the 'locked-in' nature of thecultural inheritance system that, for reasons likely to be related to relatively rapidpopulation growth and directional migration, emphasized vertical rather thanhorizontal transmission, thus reducing the exposure and experience of cropvarieties in the early Neolithic. The end result of both environmental and culturalselection is that demonstrably few taxa, that is a subset of the full ancestral suite ofdomesticates, were used by the earliest colonists. It is not until the middleNeolithic in central Europe (e.g. the Rossen Culture) that there is unequivocalevidence for the cultivation of free-threshing wheat (Bakels 1990; Maier 1996).There are suggestions that this development represents 'a second wave ofintroduction' (Bakels 1990:86), which occurred as a result of influence from thesouth, from the Cardial and Epicardial cultures of southern France.

CoLLEDGE, CoNoLLY & SHENNAir. THE EVOLUTION OF NEOLITHIC FARMING 151






https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249968038_Maize_diversity_and_ethnolinguistic_diversity_in_Chiapas_Mexico?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

152 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OFARCHAEOLOGV 8(2)

CONCLUSIONS

We consider that the greatest benefit of our broad regional approach to theinvestigation of the evolution of Neolithic farming lies in the fact that similaritiesand differences in the taxonomic composition of archaeobotanical assemblages atthis level are informative about macro-scale processes with regards to changes incrop use, from the earliest adoption of the subsistence system and throughout thesubsequent developmental stages. We have been able to identify trends that reflectthe persistence (or otherwise) of cultivation practices between regions as farmingspread from SW Asia and across Europe. As we stated, our priority from the outsetwas the analysis and integration of archaeobotanical data at a large spatial scale,including sites from the eastern and western limits of our study area, and thusrectifying the imbalance of surveys that have had a much narrower geographicalfocus.

Some authors have questioned the validity of large regional-scale analysesthat fail to accommodate the disparities inherent in data that derive from smaller-scale processes (i.e. involving pre- and post-depositional preservation of plantmaterials). While we advocate the exploration of data at a pan-regional level weare not unaware of the importance (and the interpretative value) of analyses inwhich taxonomic composition is compared on a sample-by-sample basis and forindividual sites. Of significance in these smaller-scale studies are the resultantinsights into routine practices involving plant resources at the 'household' level,and which are much more to do with the exploration of formation processes thanthe investigation of characteristics that define cultural phenomena.We acknowledge that our approach has certain limitations. However, we

maintain that the reduction in the degree of resolution of our interpretations ismore than compensated for by the ability to make comparisons unimpeded by'uneven' data. For example, because in our analyses we have used presence/absence data at the level of phase or site we have been able to avoid biases that arethe consequence of differences in either sampling and recovery methods, contexttypes (e.g. from storage pits, floors, hearths, ovens and so on), or in taphonomicprocesses, whereby patterns in the data are as likely to be influenced by sampleswith aberrantly high or low proportions of taxa.

The results of our analyses have demonstrated that there are coherent trends interms of similarities and differences of suites of crops and weeds both within andalso between regional groups of early Neolithic sites and we conclude, therefore,that considerable insight into the evolution of farming is gained by taking abroader perspective on the study of archaeobotanical data.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The comments of two anonymous reviewers improved this manuscript. Eachof the three authors contributed equally to this research, which was funded bythe UK Arts and Humanities Research Board.

EuRoPEAN JOURNAL oFARcmEoLoGy80152




COLLEDGE, CONOLLY & SHENNAM. THE EVOLUTION OF NEOLITHIC FARMING

NOTE1. The taxonomic nomenclature for the cereal crops is in accordance with that given in

Zohary and Hopf (2000). The traditional classification is adhered to for wheat (Zohary andHopf 2000: table 3), whereas for barley it was considered appropriate to refer to a modemranking of wild and cultivated forms as this is used more commonly in archaeobotanicalpublications (Zohary and Hopf 2000:65). Zohary and Hopf mention earlier systems in whichsix-row and two-row forms of barley are classified as different species. They maintain thatthis 'is genetically unjustified and the main cultivated barley types represent races of a singlecrop species: Hordeum vulgare L.' (2000:60). Naked barley (var. nudum) is thus a variety of the'H. vulgare crop complex' (2000:65).

REFERENCESBAKEIS, C., 1990. The crops of the Rossen culture: Significantly different from their

bandkeramik predecessors - French influence? In D. Cahen and M. Otte(eds), Rubane et Cardial. Actes du colloque de Liege, Novembre 1988: 83-87. Liege:Etudes et recherches archeologiques de l'Universite de Liege, no.39.

BAKELS, C., 2000. The Neolithization of the Netherlands: Two ways, one result. InA.S. Fairbaim (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond: 101-106. Oxford:Oxbow Books (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5).

BAKELS, C., in press. Nature or culture? Cereal crops raised by Neolithic Dutchfarmers on Dutch loess soils. In S. Colledge and J. Conolly (eds), The Origins,Spread and Use of Domestic Plants in Neolithic Southwest Asia and Europe.London: UCL Press.

BENTLEY, A., T.D. PRICE, J. LUNING, D. GRONENBORN, J. WAHL and P.D. FULLAGAR,2002. Human migration in early Neolithic Europe. Current Anthropology43:799-804.

BIAGI, P., S.J. SHENNAN and M. SPATARO, 2005. Rapid rivers and slow seas? Newdata for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan peninsula. In L. Nikolovaand J. Higgins (eds), Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory andEducation: 43-51. Salt Lake City, UT: Intemational Institute of Anthropology(Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6-7).

BLUMLER, M.A., 2002. Changing paradigms, wild cereal ecology, and agriculturalorigins. In R.T.J Cappers and S. Bottema (eds), The Dawn of Farming in theNear East: 95-111. Berlin: Ex Oriente (Studies in Early Near EastemProduction, Subsistence, and Environment 6).

BOGAARD, A., 2002. Questioning the relevance of shifting cultivation to Neolithicfarming in the loess belt of western-central Europe: evidence from theHambach Forest experiment. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11:155-168.

BOGAARD, A., 2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. London: Routledge.BOGAARD, A., 2005. 'Garden agriculture' and the nature of early farming in

Europe and the Near East. World Archaeology 37(2):177-196.BOGUCKI, P., 1996. The spread of early farming in Europe. American Scientist 84:

242-253.BoGuTc, P., 2000. How agriculture came to north-central Europe. In T.D. Price (ed.),

Europe's First Farmers:197-218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.COLLEDGE, S., 1998. Identifying pre-domestication cultivation using multivariate

analysis. In A.B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G. Wilcox and C.O. Qualset (eds), TheOrigins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication: 121-131. Aleppo: IntemationalCenter for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas.

COLLEDGE, S., 2001. Plant Exploitation on Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic Sites inthe Levant. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, Intemational Series 986.

153






154 Eu,io..zi JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8(2)

COLLEDGE, S., J. CONOLLY and S. SHENNAN, 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for thespread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45(Supplement):35-58.

DOLUKHANOV, P., A. SHuKuRov, D. GRONENBORN, D. SOKOLOFF, V. TIMOFEEV andG. ZAITSEVA, 2005. The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in central andeastern Europe. Journal ofArchaeological Science 32:1441-1458.

FULLER, D.Q., C. STEVENS and M. MCCLATCHIE, in press. Routine activities, tertiaryrefuse and labour organisation: social inference from everyday archaeo-botany. In M. Madella and M. Savard (eds), Ancient Plants and People.Contemporary Trends in Archaeobotany. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

GKIASTA, M., T. RUSSELL, S. SHENNAN and J. STEELE, 2003. The Neolithic transitionin Europe: The radiocarbon record revisited. Antiquity 77: 44-62.

GREENACRE, M., 1984. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. London:Academic Press.

GuILAmNE, J., 2003. Aspects de la N6olithisation en Mediterranee et en France. InA.J. Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds), The Widening Harvest. The NeolithicTransition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward: 189-206. Boston, MA:Archaeological Institute of America (Colloquia and Conference Papers 6).

HALSTEAD, P., 1989. Like rising damp? An ecological approach to the spread offarming in south east and central Europe. In A. Milles, D. Williams andN. Gardner (eds), The Beginnings of Agriculture: 23-53. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports, International Series 496.

HALSTEAD, P., 1996. The development of agriculture and pastoralism in Greece:when, how, who and what? In D. Harris (ed.), The Origins of Agriculture andPastoralism in Eurasia: 296-309. London: UCL Press.

HARRIS, D., ed., 1996a. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism inEurasia. London: UCL Press.

HARRis, D., 1996b. The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism inEurasia: an overview. In D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agricultureand Pastoralism in Eurasia: 552-573. London: UCL Press.

HILLMAN, G., 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charredremains of crops. In R. Mercer (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory:123-162. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

HILLMAN, G., 1984. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals inmodern times. Part I: the glume-wheats. Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture1:114-152.

KNORZER, K., 1971. Urgeschichtliche Unkrauter im Rheinland ein beitrag zurEntstehungsgeschichte der Segetalgesellschaften. Vegetatio 23:89-110.

KREUZ, A., 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas - eine archaobotanischeUntersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der altesten Bandkeramik.Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23:1-256.

KREUZ, A., in press. Archaeobotanical perspectives on the beginning of agriculturenorth of the Alps. In S. Colledge and J. Conolly (eds), The Origins, Spread andUse of Domestic Plants in Neolithic Southwest Asia and Europe. London: UCLPress.

KREUZ, A., E. MARINOVA, E. SCHAFER and J. WIETHOLD, 2005. A comparison of earlyNeolithic crop and weed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and theBulgarian Neolithic cultures: differences and similarities. Vegetation Historyand Archaeobotany 14:237-258.

LANGE, A.G., 1990. De Horden near Wijk bij Duurstede: plant remains from a nativesettlement at the Roman Frontier: a numerical approach. Amersfoort: ROB(Nederlandse oudheden: Kromme Rijn Projekt, 3).

MAIER, U., 1996. Morphological studies of free-threshing wheat ears from aNeolithic site in southwest Germany, and the history of naked wheats.Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 5:39-55.

154 EuRopEw JOURNAL oFARcHmowGy80







https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32894463_Neolithic_transition_in_Europe_The_radiocarbon_record_revisited?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32894463_Neolithic_transition_in_Europe_The_radiocarbon_record_revisited?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222427711_The_chronology_of_Neolithic_dispersal_in_Central_and_Eastern_Europe?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy





COLLEDGE, CONOLLY & SHENNANH THE EVOLUTION OF NEOLITHIC FARMING

MEURERS-BALKE, J. and J. LJNING, 1999. Some aspects and experiments concerningthe processing of glume wheats. In P.C. Anderson (ed.), Prehistory of Agri-culture. New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches: 238-253. Los Angeles:Institute of Archaeology, University of California (Monograph 40).

MuRRAY, M.A., 2000. Cereal production and processing. In P. Nicholson and I.Shaw (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology: 505-536. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

NESBrIr, M. and D. SAMUEL, 1996. From staple crop to extinction? The archaeologyand history of the hulled wheats. In S. Padulosi, K. Hammer and J. Heller(eds), Hulled Wheats. Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized andNegelected Crops: 41-100. Rome: Intemational Plant Genetic Resources Insti-tute (Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats,21-22 July 1995, Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy).

PERALES, H.R., B.F. BENZ and S.B. BRUSH, 2005. Maize diversity and ethnolinguisticdiversity in Chiapas, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ofthe USA 102/3:949-954.

PERCIVAL, J., 1974. The Wheat Plant. London: Duckworth.PRICE, T.D., ed., 2000. Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.ROSCH. M., 1998. The history of crops and crop weeds in south-westem Germany

from the Neolithic to modem times, as shown by archaeobotanical evidence.Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 7:109-125.

SHENNAN, S. and J. STEELE, 2000. Spatial and Chronological Patterns in theNeolithisation of Europe. URL (accessed May 2006) http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/cl4_meso/

SMARrr, J., 1990. Grain Legumes: Evolution and Genetic Resources. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

STEVENS, C.J., 2003. An investigation of agricultural consumption and productionmodels for Prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environmental Archaeology 8:61-76.

STIKA, H.-P., 2005. Early Neolithic agriculture in Ambrona, Provincia Soria, centralSpain. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14:189-197.

WILLERDING, U., 1986. Zur Geschichte der Unkrauter Mitteleuropas. GittingerSchriften Zur Vor- und Friuhgeschicht 22:1-382.

WILLERDING, U., 1988. Zur Entwicklung von Ackerunkrautgesellschaften imZeitraum vom Neolithikum bis in die Neuzeit. Forschungen und Bericht zurVor- und Friigeschichte in Baden-Wiirttemberg 31:31-41. (Der prdhistorischeMensch und seine Umwelt. Festschriftefiir Uldegard Korber-Grohne.)

ZOHARY, D., 1996. The mode of domestication of the founder crops of SouthwestAsian agriculture. In D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread ofAgriculture andPastoralism in Eurasia: 142-158. London: UCL Press.

ZOHARY, D. and M. HOPF, 2000. Domestication of Plants in the Old World (3rdEdition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ZOHARY, M., 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East (Vols I and II).Amsterdam: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Sue Colledge is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at UCL. Her interests include theapplication of quantitative methods as a means of assessing the changing use of thelandscape and of its plant resources through time. She is the author of Plant Exploitationon Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic Sites in the Levant (2001).

Address: Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square,London WC1H OPY, UK [email: [email protected]]

155




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246338287_Grain_Legumes_Evolution_and_Genetic_Resources?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246338287_Grain_Legumes_Evolution_and_Genetic_Resources?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225897871_Early_Neolithic_agriculture_in_Ambrona_Provincia_Soria_central_Spain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225897871_Early_Neolithic_agriculture_in_Ambrona_Provincia_Soria_central_Spain?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260339005_Domestication_of_Plants_in_the_Old_World?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260339005_Domestication_of_Plants_in_the_Old_World?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-96e3832cf60c5d471c92769475624a5b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyODg2NzQwO0FTOjEwNDMwOTYzNTE1ODAyN0AxNDAxODgwNzYzODMy





James Conolly is Canada Research Chair in Archaeology, Trent University. His interestsare in settlement and landscape archaeology, GIS, quantitative methods and populationhistory, especially as applied to the origins and spread of agriculture and Aegeanprehistory. He is the co-author of Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology (2006).

Address: Trent University Archaeological Research Centre, Trent University, Peterborough,Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8 [email: [email protected] Shennan is Director, Institute of Archaeology, UCL. His research relates to theapplication of biological evolutionary theory and methods to archaeology, prehistoricdemography, ethnicity, prehistoric social and economic institutions. He is author of Genes,Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution (2002).

Address: Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square,London WC1H OPY, UK [email: [email protected]

ABSTRACTSL'volution de I'agriculture neolithique des origines en Asie du sud ouest jusqu'aux frontieresd'Europe du nord ouestSue Colledge, James Conolly et Stephen Shennan

La diffusion de l'agriculture est examin&e ici en se basant sur les changements survenant dans lacomposition des ensembles archeobotaniques. Une analyse multivariate est menee sur une largebase de donnees consistant d'assemblages de plantes de sites du Neolithique ancien a traversl'Asie du sud ouest et l'Europe. Celle-ci t6moigne de modifications coherentes et significativesdans la composition de ces assortiments au cours du temps, generees en grande partie par unereduction de la diversite des cultures. Nous interpretons ces changements comme etant provoquesen partie par des facteurs environnementaux, et en partie par des facteurs culturels lies a la relativerapidite d'expansion des groupes a Ceramique Lineaire, qui empechaient la diversification descultures jusqu'a la fin du Neolithique.

Mots cles: agriculture ancienne, Culture a Ceramique Lin6aire, Neolithique, origines de l'agriculture,plantes domestiques

Die Evolution neolithischer Landwirtschaft von den sudwestasiatischen Ursprungen zu dennordwesteuropaischen GrenzenSue Colledge, James Conolly und Stephen Shennan

Die Ausbreitung der Landwirtschaft wird hier aus der Perspektive von Anderungen in derZusammensetzung archaobotanischer Proben untersucht. Wir haben dabei die multivariateAnalyse einer gr6f3eren Datenbasis von Pflanzenfunden von neolithischen Fundplatzen zwischenSudwestasien und Europa angewendet und zeigen, dass es im Laufe der Zeit zusammenhangendeund bedeutsame Anderungen in ibrer Zusammensetzung gibt, was in grof3em Mafe auf einerReduktion der Artenvielfalt der Getreidesorten beruht. Diese Veranderungen werden von uns alsteils durch Umweltfaktoren, teils durch kulturelle Grunde in Zusammenhang mit der plotzlichenAusbreitung der linearbandkeramischen Gruppen interpretiert, was die Zunahme der Getrei-dearten auch bis in spatere Phasen des Neolithikums gehindert hat.

Schliisselbegriffe: domestizierte Pflanzen, friihe Landwirtschaft, Linearbandkeramik, Neolithikum,Urspruinge der Landwirtschaft

15;6 EuivopEm JOURML oFARcHAEowGy80




M IINOAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE ATHENSl IF 2004 OLYMPIc GAMES

Anna SimandirakiUniversity of Bath, UK

Abstract: The Athens 2004 Olympic Games presented an opportunity for Greece to celebrate itsancient traditions and modem organizational skills. The organizers used archaeology as theory,iconography, idealism and so on. They particularly focused on Classical antiquity, when theGames were at their height before their modem revival. This artide, however, will examine the useof Minoan archaeology. I argue that, although there is no archaeological evidence to connectMinoan archaeology to the original Olympic Games, the modern Greek national narrative adaptedit to the current national image of the Olympic Games. I analyse this phenomenon by deconstruct-ing some of its processes, taking Crete as a case study. I also highlight broader issues, concernlingthe instrumentality of the public domain in the shaping of cultural heritage.

Keywords: Athens 2004 Olympic Games, cultural heritage, Minoan archaeology, nationalism

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between cultural heritage, particularly archaeology, and the public(i.e. anyone outside the archaeological profession, including practitioners acting inprivate) has seen a surge of interest during the past two decades (for sample dis-courses, see Baer 2001; Copeland 2002, 2004; Hodder 2003; Johnstone 1998; Kohl andFawcett 1995; Lowenthal 1985; Merriman 2004; Phillips 1998; Renfrew and Bahn1996; Silberman 1995; Smardz Frost 2004; Stone 1994; Trigger 2003; Ucko 1986). Itcovers such issues as nationalism, politics, education, fetishism, popularization,ownership, even psychoanalysis of the personal experience of the past, to list but afew. The relationship between archaeology and the public in Greece, in particular, isa relatively new area of research (see Bintliff 1984; Cadogan 2004; Coulby 2005;Farnoux 2003; Hamilakis 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996, 1999;Herzfeld 1991; Kardulias 1994; KczaOr; 2004; Mouliou 1996; Simandiraki 2004, inpress; Treuil 2003; Yalouri 2001; Zambeta 2005). This has mainly concentrated on thehistorical reasons (e.g. the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Greek Independence)that have helped shape the current perceptions of the past by Greeks and non-Greeks. It has also begun to analyse the prevalent processes behind these such aseducation and archaeological exhibitions, among others. These implicit or explicit

European Journal ofArchaeology Vol. 8(2): 157-181Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com) and

the European Association of Archaeologists (www.e-a-a.org) ISSN 1461-9571 DOI:10.1177/1461957105066938


at TRENT UNIV on September 4, 2007 http://eja.sagepub.comDownloaded from All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.


the evolution of neolithic farming from sw asian origins to nw european limits

Documents