Agricultural Dispersals in Mediterranean and Temperate Europe
Summary and Keywords
Along with ceramics production, sedentism, and herding, agriculture is a major component of the Neolithic as it is defined in Europe. Therefore, the agricultural system of the first Neolithic societies and the dispersal of exogenous cultivated plants to Europe are the subject of many scientific studies. To work on these issues, archaeobotanists rely on residual plant remains—crop seeds, weeds, and wild plants—from archaeological structures like detritic pits, and, less often, storage contexts. To date, no plant with an economic value has been identified as domesticated in Western Europe except possibly opium poppy. The earliest seeds identified at archaeological sites dated to about 5500–5200 bc in the Mediterranean and Temperate Europe. The cultivated plants identified were cereals (wheat and barley), oleaginous plant (flax), and pulses (peas, lentils, and chickpeas). This crop package originated in the Fertile Crescent, where it was clearly established around 7500 bc (final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B), after a long, polycentric domestication process. From the middle of the 7th millennium bc, via the Balkan Peninsula, the pioneer Neolithic populations, with their specific economies, rapidly dispersed from east to west, following two main pathways. One was the maritime route over the northwestern basin of the Mediterranean (6200–5300 bc), and the other was the terrestrial and fluvial route in central and northwestern continental Europe (5500–4900 bc). On their trajectory, the agropastoral societies adapted the Neolithic founder crops from the Middle East to new environmental conditions encountered in Western Europe.
The Neolithic pioneers settled in an area that had experienced a long tradition of hunting and gathering. The Neolithization of Europe followed a colonization model. The Mesolithic groups, although exploiting plant resources such as hazelnut more or less intensively, did not significantly change the landscape. The impact of their settlements and their activities are hardly noticeable through palynology, for example. The control of the mode of reproduction of plants has certainly increased the prevalence of Homo sapiens, involving, among others, a demographic increase and the ability to settle down in areas that were not well adapted to year-round occupation up to that point. The characterization of past agricultural systems, such as crop plants, technical processes, and the impact of anthropogenic activities on the landscape, is essential for understanding the interrelation of human societies and the plant environment. This interrelation has undoubtedly changed deeply with the Neolithic Revolution.
Agriculture is the relationship between an exploiting species and one or more exploited species living in an artificial cultivated ecosystem (Mazoyer & Roudart, 1997). In this sense, humans are not the only ones practicing agriculture. For exemple, Atta and Acromyrmex, two ant genera from the Americas, cultivate fungi that will constitute the essence of their alimentation. However, humans have invented many techniques and artifacts to cultivate a great number of crops. There is currently a wide variety of agricultures in the world, and even now, in the 21st century, agriculture is at the base of most human economies. But what about the first agrarian systems? When did humans become farmers? How did cultivated plants and farming techniques come to Temperate and Mediterranean Europe? Research on the earliest farming systems is highly significant, especially in a globalized context, in which new modes of production have been emerging since the 1980s to handle and patent the gene pool of cultivated plants. In Europe, the privatization of agricultural heritage, as well as experimentation to diffuse agriculture beyond Earth, is coming face to face with a renewal of old varieties and food production on a local scale. It shows that agricultural innovations are complex and not linear, even today (Bonneuil et al., 2006).
In the absence of iconographic and written sources for the ancient period, archaeological materials are the most direct evidence for the early agricultures that appeared in several places across the world from around 11,500 years to 5,000 years ago. Agriculture is one of the main components of Neolithic economy, associated with animal husbandry, potterymaking, and sedentary habitats in Western Europe (Price & Bar-Yosef, 2011). Often described as a revolution (Childe, 1925), the Neolithic period appears today like a transitional phenomenon in the Near East, as well as in the diffusion of its economy to Europe. Agriculture did not arrive suddenly. It took around 3,000 years for domesticates to spread from the Aegean to Great Britain and Ireland. But even if it was not a revolution, the invention of agriculture and its dispersal constituted a crucial change in human economy, as well as its relationship with the natural environment. Before becoming farmers and herders, human beings were predators, living lives of hunting and gathering, for a long time.
This geographical framework includes a territory stretching roughly from the Black Sea in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west. In Europe, the Neolithic period is part of the Holocene epoch, which began about 12,000 years ago. The Holocene is characterized by a global warming that followed the frosty and arid climate of the Pleistocene. The epoch is divided into several chronological zones, defined in particular by palynology (i.e., the study of pollen grains conserved in sediment). The beginning of the Neolithic corresponds with the middle of the Atlantic chronozone, characterized by the extension of deciduous oak to the detriment of the boreal forest, composed of birch, pine, and hazelnut, in Temperate Europe, as well as Scots pine and juniper in the Mediterranean. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition corresponds to the passage from a hunting/gathering to an agropastoral way of life. The transition occurred at different times over three millennia, between 7000 and 4000 bc, according to the regions of Europe and their location on the long route of diffusion of agriculture. The primary Neolithic settlement regions in Europe are, roughly, the Balkans, central Europe, and the central and northwestern areas of the Mediterranean basin. This article aims to present the emergence of agriculture in Europe in the middle of the 7th millennium bc, demonstrating the main routes of cultivated plant diffusion to Temperate and Mediterranean Europe, as well as highlighting assumptions about early Neolithic farming systems (Fig. 1).
Studying the Origin of the First Agrarian System and Its Introduction into Europe
How Is the Spread of Early Agriculture Studied?
Proxies Used to Study Early Agriculture
Interdisciplinarity is fundamental to the study of past societies, including early crop diversity and the diffusion of agriculture. Farming systems result from the combination of natural, sociocultural, economic, and technical elements (Jouve, 1988). Several types of residues, plant microfossils (phytoliths, pollen grains and starch, and organic residues), plant macrofossils (charcoal), artifacts (grinding stones and harvesting tools), and archaeozoology (bone pathology) allow the study of most of the components, especially the ecosystem context and technological practices. Synthesizing the results and integrating all the archaeological disciplines and scientific tools used, therefore, is an arduous task. Even then, this synthesis cannot be exhaustive due to the mass of data produced by archaeology (many proxies are used to study the agricultural system), the large territory in question (Europe), and the interest aroused by this huge socioeconomic transition in the scientific community (from which has come an abundant bibliography). This article concentrates on the first moments of Neolithic primary colonization in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and Temperate Europe, relying on the most direct evidence of past agricultural practices – the plant macroremains recovered from archaeological sites.
Definition and Methodology of Archeobotany
Archaeobotany is the study of seeds, fruits, and inflorescent parts from archaeological sites. Plant macroremains are collected during excavations and mostly come from sedimentary samples. Water sieving allows the extraction of fragile plant remains from their sedimentary matrix. Most often, seeds and fruits are charred in Temperate and Mediterranean Europe. This can result from one or a few specific actions in time and space—as in a burned storage structure—but also disparate events, as in the progressive accumulation of remains resulting from cooking accidents (Bouby, 2000). Others macroremains, such as cereal processing byproducts or weeds, are not related to human food but rather are direct evidence of past farming practices. Furthermore, the study of wild fruits and seeds allows us to consider the importance of gathering practices in the Neolithic productive economy, even when it is assumed that domesticated taxa constitute the main vegetal element of the human diet.
After careful separation from other macroremains (microfauna, shells, lithics, and mineral residues), seeds, fruits, and parts of the inflorescence are identified using a binocular microscope, with magnifications from about 10 to 50 times (Fig. 2). The archaeobotanical process always begins with the morphological observation of plant remains to identify the taxa. For this purpose, the archaeological specimens, often charred and damaged, are compared with specimens from modern seed comparison collections, as well as morphological botanical descriptions. The cultivated plants and evidence of their mode of production and processing that reach us are fragmentary and most often of accidental origin (as is the case with many archaeological remains). Indeed, certain types of remains, such as leaves, roots, and tubers, are not clearly identified because of their uncharacteristic anatomy and low resistance to carbonization. In addition, different sampling protocols, an unequal analytical corpus, and nonuniform, macro-level counting methods across the discipline make it difficult to integrate data from different researchers (Fig. 3). Thus, limiting filters are to be taken into account when the archaeobotanist seeks to interpret archeobotanical assemblages and create a comparative work between two regions, for example.
The first archaeobotanical studies were conducted in Egypt on desiccated seeds from pharaonic tombs, which were studied by Kunth (1826). Results from the Swiss pile-dwelling sites and the Hallstatt salt mines in Austria were published 40 years later (Heer, 1865; Unger, Lesquereux, & Hruschauer, 1851). In 1968, the creation of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany (IWGP) allowed for a united discipline, organizing an international symposium every three years in Europe, in which the study of the first farming system in the world takes an important place. The domestication of plant species and their introduction into new regions are, indeed, among the favorite subjects of archaeobotanists. From the 1980s, an increase in archaeological research has enabled the acquisition of archaeobotanical material. The reference work regarding crop domestication, reprinted several times, discusses the origin of cultivated plants and their distribution in the western and central regions of the Asiatic continent (Zohary, Hopf, & Weiss, 2012). In addition, archeobotanical syntheses and comparative works at the regional and supraregional scale in Europe have appeared in several collective works and articles (e.g., Bogaard & Jones, 2007; Chevalier, Marinova, & Peña-Chocarro, 2014; Colledge & Conolly, 2007a; Coward, Shennan, Colledge, Conolly, & Collard, 2008).
Contribution of Cultivated Plants to Understanding Early Crop Diversity
Cultivated plants (cereals, pulses, and oleaginous/textile materials) are represented by their seeds, as well as, for cereals, their envelopes (lemma and palea) and the rachis that produces the chaff. The chaff corresponds to byproducts from the processing of cereals and allows for the study of postharvesting stages, such as the way that cereals were stored (cleaned seeds, spikelets, or ears). Rachis also provides one of the best morphological traits visible through archaeobotany for discriminating wild and cultivated cereals. In a cultivated cereal, the rachis has robust scars, indicating that the ears are indehiscent (i.e., they cannot disperse by themselves, unlike wild cereals). For the same reason, and because of the cereal processing, the rachis base is often broken. Seeds or chaff imprints, used in building materials or tempered ceramic, can also provide information about the crops and the use of grain products. Seeds and chaff provide information on crop morphological diversity in the earliest stages of Neolithic dispersal.
For cultivated plants, the rank of the species, in the morphological sense of the term, is most often identifiable. Sometimes only the genus (e.g., Triticum/Hordeum) can be identified due to poor preservation of remains. Sometimes species cannot be discriminated because of similar morphological criteria (e.g., Triticum aestivum/durum), preventing the appreciation of the whole diversity of past cultivated plants.
In addition to the strictly morphological study, genetic research applied to charred plant macrofossils has been in development since the 2000s (Brown et al., 2015; Schlumbaum et al., 2008). This will provide substantial information on the origin of ancient plant remains, the process of domestication, and the genetic diversity within a field, which is not visible through the seeds or cereal rachis morphology.
Contribution of Weeds to Study the Early Farming System
Weed seeds are also conserved, even in charred conditions. Weeds, from the archaeobotanical point of view, correspond to uncultivated plants installed in the fields. They result from the cleaning of cereals or pulses and are direct indicators of the exploited agricultural environments and the agricultural techniques used. In a cultivated plot, the flora is the result of a combination of agronomic factors (e.g., the depth of plowing and the seasonality of seedlings) and the environment (e.g., precipitation, temperature, and soil properties) that interact in complex ways. Archaeological weed assemblages, therefore, are the products of past farming systems.
The identification of weeds within the rank of species is more problematic then for cultivated plants, as it depends on the preservation of the seeds, the experience of the archaeobotanists, and the richness of the reference collections of current plants. Indeed, the diversity of wild plants is much wider than cultivated plants. Moreover, botanical identification depends on several anatomical criteria (e.g., size, color of flowers, number of petals, and arrangement of leaves). However, most often, only the seed is conserved in an archaeological context.
Interpretation of weed assemblages is based on the current flora ecology and on farming experiments (Bogaard, 2002; Jones, 2005; Jones, Charles, Colledge, & Halstead, 1995). When the weed identifications are precise enough (to the specie level), the phytosociology of these plants are indicators of the mode of cultivation. Archaeological weeds can be classified according to their current cooccurrences in fields, in large classes such as Secalinetea (corresponding to winter crops) and Chenopodietea (corresponding to summer crops). However, both classes may cohabit in the same plot, and the weed flora would be influenced by how the land is worked rather than the sowing season (Behre & Jacomet, 1991; Lundström-Baudais, 1986). For example, Chenopodium album, which is regularly identified in Neolithic archaeobotanical assemblages, is found in both summer and winter crops (Bogaard, Jones, Charles, & Hodgson, 2001). It is then much less developed and has a smaller size (Lundström-Baudais, 1986). The main limit to reconstructing the Neolithic farming system in general, including the intensity of crops, the seasonality, and the sustainability of the fields, is due to the current difficulty in finding (by ethnology) or reproducing (by experimentation) farming systems in an ecological and socioeconomical setting comparable to those of past societies.
Table 1. Main Crops and Weeds Mentioned in the Text
English Common Names
Wild and Cultivated Cereals
H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum (K. Koch) Thell.
H. vulgare subsp. vulgare L.
Cultivated hulled barley
H. vulgare subsp. nudum L.
Cultivated naked barley
T. aestivum L.
T. monococcum L.
T. monococcum subsp. aegilopoides (Link) Thell.
T. turgidum L. ssp. dicoccoides (Körn. ex Asch. & Graebn.) Thell.
T. turgidum L. subsp. dicoccon (Schrank) Thell.
T. turgidum subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn.
Wild and Cultivated Pulses
C. arietinum L.
L. cicera L.
L. sativus L.
L. culinaris Medik.
P. sativum L.
V. ervilia (L.) Willd.
V. faba L.
V. sativa L.
L. usitatissimum L.
P. somniferum L.
Papaver somniferum subsp. setigerum (DC.) Arcang.
C. album L.
B. secalinus L.
B. tectorum L.
F. convolvulus (L.) Á.Löve
G. aparine L.
L. communis Juss.
S. viridis (L.) P. Beauv.
Wild/green foxtail millet
S. verticillata (L.) P. Beauv.
For the last 15 years, a method called Functional Interpretation of Botanical Survey (FIBS) has been used extensively to interpret weed assemblages. FIBS is based on the autoecology of weed species, including individual attributes such as length of growth period, canopy height, and ability to regenerate after significant soil disturbances (Bogaard, Hodgson, Wilson, & Band, 1998; Jones, Bogaard, Charles, & Hodgson, 2000). It makes it possible to go further in interpreting past agricultural regimes (intensive or extensive) and crops’ seasonality. The growth conditions of the cultivated plants (e.g., water supply and soil fertility) can also be specified thanks to the stable isotopes of carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) carried out on cereal seeds in particular (Fiorentino, Ferrio, Bogaard, Araus, & Riehl, 2015). These analyses, which will certainly develop exponentially in the future, constitute a promising tool complementary to the interpretations of archaeological assemblages of weeds to understand how plants were cultivated.
At the Origins of Agriculture in the Near East
Geographical Location of Wild Progenitors of Neolithic Crops
There is currently a consensus that crops found in European archaeological sites were not domesticated locally. Most of them come from the Near East. However, the question of domestication attempts of cereals and pulses before the arrival of Neolithic groups is still subject to debate in both Temperate and Mediterranean Europe.
Taxonomic classification, as well as cynogenetic and molecular affinities, make it possible to identify, with more or less precision, the wild ancestors of cultivated plants. However, not all of them have been identified with certainty, especially for pulses. For example, Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccoideae is the wild progenitor of emmer (Triticum dicoccum), one of the first wheats domesticated in the Near East, whereas the wild ancestor of the faba bean (Vicia faba) is still unknown (Zohary et al., 2012). The presence of wild ancestor populations in one region, therefore, is the main criterion in favor of the local domestication of this plant in the Neolithic period. By the end of the 19th century, botanists such as de Candolle (1883), and later Vavilov (1951), worked on these issues, labeling the Fertile Crescent as one of the world’s centers of plant domestication.
Most putative wild progenitors are, thus, currently absent in Western Europe except for the Balkans. Triticum aegilopoides, the ancestor of einkorn (Triticum monococcum); Lens orientalis, the ancestor of lens (Lens culinaris); and Hordeum spontaneum, the ancestor of barley (Hordeum vulgare) are present in Southeast Europe today (Redden et al., 2015; Valamoti et al., 2007; Zohary et al., 2012). Thus, the hunter-gatherers of the Balkan Peninsula had at their disposal populations of the wild progenitors of cultivated cereals and pulses. In the Franchthi Cave, in the Peloponnese (southern Greece), populations of barley, lentils, and wild oats have been found to be exploited during the Mesolithic period, in archaeological layers dating to around 7900–7500 bc (Valamoti & Kotsakis, 2007). On the following Neolithic archaeological levels, cereals and pulses were identified on the morphological base, which could suggest a domestication process at that site. However, the absence of transitional domestication traits supports the hypothesis of the sudden introduction of cultivars in their fully domesticated morphology during the Initial Neolithic, in the first half of the 7th millennium bc (Perlès, 2001).
Wild pulses and cereals are identified in other Mesolithic layers in Mediterranean Europe. For example, in the L’Abeurador, a cave located in the Massif Central (southern France), numerous charred pulses and seeds of the genera Vicia, Lathyrus, and Pisum have been identified in Mesolithic levels dating to around 9000 bc (Vaquer & Ruas, 2009). These three genera are part of the founder crop package of the Near East. Their identification rank remains imprecise due to poor conservation of macroremains. We do not know whether these Mesolithic wild pulses correspond to wild progenitors. At L’Abeurador, wild pulses have been found along with hazelnut shells, dogwood seeds, and wild grapeseeds, which were probably consumed by inhabitants of the cave. Thus, as in Franchthi Cave, wild pulses also could have been intensively picked up by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers before the introduction of cultivated plants in the Mediterranean region by Neolithic farmers.
These examples demonstrate that exploitation of wild resources, among other wild cereals and pulses that were potentially ancestors of Neolithic crops, are common in Mesolithic sites, mainly the Mediterranean region. However, intensive wild plant gathering does not necessarily involve local domestication processes. Indeed, in Neolithic Europe, the archaeological seeds and elements of cereal chaff are domestic from the morphological point of view. There are no transitory forms, as may be suspected in the Near East (Tanno & Willcox, 2006).
Process of Domestication in the Near East
The domestication of a plant is a long process. First, the wild ancestor is collected, more or less intensively. Humans, in a way, cultivate a wild population before it depends entirely on them for reproduction. The focus of domestication at the origin of the cultivated plants identified on the European Neolithic sites (mainly cereals and pulses), is located in the Fertile Crescent—that is to say, the southeast of Anatolia, the Middle Euphrates, and the Southern Levant.
The process of domestication began in the Epipalaeolithic, about 12,000 years ago. Some authors have estimated that the climatic deterioration of the recent Dryas (12,500–11,500 bp), which corresponds to the end of the last glacial period and which results in a decrease in temperatures, would have played a stimulating role in the choice of cultivation of cereals to compensate for climatic risks. According to Willcox (2005), the models explaining the transition to agriculture place too much importance on this event. Indeed, although the deterioration is undeniable, the climatic conditions had only a moderate effect on vegetation. In addition, agriculture, which depends on a stable climate, was established after the Younger Dryas, at the end of the 9th millennium bc. The availability of wild cereals, ancestors of domestic cultivars, is one of the key factors in understanding the beginning of agriculture. This availability depends on soil types, precipitation, and temperatures. In the 1990s, it was thought that there was only one center of domestication, followed by a dispersal of cultivars. Since the early 2000s, the hypothesis of polycentric domestication in the Fertile Crescent has been accepted on the basis of the distribution of wild populations, archaeobotanical data, and genetic analyses of modern cereal populations (Gebel, 2004; Willcox, 2005). The transition from harvesting to fully established agriculture was gradual, taking several hundred years (Willcox, 2007). The domestication occurred independently in two regions: southeastern Anatolia/Middle Euphrates and the Southern Levant. The presence of a water source in these regions is surely the primary necessity that led to the establishment of villages, even if the wild cereals were sometimes distant (Willcox, 2005).
The Founder Crop Package
At the end of the 8th millennium bc, corresponding to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (PPNB, 7500–7000 bc), domestic plants and animals were at the basis of subsistence. The founding crops, also called the “Neolithic crop package,” consisted of hulled cereals: einkorn (T. monococcum), emmer (T. dicoccum), and barley (H. vulgare subsp. vulgare) (Zohary, 1996). The free-treshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum) and naked barley (H. vulgare subsp. nudum) were domesticated in a second phase (Willcox, 2007). Pulses were reprented by lens (L. culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), and vetch (Vicia ervilia). Secondary pulses such as broad bean (Vicia faba) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) do not seem to have met the same success, depending on location in the Fertile Crescent, and are thus not included systematically in the founding crop package. Flax (Linum usitatissimum) is the only textile and oilseed plant in the package. Thus, the Neolithic populations that spread into Western Europe have potentially five types of cereals, at least four pulses and one oil and textile plant.
General Chronological Setting of Agriculture Dispersal to Europe
Hypotheses regarding the routes of diffusion and the parameters for the outbreaks of Neolithic migration rely on a large number of proxies, such as radiocarbon dating and the comparison of material productions, genetic, climatic, archaeozoological, and archaeobotanical data. Radiocarbon dating is the strongest tool pointing to the arrival of an agricultural economy from the Near East. Cereal grains, or associated archaeological contexts, are found earlier in the East than in the West. The diffusion westward, from the Near East via Anatolia, started from around the very beginning of the 7th millennium bc. The pioneer front of colonization spread quickly from the core zone, as shown by early evidence of cultivated plants in the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA, 9500–8700 bc) site Klimonas in Cyprus, involving as well an early knowledge of navigation techniques from at least 10,000 years ago (Vigne et al., 2012). Rapid climate deterioration (aridification) or demographic pressures are often suggested as triggers for the diffusion process to Western Europe (Berger & Guilaine, 2009; Bocquet-Appel, 2011; Weninger et al., 2006).
By the mid-1960s, Clark (1965) proposed a model of diffusion from the Near East to Western Europe starting before 5200 bc. Since then, thanks to the increasing number of archaeological excavations and radiocarbon datings, which are also more precise, the diffusion of the Neolithic economy has become better understood. In the early 1970s, a new theory proposed an advancement at an average speed of about 1 km/year (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza, 1971). However, the linear progress is questioned because even if it was indeed fast, barriers are recorded in several European regions, as in the Pô plain (northern Italy), the Biscay Bay (north of Spain), and the Hungarian plains. Currently, the arrhythmic diffusion, or the boom-and-bust model, is the most popularly argued theory (Guilaine, 2003; Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003; Shennan, 2013). It should be noted that it is the movements of the components of the Neolithic economy (notably, the seeds of cultivated plants), not strictly those of the people that are considered (Rasse, 2008).
Two main streams of diffusion to Europe are identified: by maritime route, along the north Mediterranean coasts (Impressa/Cardial route), and by land, along the main water courses of Southeast and Central Europe, such as the Danube and the Rhine (Danubian route) (Rowley-Conwy, 2011). Climate (late frosts in temperate zones) and topography (mountainous areas) are probably not the only factors to have influenced the rhythm and the diffusion trajectories of the first farmers in Europe. Internal factors specific to each of the Neolithic societies certainly greatly influenced their way of managing the sustainability of their socioeconomic systems (Manning, Colledge, Crema, Shennan, & Timpson, 2016; Rasse, 2008).
The question of the contribution of local Mesolithic groups to the spread of Neolithic economy is also still widely discussed (e.g., Hadjikoumis, Robinson, & Viner, 2011). Diffusion processes may take slightly different forms (e.g., contacts, exchanges, or acculturation), depending on cultural contexts and geographical locations. For example, despite arguments in favor of the introduction of fully domesticated plants in Franchthi Cave, the artifacts (i.e., stone tools and ornaments) present a strong continuity between the Mesolithic and Neolithic horizons, which could correspond to a brief acculturation episode by local hunter-gatherers during the “Initial Neolithic” (Perlès, 1990). This could be a local phenomenon that cannot be applied generally to all sites with a succession of Mesolithic and Neolithic levels in southern Greece (Perlès, Quiles, & Valladas, 2013). This example illustrates quite well the probably complex process of Neolithic economy diffusion from the Near East to Europe, especially in the Balkans, at the origin of the two main streams of Neolithization to the west and north of the European continent.
Diversity of Crops and Farming Systems in Mediterranean and Temperate Europe in the Neolithic
Diversity of First Cultivated Plants in the Balkans
Chronocultural Background of Agriculture Dispersal in the Balkans
The east of the Balkan Peninsula (Greece, Macedonia, and Bulgaria) is the first point from which the Neolithic economy spread quickly to Europe. Based on the evidence presented in ceramic and lithic artifacts and architecture, this complex has a clear Near Eastern origin, in the cultural continuity of the final PPNB period (Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003). The Neolithic economy arrived in the Peloponnese and Macedonia about 6500 cal bc, before the first evidence in Thessaly and Bulgaria, suggesting that multiple points of contact could have occurred during the second half of the 7th millennium bc in the Aegean and Balkans (Lespez et al., 2013; Perlès et al., 2013). Thus, migration from Anatolia to the Aegean and Thrace regions may not correspond to a single event, but rather to separate waves of diffusion, both by sea and on land (Özdoğan, 2011). The Struma, Maritsa, and Vardar valleys in southwest Bulgaria could be the primary routes of Neolithic diffusion to the interior of the Balkan Peninsula around 6200–6100 bc, with the Karanovo and the Starčevo/Körös/Criş cultures (Lichardus-Itten, Demoule, Perničeva, & Grebska-Kulova, 2006). The first farming groups settled in fertile open lands of the Great Hungarian plain and would give birth to the widespread Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture in Central Europe (see “Diversity of the First Cultivated Plants in Temperate Europe”). They were probably not greatly constrained by the environment, especially in the eastern Balkan Peninsula. In addition, the hunter-gatherers’ population density was probably very low at the time of their arrival.
The settlement types are varied. There are caves, such as Franchthi, which can be interpreted as a shepherd shelter that is seasonal or complementary to a permanent site that has not been discovered yet (Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003). Perennial sites are also encountered. They present square or rectangular house plans of varying sizes, constructed of brick or cob, as in Neo Nikomedeia in Macedonia or Kovačevo in Bulgaria (Lichardus-Itten, 2012). Both types of sites have provided archaeobotanical material. The fine pottery was generally painted. Sheep and goats seem to predominate at the very beginning of farming diffusion (Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003).
The west of the peninsula is often considered separately in archaeological literature, probably because this region doesn’t correspond, from a cultural point of view, to the Balkano-Anatolian complex. Two routes of diffusion to the Adriatic and south of the Carpathians are identified (Forenbaher et al., 2013; Orton, Gaastra, & Linden, 2016). The maritime route corresponds to the so-called Impressed Ware culture (6100 bc; see “Diversity of First Cultivated Plants in the Mediterranean”).
Crop Diversity in the Balkans
A consequent amount of archaeobotanical studies have been carried out in this pioneer colonization zone [i.e., Bulgaria and Greece (Colledge, Conolly, & Shennan, 2004, 2007b; Marinova, 2007; Marinova, Tonkov, Bozilova, & Vajsov, 2012, Marinova & Valamoti, 2014; Valamoti & Kotsakis, 2007)]. On the other hand, there are not many pieces of data available to the east of the Balkan Peninsula, especially for early Neolithic coastal settlements.
In these regions, the crop package is consistent with what is known in the Near East. It is composed of hulled wheat; hulled and naked barley; free-threshing wheat; a range of pulses such as lentil, pea, chickpea, and bitter vetch; and flax. From a quantitative point of view, hulled wheat varieties (emmer and einkorn) seem to be the most important crops in southeast Europe (Marinova & Valamoti, 2014). However, the quantitative criterion is not very relevant for comparing, as the hulled/naked wheat ratio depends on the chronology of the archaeological sites, the number of sites and samples studied, taphonomy, and past human practices.
Few qualitative variations can be noted in the group of pulses between Greece and southwest Bulgaria. First, chickpea is present but sparse. It seems that this pulse is not present in the north of Greece, although it has been identified in many sites in South Bulgaria, such as Kovačevo. However, in this site, chickpea is associated with the more recent stages (from 5600 bc) of the Neolithic in Southern Bulgaria, while it is not mentioned in the north (Marinova & Popova, 2008; Valamoti & Kotsakis, 2007). This confirms that the Neolithic economy might have penetrated Europe at many different points and times. Thus, not all plants came suddenly, suggesting a potential break in the transmission process. Second, grass pea is continuously present in southeast Europe, regarding the founder crop package, and the importance of this pulse in the Balkans is pointed out (Kislev, 1989; Valamoti & Kotsakis, 2007). Indeed, concentrations of grass pea have regularly been identified in Early Neolithic sites in Bulgaria and Greece (Valamoti, Moniaki, & Karathanou, 2011). Lathyrus cicera, the putative wild ancestor of L. sativus, is distributed in Turkey, as well as Greece and Transcaucasia (Zohary et al., 2012).
Diversity of First Cultivated Plants in the Mediterranean
Chronocultural Background of Agriculture Dispersal in the Mediterranean
A synthesis of radiocarbon dates, many on cereal seeds, from early Neolithic sites in Italy, southern France, and Iberia indicates that the spread of the Neolithic economy took place between 5700 and 5500 bc, by the maritime route (Zilhão, 2014). It therefore took no more than a couple of centuries to spread from the Thyrrenian Sea to the Albora coast. The diffusion of human groups, their economy, and their ideas over more than 3,000 km of coastal territories was then quite rapid, but probably not linear and continuous (Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003). The ceramic style, as well as radiocarbon dating compilation, indicates that different Neolithic groups may have arrived simultaneously around 5700 bc at different points in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula (Morales Hidalgo, Fontanals Torroja, Oms Arias, & Vergès Bosch, 2010). Furthermore, a long period of stasis seems perceptible before the first domesticated plants reached north-central Spain (Zilhão, 2014). Indeed, Biscay Bay, in the Cantabrian region, was not reached until the middle of the 5th millennium, as evidenced by wheat grain emmer dating to 4400 bc (Peña-Chocarro et al., 2005). At first, the pioneering advance seems to have become rather concentrated in the coastal areas before quickly moving inland, and even into higher altitudes via major river systems (Guilaine & Manen, 2007).
These pioneer communities are part of a large cultural entity, defined mainly on ceramic decoration and technology, called the Impressa/Cardial complex. In the central and western Mediterranean Basin, the ceramic paste was decorated with impressions and incisions with fingers, nails, varied tools, or shell edges, such as cardium, which gave its name to the Cardial culture (Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003). Impressa ceramics are more characteristic of the early Neolithic in Italy and southeast France, while the Cardial style is encountered in the western part of the Mediterranean Basin.
Village organization and extent, as well as architectural techniques for housing, are not well known for the Early Neolithic in the Mediterranean. Many settlements are found in the open air with light structures, or in rock shelters, which do not lend themselves to the conservation of archaeological structures or archaeobotanical remains. Rich and fertile soils in the valley floors seem to have been appreciated and utilized by the first farming communities for their settlements, as along the central coast of the Iberian Peninsula (Pérez-Jordà & Peña-Chocarro, 2013). A few sites have been preserved under waterlogged conditions, allowing for an outstanding preservation of organic material. Many wooden posts were discovered at La Marmotta (on Bacciano Lake in central Italy) and at La Draga (on Banyoles Lake in northeast Spain). These huts could correspond to long-term open-air settlements, the building of which would need a substantial labor investment (Fugazzola Delpino & Tinazzi, 2010). These two types of habitats could be interpreted as the coexistence of different mobility patterns (semimobile or permanent) and economic strategies (herders or farmers) from the early Neolithic (Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003). The same variations are visible in the livestock package, in which the proportions of pigs, sheeps/goats, cows, and wild fauna, as well as sheep morphotypes, are different depending on location and whether the sites are attributed to the Impressa or Cardial culture (Rowley-Conwy et al., 2013; Vigne, 2007).
Crop Diversity in the Mediterranean
In Italy, despite the substantial amount of sites studied, the number of remains identified is generally low. However, some Early Neolithic sites, as La Marmotta in Central Italy and Sammardenchia in the Pô Plain, have been subject to systematic archaeobotanical studies, which allow for a substantial overview of the crop package in the coastal Central Mediterranean (Rottoli & Pessina, 2007; Rottoli & Castiglioni, 2009). In France, the amount of data to date is very weak (Gassin et al., 2010). In the Iberian Peninsula, several sites have yielded important and well-preserved data sets, as on the lakeshore site of La Draga in Catalonia and Cova de l’Or and Los Castillejos on the southeastern coast of the peninsula (Antolín & Buxó, 2011, 2012; Rovira, 2007). Recent regional syntheses give substantial data on cultivated plants in these regions and the variation of crop package composition at the supraregional scale (Antolín, Jacomet, & Buxó, 2015; Buxó, 2007; Peña-Chocarro et al., 2013; Pérez Jordà & Peña-Chocarro, 2013; Zapata, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez-Jordá, & Stika, 2004).
From a qualitative point of view, the Neolithic crop package (especially cereals) is equivalent to the Balkans and the Near East. The first farmers in the central and western Mediterranean have grown einkorn; emmer; free-threshing wheat; hulled and naked barley; a wide range of pulses, such as lentils, peas, beans, vetches, and grass peas; and flax. The set of cultivated plants is highly diversified. On Cardial sites from southern France and the Iberian Peninsula, naked cereals predominate, while emmer and einkorn appear to be predominant to the east, in the Central Mediterranean (Antolín & Buxó, 2012; Buxó, 2007; Gassin et al., 2010; Peña-Choccaro et al., 2013). However, the more or less rigorous division between hulled cereals in the Impressa culture and naked cereals in the Cardial culture needs to be confirmed by further studies. Indeed, in the northeast of the Iberian Peninsula, the proportions of naked and hulled cereals vary depending on the site (Antolín & Buxó, 2012). Hulled cereals have been identified in some other sites on the central coast of Catalonia. In other sites, such as La Draga, the naked wheats dominate. There are no taphonomic, geological, or pedological features to explain these differences, indicating that several agricultural traditions in the choice of main cereals may have coexisted as soon as the early Neolithic at the microregional scale (Antolín & Buxó, 2011, 2012). The two types of cereals (naked or hulled) do not have the same requirements (in terms of dehusking, for example) and involve different technical systems. However, the comparison of proportion is based on many cereals identified at the genus level (Triticum or Hordeum), which prevents a clear view of the naked/hulled dominances in the region. Moreover, this example illustrates quite well the limits of the sole morphological identification of the taxa to address early crop diversity. Indeed, genotype differences can be recorded within a field of wheat that looks visibly homogeneous, as it is currently highlighted in the western Mediterranean (Oliveira et al., 2012).
Regarding pulses, chickpea is absent from the Impressa/Cardial route, which indicates that it was not diffused by the very first farmers (Colledge, Conolly, & Shennan, 2005). The reasons for this neglect are still poorly understood. It may or may not have been a conscious choice. Indeed, explanations of an exclusively environmental nature are difficult to substantiate, since all other taxa domesticated in the Near East are identified in the Mediterranean stream. Furthermore, we note the addition of common vetch (Vicia sativa) and broad bean (Vicia faba) as minor components of the crop package in the Mediterranean (Antolín & Buxó, 2012; Rottoli & Pessina, 2007; Rottoli & Castiglioni, 2009). The findings of a large amount of broad bean in early-PPNB occupation levels of Tell el-Kerkh (northwest Syria) and in a middle-PPNB storage structure at Yiftah’el (Israel) could also point toward an early cultivation of this pulse in the area where the Neolithic crop package originated (Kislev, 1989). There is a real difficulty in differentiating wild and domesticated forms because of the overlapping of seed size, especially as these pulses could also be considered as a contaminant in cultivated fields (Zohary et al., 2012). Furthermore, charred archaeological pulses are very fragile, which does note facilitate their identification (Tanno & Willcox, 2006). Thus, the origin and diffusion of pulses remains a largely unknown part of early agriculture across the Mediterranean basin, as well as in the Near East.
An additionnal species, opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), completes the Mediterranean crop package and has not, to date, been identified, further east in the Balkan Peninsula and the Near East (see “Looking for the origin of opium poppy in Western Europe”). At La Marmotta, seeds preserved in carbonized and uncarbonized form, charred capsules, and stigmatic disks were discovered (Rottoli & Pessina, 2007). In Spain, poppy has been identified in sites such as La Draga, Los Murceliagos, and La Lampara (Antolín & Buxó, 2012; Stika, 2005).
Diversity of the First Cultivated Plants in Temperate Europe
Chronocultural Background of Agriculture Dispersal in Temperate Europe
The Neolithic economy spread from south-central Europe, approximately following the Danube watershed, into northwestern continental Europe during the 6th millennium bc. The first farmers of south-central Europe appear in the Starčevo/Körös/Criş complex (6100–5500 bc), which extend from Transdanubia to the Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania. Around 5600 bc, the LBK culture emerged in southwestern Slovakia and western Hungary, to the north of Lake Balaton (Gronenborn, 1999). In this area, the relationship between LBK culture and the Starčevo/Körös/Criş complex is still subject to debate (Stadler & Kotova, 2010).
Around 5500 bc, the LBK culture began its rapid first phase of expansion westward, reached the Rhine by 5300 bc, and, during a second phase, extended to the Paris Basin, ending around 4900 bc (Bogucki, 2003). To the east, LBK groups settled during the late 6th millennium bc in western Ukraine (Bogucki, 2000). LBK material production shows some variation depending on location and chronology of the site. However, the cultural identity of the pioneer farmers is strong enough to follow the route of early agriculture diffusion through Temperate Europe from Southwest Ukraine to the Paris Basin. This culture is characterized by a broad distribution of similar pottery types and decoration, as well as long houses with a rectangular layout. The decoration of pots—incised linear forms in bands or ribbons—provided the name for this archaeological culture (Linearbandkeramik, Linear Ceramic, or Rubané). Houses and villages are clearly sedentary. The negatives of wood posts, called post holes, make it possible to trace the ground plan of the Danubian houses, which could measure between 10 and 45 meters (Coudart, 1998). The first farmers settled mainly on loessic patches, which are assumed to have a high natural fertility (Catt, 2001), and uninhabited zones separate clusters of villages from each other. LBK emergence is believed by some to be linked to an increase of wetter and colder climatic conditions, and its collapse to warmer and drier conditions (Dubouloz, 2008).
Crop Diversity in Temperate Europe
The Neolithic crop package in Central and Northwest continental Europe is quite well known, thanks to many archaeobotanical studies carried out in LBK sites (e.g., Bakels, 1978; Knörzer, 1997; Kreuz, 2007; Kreuz, Marinova, Schäfer, & Wiethold, 2005; Salavert, 2011).
In the Starčevo/Körös/Criş sphere, at the origin of farming in Central Europe, the diversity of crops may be underestimated. Indeed, the plant economy of the Starčevo/Körös/Criş is mainly known through imprints in daub and ceramics. However, few sites from this period provide charred macroremains, which allow for an overview of the plants cultivated by the first farmers in South-Central Europe (Bogaard, Krause, & Strien, 2011; Colledge & Conolly, 2007b; Gyulai, 2010; Reed, 2015). To date, the list of crops is rather smaller. Both hulled wheats (einkorn and emmer) and, sometimes barley, lens, and peas are identified. The arrival of naked wheat seems to have been delayed to the end of the 6th millennium bc, which corresponds to Late Neolithic (Reed, 2015).
In LBK sites, the range of crops is also relatively narrow (Bakels, 2009; Colledge et al., 2005; Kreuz et al., 2005; Kreuz, 2007; Salavert, 2011). The general pattern shows that einkorn dominated central European sites for the duration of the LBK culture (Kreuz, 2007). Einkorn has a good resistance to lodging that could explain the choice of this cereal, despite its lower yield compared to emmer (Kreuz, 2007). However, west of the Rhine, in the southern Limbourg, Hesbaye, and Hainaut regions, emmer clearly dominates, whether the grains or chaff are taken into account (Salavert, 2011). Thus, a climatic hypothesis cannot be the only motivation behind humans’ choices in their farming strategies. Concerning barley, hulled and naked forms are scarce, which gives an unknown status to this taxon. Barley, as with naked wheat, whose findings are anecdotal, may have been considered a weed in LBK fields rather than a true crop plant (Kreuz, 2007). However, even if the barley form (hulled or naked) is not always specified in archaeobotanical counting tables because of bad conservation of the charred caryopses, naked barley seems more frequent in the western part of the LBK cultural extension, more precisely in the Hainaut and Parisian Basin, and could thus be part of the crop package in these peripheral regions of the primary Neolithic economy dispersal (Bakels, 2009; Salavert, 2011). Indeed, naked barley has been recognized at Wange and Overhespen in the north of Hesbaye (Bakels, 1992) and in four LBK sites in the Aisne valley in France (Bakels, 1999).
The group of pulses is composed of lentils and peas. In the group of fiber/oleaginous plants, in addition to flax, opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) appears only in sites dated from 5300 bc and related to the second phase of LBK extension (Bakels, 1996; Kreuz, 2007; Salavert, 2011).
There is, thus, a clear decrease of crop diversity in Temperate Europe. This reduction corresponds to a moment of rupture in the diffusion of the Neolithic economy. The dynamic slows down, or stops, for several centuries on the level of the Hungarian plain. This pause allowed human societies, as well as the animals and plants that they transported, to adapt to different climatic conditions (more humidity, longer winter) than those encountered previously. However, the cultural argument—that is to say, the choice made by the first farmers of Temperate Europe—cannot be ignored, as hulled wheats also can be successful in temperate environments (Colledge et al., 2005). This break could have enabled the groups to acquire agricultural know-how before being able to spread them into western and eastern Temperate Europe (Bogucki, 2000).
Early Farming Systems in Mediterranean and Temperate Europe
The definition of Neolithic farming systems (more precisely, the seasonality of crops or the maintenance techniques of soil fertility) is at the center of archaeobotanical research, which relies on weeds and stable isotope analyses.
In Central Europe, the specific diversity of weeds is also restricted. The most common species are Bromus secalinus, Chenopodium album, Fallopia convolvulus, and Lapsana communis. These are the main components of the plant association Bromo-Lapsanetum-Praehistoricum, defined by Knörzer (1971) based on weed assemblages. However, this association is no longer observed in cultivated fields in Central Europe. According to several authors, it would show the presence of fields, permanent or not, cultivated every year with the same methods throughout the LBK territory, which would cause a well-defined combination of weeds (Bakels, 1978, 2009; Knörzer, 1971). It is difficult to interpret extinct associations to reconstruct past agricultural practices such as the size of fields, their sustainability, and the seasonality of crops.
For a long time, the practice of slash-and-burn agriculture was suggested to explain the rapid expansion of early farmers in the forest environment of Central Europe. The principle is as follows: A forested area is cultivated over a short period (one to five years) after being cleared and burned. Organic burned material provides nutrients that improve agricultural yield. After this short period, crops are moved to another area that has undergone the same treatment (Bogaard, 2002), allowing the initial site time to recover. However, the presence of long-lived Neolithic LBK sites such as Langweiler 8 and Vaihingen and der Enz (Germany), as well as the spatial proximity of villages, do not offer an economic area wide enough to allow the operation of the system in each village across many generations.
Furthermore, the comparison of weed censuses from current experimental fields, in addition to a large number of archaeological weeds that have been precisely identified and come from deposits resulting from the processing of harvests of emmer and einkorn, exclude the possibility of shifting cultivation in the Early Neolithic in Temperate Europe (Bogaard, 2002). Indeed, with a shifting cultivation system, perennial weeds dominate. However, in archaeological assemblages, perennial weeds account for only 2% of the samples taken into account, and annual weeds greatly dominate.
Thanks to weed autoecology, Bogaard (2004) has suggested that Early Neolithic farmers would have practiced intensive and permanent agriculture on a limited surface, usually near settlements. The sustainability of the fields was permitted, thanks to a strong supply of animal manure and weeding. The main sociotechnological implications are agricultural production at the domestic scale, strong integration between livestock and agriculture, and probably a very significant investment of labour and time (Jones, 2005; Saqalli et al., 2014). For example, manuring and weeding would be six to seven times more labor intensive than shifting cultivation (Pétrequin, Pétrequin, & Schaal, 2015). In the Balkans, the contribution of manure, as evidenced by nitogen isotope values (δ15N), was integrated into agricultural systems from the very beginning of the spread of Neolithic economics (Bogaard et al., 2013; Fraser, Bogaard, Schäfer, Arbogast, & Heaton, 2013). Furthermore, at Vaihingen an der Enz, Germany, the integration of archeobotanical analyses, especially weed autoecology (such as soil pH requirements), as well as ceramic typology on a site almost completely excavated, has led to claims of a sort of clanic/group organization, with the distribution of cultivated areas according to group membership and a transfer of plots from generation to generation (Bogaard et al., 2011).
The Early Neolithic farming system in the Western Mediterranean has not been described in detail, mainly because of badly preserved archaeological weed assemblages at current sites. Statistical approaches, with precise identification based on substantial data sets, cannot yet be applied (Antolín & Buxó, 2012). Furthermore, it is far too early to formulate a general trend applicable to the whole Mediterranean region. At Los Castilleros, weed assemblages indicate permanent fields (Rovira, 2007). It seems that “most common taxa are annual plants typical of disturbed areas that could grow as arable weeds in irrigated or dry fields” (Antolín & Buxó, 2012, p. 99). The most common taxa are Chenopodium album and Galium aparine. The very few forest taxa in the assemblages could indicate that early farmers in Spain did not use the shifting cultivation (Antolín, Buxó, Jacomet, Navarrete, & Saña, 2014). The ecological requirements of annual plants and the flowering length indicate relatively intensive perturbations as well as long-term and intensively managed sowing of plots in autumn and possibly spring (Antolín et al., 2015; Peña-Chocarro et al., 2013).
Looking for the Origin of Opium Poppy in Western Europe
Identification of Wild and Cultivated Poppy
Opium poppy is a significant addition in the Neolithic crop package in Meditterranean and Temperate Europe. Opium poppy could be one of the unique plants domesticated in the European territory during the Neolithic. The origin and diffusion of the plant in Western Europe are yet to be understood, especially the question of its wild progenitor.
The family Papaveraceae occurs in temperate and subtropical climates. Today, its main distribution is around the Mediterranean region and the Middle East (Baser & Arslan, 2014). Papaver somniferum subsp. setigerum is often considered to be the wild ancestor of Papaver somniferum subsp. Somniferum, which is the cultivated form (Hammer, 1981; Zohary et al., 2012). However, recent botanical results based on their geographical distribution and the morphological characteristics of poppy identify three subspecies of poppy cultivated at present: P. somniferum subsp. setigerum, P. somniferum subsp. Songaricum, and P. somniferum subsp. somniferum. The putative wild ancestor can therefore also be considered as a cultivated form by botanists (Baser & Arslan, 2014).
The Western and Central Mediterranean is the region of origin for wild poppy that is most often mentioned in archaeobotanical literature (Bakels, 1996; Knörzer, 1971; Schultze-Motel, 1979). However, wild populations of poppy have developed in other geographical areas, including Central Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean (Salavert, 2010). Given the range of opium poppy, based on the occurrence of its wild ancestor and the evidence of current phytogeography, its origin is difficult to identify. The wild and cultivated forms of P. somniferum are interfertile, and wild populations that are supposed to be “authentic” may be naturalized populations or escaped from cultivated fields (De Candolle, 1883; Ladizinsky, 1998). This is why some authors believe that there are currently no known true wild populations of opium poppy in the world (Merlin, 1984; Chouvy, 2001). The wild ancestor and the natural distribution zone of wild poppy, therefore, are imprecise and may not be confined to the Western Mediterranean.
The morphological criteria to distinguish wild from cultivated seeds in archaeological records are not established. The poppy seed is small (less than 1 mm in diameter) and spherical. It has multiple facets and is pentagonal and hexagonal edged with a slight bulge (Fig. 5). Capsules and stigmatic discs of opium poppy also have been identified at archaeological sites.
Although cultivated seeds are generally larger than wild seeds, there are no valid criteria for differentiating them (Hammer, 1981). The variability of cultivated poppy seeds is very broad and also covers the wild form. It is therefore impossible to distinguish between the seeds, as well as the capsules, of wild and cultivated poppy, especially from the Neolithic period. Furthermore, the number of seeds identified at archaeological sites is generally low. Particular taphonomical conditions must be present to preserve the seeds, and the remains most often originate from a single sample. This rarity can be attributed to the small size of the seeds, which requires a suitable sieving method (0.25 μm mesh). In the same way, the oil content of the seed does not predispose it to preservation. Finally, processes of poppy transformation may not necessitate contact with fire, which weakens the chances that the seeds will be charred and thus preserved at archaeological sites.
Earliest Neolithic Poppy on Archaeological Sites
The largest number of Neolithic archaeological sites that have delivered poppies are located in the Impressa/Cardial and LBK complexes in Western Europe. In the current state of research, about 30 sites dated between 5200 and 5000 bc have delivered seeds of P. somniferum in the LBK. Sites are located in the area delimited by the province of Hesse (Germany) in the east and Hainaut (Belgium) in the west (Salavert, 2010). The seeds are absent from the earliest LBK sites (5500–5300 bc), even in the case of sites located east of the Rhine, and appear only during the second phase of LBK expansion, after 5300 bc. Outside this zone, several determinations are mentioned in France, Austria, and Poland, still at LBK sites dating between 5200 and 5000 bc (Salavert, 2011). Thus, the opium poppy is well established in the LBK context, particularly in the northwestern extension of the culture. In the Impressa/Cardial complex, a large quantity of carbonized and noncharred seeds, capsules, and stigmatic disks was found at the lakeside site of La Marmotta (Italy), dated by radiocarbon and dendrochronology between 5500 and 5400 bc (Kromer, 2009). At the site of La Draga (Spain), charred and watterlogged seeds were identified in one Neolithic structure. The archaeological level is dated between 5400 and 5100 bc, with a majority of dates between 5250 and 5150 bc (Antolín & Buxó, 2011). The opium poppy is mentioned in at least three other Cardial sites dated between 5200 and 4900 bc (Antolín & Buxó, 2012; Salavert, 2011). The importance of the plant in the Neolithic Mediterranean has probably been underestimated because of the small size of the seeds and the mode of conservation (charred), which is not suitable for oleaginous seeds. The Eastern Mediterranean also has delivered poppy. A waterlogged seed was found at the Atlit-Yam Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) site in Israel (Kislev, Hartmann, & Galili, 2004). The series of radiometric datings obtained at the site ranges from about 7400 and 5900 bc. This is the single identification of P. somniferum in the Near Eastern Neolithic. The antiquity of the PPNC opium poppy seed can be questioned, on the one hand, by its isolated nature in a region heavily investigated by archaeobotanists, and on the other hand, by the fact that only one (watterlogged) seed was discovered on this submerged site very favorable to the preservation of organic material. No opium poppy has been mentioned in Neolithic sites in Southeast Europe.
The Spanish and Italian arcaheological identifications, in a region supposedly at the origin of the (also supposed) ancestor of the plant, are weakly anterior to LBK Europe. The limitations of the comparisons of dating are real (particularly the inaccuracy of radiocarbon datings), but above all, the fact that it is not the poppy seeds that are directly dated, but other materials (bones, charcoal) sometimes localized in other structures or archaeological layers that date the whole site or the occupation phase.
Scenario of Domestication and Diffusion
Absolute datings from the sites of the Early Neolithic period in Western Europe do not clearly indicate where the opium poppy was cultivated for the first time. One possibility is that the poppy accompanied the dispersal of Neolithic pioneer communities with other cultivated plants originating in the Near East, such as wheats, pulses, and flax. This hypothesis is uncertain because this plant has not been discovered, to date, in the earliest LBK sites (the Starčevo/Körös/Criş or Balkano-Anatolian complex).
If we assume that the origin of the plant is the Western Mediterranean, poppy could have integrated the LBK area under its wild or cultivated form. The contacts between the Neolithic populations of Southern and Northern Europe also have long been observed in archaeological artifacts. They are, for example, established between the Cardial-Epicardial farmers and the LBK populations through ceramic decorations (e.g., Meier-Arendt, 1966; Guilaine & Manen, 1997) and ornaments (Bonnardin, 2009). In addition, wild plants, such as Bromus sterilis/tectorum and perhaps Setaria viridis/verticillata, identified occasionally in LBK sites, originate from the Mediterranean regions (Oberdorfer, 1990). Thus, it is not surprising that seeds of Mediterranean origin are identified in LBK archaeobotanical assemblages.
There have been no discoveries of incised capsules or other elements that would make it possible to understand the use of this plant by early farmers. Poppy can be grown for its oil, or the seeds may have been added to food preparations and consumed. The psychotropic properties may not have been unknown to the Neolithic societies. Furthermore, in Vaihingen an der Enz, it seems that only the houses located in the southeast of the site have adopted this plant. No different taphonomic conditions from the rest of the village could explain this spatial distribution. This could indicate a different social status of certain people as favored contacts with the Southern Cardial (Bogaard et al., 2011) or particular knowledge about poppy cultivation.
Spread of Agriculture to Northern and Western Europe
The presence of cultivated plants is a marker of the spread of the agrarian economy, especially when the seeds are dated directly to the radiocarbon, and are accompanied by weeds. On this basis, there is no convincing evidence of Mesolithic agriculture to date in the north and northwestern margins of Europe which correspond to southern Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland, as well as Britain and Ireland (Behre, 2007; Sørensen & Karg, 2014; Tresset, 2015). The diffusion of cultivated plants is attested there from 4000 bc, which marks the beginning of the initial Neolithic, a little less than a millennium after the decline of the LBK culture in central and western Temperate Europe (see “Diversity of the First Cultivated Plants in Temperate Europe”). During this millennium, different archaeological cultures developed there, such as Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, Rössen, Epi-Rössen, Michelsberg, or Chasséen. Their social, cultural, and economic structures are significantly different from those of the LBK pioneer farmers who travelled along the Danube from 5500 bc. Concerning cultivated plants, naked cereals have been developed, in particular tetraploid wheat (Triticum durum/turgidum), probably under the influence of neolithic populations from the western Mediterranean (Bakels, 2009).
The modalities for the introduction of cultivars at the beginning of the 4th millennium in the northern and western Europe are still discussed. The particular points are the progressive adoption of agriculture by indigenous mesolithic groups, the sudden arrival of cultivars thanks to small groups of experimented farmers from central Europe, as well as the importance of cereals compared to gathering/fishing/hunting products, in the early Neolithic diet (Rowley-Conwy, 2004; Jones & Rowley-Conwy, 2007; Thomas, 2008; Kreuz et al., 2014; Sørensen & Karg, 2014; Jones & Sibbesson, 2016). Several factors are proposed to explain the relaunch of the crop diffusion to new geographical areas at the beginning of the 4th millennium bc: demographic pressures; a warmer and drier climate around 4000 bc, which would extend the spring growing season for cereals; or the search for good flint sources (Bonsall et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2000; Sørensen & Karg, 2014).
According to radiocarbon dates, only three centuries have been needed to adopt the Neolithic economy, suggesting the arrival of small groups of experienced farmers in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany (Sørensen & Karg, 2014). Similarly, for southern Scandinavia, mitochondrial DNA studies show a close relationship between Neolithic individuals belonging to the northern Funnelbeaker culture (TRB or TBK), developing in northern Germany to the territory of Sweden, with those of Central Europe (Malmström et al., 2015). In Britain and Ireland, pollen records show that the disturbances of initial Neolithic people activities were sudden and rapid in deciduous forest (Woodbridge et al., 2014). However, seeds of cultivated cereals are still often identified in small amounts around 4000 bc (Jones & Rowley-Conwy, 2007). The agrarian economy seems fully established from 3750 bc in Ireland (Whitehouse et al., 2014; McClatchie et al., 2016) and from 3600 bc in northern Germany (Kirleis et al., 2012). However, taphonomic factors may explain the weak data set related to early Neolithic settlements in these areas (Jones & Rowley-Conwy, 2007).
Archaeobotanical syntheses from southern Scandinavia (northern Germany, Denmark, and southern and western Sweden) show that the main cultivated plants identified in the Funnelbeaker context, corresponding to local early and middle Neolithic, are emmer and einkorn, as well as naked barley and bread wheat (Robinson, 2003; Larsson & Broström, 2011; Kirleis & Fischer, 2014). For northern Germany, poppy and pulses are not identified at the very beginning of the period (Kirleis & Fischer, 2014). Recently, discoveries of naked tetraploid wheat in southern Scandinavia support a possible cultural interaction between the Funnelbeaker and contemporaneous neolithic groups in Central Europe, such as the Michelsberg culture, where this cereal is widely cultivated (Kirleis & Fischer, 2014; Kreuz et al., 2014). In the same way, the Michelsberg crop package is characterized by weak evidence of pulses (lentils and pea) and oleaginous/fiber plants (Kreuz et al., 2014). In Ireland, the early Neolithic is characterized by a mixed blend of cereals composed mainly of emmer, some naked wheat (T. astivum/durum/turgidum), and naked barley. Einkorn is rare. Flax is present from the beginning of the Neolithic, while pulses are absent (McClatchie et al., 2014, 2016).
This is a very rapid view of the spread of the Neolithic economy based on cereal cultivation in the northern margins of Europe. The northern and northwestern parts of Europe are therefore characterized by the importance of hulled wheat, but also free-treshing wheat and naked barley, which corresponds to the main cereals cultivated by the Neolithic groups of Central Europe at the beginning of the 4th millennium bc. Pulses are rare (Colledge et al., 2005). The characterization of farming systems is still in progress. In England, preliminary studies indicate a high rate of annual plants compared to perennial weeds characteristic of fields cultivated by a slash-and-burn system (Bogaard et al., 2007). As in Ireland, the intensive system of fixed and perennial fields in the landscape is favored (McClatchie et al., 2014).
To summarize these findings, the dispersal route of agriculture into Mediterranean and Temperate Europe is rather well known, thanks to archaeology. The diffusion of the Neolithic economy was rapid and spanned about 1,500 years, from 6500 bc in Greece to the beginning of the 4th millennium bc in Ireland (Fig. 6). The maritime route of agriculture dispersal, along the Mediterranean coasts, presents a minimal loss of diversity compared to agricultural origins in the Near East. Only the chickpea did not spread with the very first farming communities in the Balkans. Naked cereals are included in the crop package, but it seems that hulled wheats were preferred at the very beginning of the Neolithic diffusion (Balkans and Impressa). The habitat types (caves, rock shelters, open-air sites) are diversified, as are the crops that the first Mediterranean farmers cultivated from 6500 to 5500 bc. Farming practices need further investigation. Thanks to palaeocological studies, it seems that the first farming groups in the Western Mediterranean may have had a heterogeneous impact, in terms of timing and spatial extent, on the oak forests, which we assume earlier Mesolithic groups modified only sparsely (Revelles, in press; Thiébault, 1988).
In Temperate Europe, the habitat types are more homogeneous and the Neolithic crop package presents a low diversity. Cultivated fields are probably long-lasting and may have been managed on the domestic scale for several family generations. This transfer goes hand in hand with the high investment required for agricultural work and the maintenance of the sustainability of the field (thanks to manure). It also implies a strong territorial settling of the groups of the early Neolithic in the Danubian sphere in the second half of the 6th millennium bc. Studies on daily firewood gathered near the LBK sites of the first farmers in Belgium show the rapid increase in heliophilic taxa of hedges (Maloideae, for example). This dynamic may indicate the rapid opening of forest areas for the establishment of fields and their maintenance near habitats, as well as local anthropic pressure on the landscape (Salavert, Bosquet, & Damblon, 2014a; Salavert & Dufraisse, 2014b). Less than one millennium after the end of the LBK culture, the agriculture saw a second wave of dispersal to northern and western Europe. As during the LBK, the high percentages of Maloideae and Corylus indicate that impact of Funnel beaker farmers on forest may have occurred on a small scale (Jansen et al., 2014).
The two routes, maritime and continental, thus show different dynamics in diffusion processes, cultures, and farming practices. Opium poppy is the main addition in western Europe, and its use concerns both regions. Many points must be highlighted to go further in the research on poppy domestication and uses. First, its wild progenitor is still not recognized with absolute certainty. Second, the status (wild or cultivated) of early Neolithic poppy is not understood, thanks to its seed morphology. Finally, the radiocarbon dating is indirect and not accurate enough to trace the diffusion process with precision. However, thanks to archaeological data, we do know that poppy was probably not integrated into the Neolithic crop package from the Near East or the Balkans. It seems to have been introduced in the Central and Western Mediterranean basin, from about 5400 bc at the earliest, but most of the discoveries are from around 5200 bc, both in Mediterranean and Temperate Europe. The proximity of radiocarbon dating indicates that the diffusion from south to north might have been very rapid. The cultivation or the gathering of opium poppy does not seem to be shared by all farmers within an LBK village. Thus, the plant seems to have had a different status than traditional crops, such as hulled wheat and pulses, in the Neolithic economy.
Cultivated plants are now known to be the basis of human alimentation in the Early Neolithic, although gathering also continued to be practiced, especially for foods such as hazelnuts, wild apples, and wild grapes. However, this part of the Neolithic diet, along with the status of wild trees in the farming system of the Early Neolithic, is not well understood. There are many aspects of the dispersal (notably crop diversity) and components of the farming system that need further investigations. The A-DNA and stable isotope research currently in development will surely enhance our knowledge in this subject without neglecting archaeobotanical studies, which are still at the base of our knowledge of the very first farming communities in Europe.
Bogaard, A., & Halstead, P. (2015). Subsistance practices and social routines in Neolithic Southern Europe. In C. Fowler, J. Harding, & D. Hofmann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook Neolithic Europe (pp. 385–410). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Cappers, R. T., & Neef, R. (2012). Handbook of plant palaeoecology. Groningen: Barkhuis.Find this resource:
Demoule, J.-P. (Ed.). (2009). La révolution néolithique dans le monde. Paris: CNRS Editions.Find this resource:
Guilaine J. (2000). La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe: une hypothèse arythmique. La difusión de L’ agricultura en Europa: una hipótesis aritmética. Zephyrus, 53–54, 267–272.Find this resource:
Ammerman, A. J., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1971). Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man New Series, 6(4), 674–688.Find this resource:
Antolín, F., & Buxó, R. (2011). L’explotació de les plantes: contribució a la història de l’agricultura i de l’alimentació vegetal del neolític a catalunya. In A. Bosch, J. Chinchilla, & J. Tarrús (Coords.), El poblat lacustre del neolític antic de La Draga: Excavacions de 2000–2005, Monografies del CASC 9 (pp. 147–174). Girona, Spain: CASC-Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya.Find this resource:
Antolín, F., & Buxó, R. (2012). Chasing the traces of diffusion of agriculture during the early neolithic in the western Mediterranean coast. Rubricatum. Revista del Museu de Gavà, 5, 95–102.Find this resource:
Antolín, F., Buxó, R., Jacomet, S., Navarrete, V., & Saña, M. (2014). An integrated perspective on farming in the early Neolithic lakeshore site of La Draga (Banyoles, Spain). Environmental Archaeology, 19, 241–255.Find this resource:
Antolín, F., Jacomet, S., & Buxó, R. (2015). The hard knock life. Archaeobotanical data on farming practices during the Neolithic (5400–2300 cal bc) in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Archaeological Science, 61, 36–44.Find this resource:
Bakels, C. C. (1978). Four Linearbandkeramik settlements and their environment: A palaeoecological study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo, and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia XI. Leiden, The Netherlands: Modderman Stichting/Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.Find this resource:
Bakels, C. C. (1992). The botanical shadow of two early Neolithic settlements in Belgium: carbonized seeds and disturbances in a pollen record. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 73, 1–19.Find this resource:
Bakels, C. C. (1996). Fruits and seeds from the Linearbandkeramik settlement at Meindling, Germany, with special reference to Papaver somniferum. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 25, 55–68.Find this resource:
Bakels, C. C. (1999). Archaeobotanical investigations in the Aisne valley, northern France, from the Neolithic up to the early Middle Ages. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 8, 71–77.Find this resource:
Bakels, C. C. (2009). The Western European loess belt. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science.Find this resource:
Baser, K. H. C., & Arslan, N. (2014). Opium poppy. In Z. Yaniv & N. Dudai (Eds.), Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the Middle-East (pp. 305–332). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.Find this resource:
Behre, K.-E. (2007). Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around central Europe? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 16, 203–219.Find this resource:
Behre, K. E., & Jacomet, S. (1991). The ecological interpretation of archaeobotanical data. In W. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, & K. E. Behre (Eds.), Progress in Old World palaeoethnobotany (pp. 81–108), Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.Find this resource:
Berger, J.-F., & Guilaine, J. (2009). The 8200calBP abrupt environmental change and the Neolithic transition: A Mediterranean perspective. Quaternary International, 200, 31–49.Find this resource:
Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. (2011). The agricultural demographic transition during and after the agriculture inventions. Current Anthropology, 52, S497–S510.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A. (2002). Questioning the relevance of shifting cultivation to Neolithic farming in the loess belt of Europe: Evidence from the Hambach Forest experiment. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 11, 155–168.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A. (2004). Neolithic farming in Central Europe. London: Routledge.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A., Fraser, R., Heaton, T. H., Wallace, M., Vaiglova, P., Charles, M., …, Andersen, N. H. (2013). Crop manuring and intensive land management by Europe’s first farmers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 12589–12594.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A., Hodgson, J. G., Wilson, P. J., & Band, S. R. (1998). An index of weed size for assessing the soil productivity of ancient crop fields. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 7, 17–22.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A., & Jones, G. (2007). Neolithic farming in Britain and central Europe: Contrast or continuity? Proceedings of the British Academy, 144, 1–20.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A., Jones, G., Charles, M., & Hodgson, J. G. (2001). On the archaeobotanical inference of crop sowing time using the FIBS method. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 1171–1183.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A., Krause, R., & Strien, H.-C. (2011). Towards a social geography of cultivation and plant use in an early farming community: Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west Germany. Antiquity, 85, 395–416.Find this resource:
Bogaard, A., & Walker, A. (2011). Plant use and management at Măgura-Buduiasca (Teleor 003), southern Romania: Preliminary report on the archaeobotanical analysis. Brussels: Report for the European Union, 1–23.Find this resource:
Bogucki, P. (2000). How agriculture came to North-Central Europe. In T. D. Price (Ed.), Europe’s first farmers (pp. 197–218). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Bogucki, P. (2003). Neolithic dispersals in riverine interior Central Europe. In A. Ammerman & P. Biagi (Eds.), The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: Looking back, looking forward (pp. 249–272), Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers 6.Find this resource:
Bonnardin, S. (2009). La Parure funéraire au Néolithique ancien dans les bassins parisien et rhénan: Rubané, Hinkelstein et Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. Mémoire de la société préhistorique française 49. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française.Find this resource:
Bonneuil, C., Demeulenaere, E., Thomas, F., Joly, P.-B., Allaire, G., & Goldringer, I. (2006). Innover autrement ? La recherche face à l’avènement d’un nouveau régime de production et de régulation des savoirs en génétique végétale. Dossiers de l’environnement de l’INRA, 30, 29–51.Find this resource:
Bonsall, C., Macklin, M. G., Anderson, D. E., & Payton, R. W. (2002) Climate change and the adoption of agriculture in north-west Europe. European Journal of Archaeology, 5(1), 9–23.Find this resource:
Bouby, L. (2000). Restituer les pratiques agraires par la carpologie archéologique. Études Rurales, 153–154, 177–194.Find this resource:
Brown, T. A., Cappellini, E., Kistler, L., Lister, D. L., Oliveira, H. R., Wales, N., & Schlumbaum, A. (2015). Recent advances in ancient DNA research and their implications for archaeobotany. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 24, 207–214.Find this resource:
Buxó, R., (2007). Crop evolution: New evidence from the Neolithic of west Mediterranean Europe. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Eds.), The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe (pp. 155–171). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Catt, J. A. (2001). The agricultural importance of loess. Earth-Science Reviews, 54, 213–229.Find this resource:
Chevalier, A., Marinova, E., & Peña-Chocarro, E. (Eds.). (2014). Plants and people: Choices and diversity through time. Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxford Books.Find this resource:
Childe, G. (1925). The dawn of European civilization. London and New York: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co., and A. A. Knopf.Find this resource:
Chouvy, P. A. (2001). Le pavot à opium et l’homme. Origines géographiques et premières diffusions d’un cultivar. Annales de Géographie, 618, 182–194.Find this resource:
Clark, J. G. D. (1965). Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 31, 58–73.Find this resource:
Colledge, S., & Conolly, J. (Eds.). (2007a). The origins and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Colledge, S., & Conolly, J. (2007b). The neolithisation of the Balkans: A review of the archaeobotanical evidence. In P. Biagi & M. Spataro (Eds.), A short walk through the Balkans: The first farmers of the Carpathian basin and its adjacent regions (pp. 25–38). Trieste, Italy: Quaderno 12, Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia.Find this resource:
Colledge, S., Conolly J., & Shennan, S. (2004). Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology, 45S, 3–38.Find this resource:
Colledge, S., Conolly J., & Shennan, S. (2005). The evolution of Neolithic farming from SW Asian origins to NW European limits. European Journal of Archaeology, 8, 137–156.Find this resource:
Coudart, A. (1998). Architecture et société néolithique: l’unité et la variance de la maison danubienne. Paris, France: Ed. de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Find this resource:
Coward, F., Shennan, S., Colledge, S., Conolly, J., & Collard, M. (2008). The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to northwest Europe: A phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 42–56.Find this resource:
Cristiani, E., Radini, A., Edinborough, M., & Borić, D. (2016). Dental calculus reveals Mesolithic foragers in the Balkans consumed domesticated plant foods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(37), 10298–10303.Find this resource:
De Candolle, A. (1883). Origine des plantes cultivées. éd. 1. Paris: Germer Baillière.Find this resource:
Dubouloz, J. (2008). Impacts of the Neolithic demographic transition on Linear Pottery Culture settlement. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds), The Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences (pp. 207–235). Berlin: Springer.Find this resource:
Fiorentino, F., Ferrio, R. P., Bogaard, A., Araus, J. L., & Riehl, S. (2015). Stable isotopes in archaeobotanical research. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 24, 215–227.Find this resource:
Forenbaher, S., Kaiser, T., & Miracle, P.T. (2013). Dating the East Adriatic Neolithic. European Journal of Archaeology, 16, 589–609.Find this resource:
Fraser, R. A., Bogaard, A., Schäfer, M., Arbogast, R., & Heaton, T. H. R. (2013). Integrating botanical, faunal, and human stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values to reconstruct land use and palaeodiet at LBK Vaihingen an der Enz, Baden-Württemberg. World Archaeology, 45(3), 492–517.Find this resource:
Fugazzola Delpino, M. A., & Tinazzi, O. (2010). Dati di cronologia da un villaggio del Neolitico Antico. Le indagini dendrocronologiche condotte sui legni de La Marmotta (lago di Bracciano-Roma), in Miscellanea in ricordo di Francesco Nicosia, Studia Erudita, Fabrizio Serra Editore.Find this resource:
Gassin, B., Bicho, N. F., Bouby, L., Buxó, R., Carvalho, A., Clemente Comte, I., …, Zapata, L. (2010). Variabilité des techniques de récolte et traitement des céréales dans l’occident méditerranéen au Néolithique ancien et moyen: facteurs environnementaux, économiques et sociaux. In A. Beeching, F. Thirault, & J. Vital (Eds.), Economie et société à la fin de la préhistoire. Actualité de la recherche. Actes des 7e Rencontres méridionales de Préhistoire récente, Bron, 3 et 4 Novembre 2006. Documents d’archéologie en Rhône-Alpes et Auvergne n° 34 (pp. 19–38). Lyon, France: ALPARA, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.Find this resource:
Gebel, H. G. (2004). There was no centre: The polycentric evolution of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Neo-lithics, 1(4), 28–32.Find this resource:
Gronenborn, D. (1999). A variation on a basic theme: The transition to farming in southern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory, 13, 123–210.Find this resource:
Guilaine, J. (2003). De la vague à la tombe. La conquête néolithique de la Méditerranée. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Find this resource:
Guilaine, J., & Manen, C. (1997). Contacts Sud-Nord au Néolithique ancien: Témoignages de la grotte Gazel en Languedoc. In C. Jeunesse (Dir.), Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine (pp. 301–311). Actes du 12e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Strasbourg, Octobre 1995. Association pour la promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace (Monographie d’Archéologie alsacienne 3).Find this resource:
Guilaine, J., & Manen, C. (2007). From Mesolithic to early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean. In A. Whittle & V. Cummings (Eds.), Going over: The Mesolithic-NeolithicTtransition in the North-West Europe (pp. 21–51). Proceedings of the British Academy 144, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Gyulai, F. (2010). Archaeobotanical research at the Körös culture site of Íbrany-Nagyerdő and its relationship to plant remains from contemporaneous sites in Hungary In J. K. Kozłowski & P. Raczky (Eds.), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starčevo/Körös culture (pp. 219–237). Kraków, Poland, and Budapest, Hungary: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, and Institute of Archaeological Sciences of the Eötvös Loránd University.Find this resource:
Hadjikoumis, A., Robinson, E., & Viner, S. (Eds.). (2011). The dynamics of neolithisation in Europe. Studies in honour of Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Find this resource:
Hammer, K. (1981). Problems of Papaver somniferum-classification and some remarks on recently collected European poppy land-races. Kulturpflanze, XXIX, 287–296.Find this resource:
Heer, O. (1865). Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten. Zürich, Switzerland: Druck von Zürcher und Furrer.Find this resource:
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.Find this resource:
Jansen, D., & Nelle, O. (2014). The Neolithic woodland—archaeoanthracology of six Funnel Beaker sites in the lowlands of Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 154–163.Find this resource:
Jones, G. (2005). Garden cultivation of staple crops and its implications for settlement location and continuity. World Archaeology, 37, 164–176.Find this resource:
Jones, G., Bogaard, A., Charles, M., & Hodgson, J. G. (2000). Distinguishing the effects of agricultural practices relating to fertility and disturbance: A functional ecological approach in archaeobotany. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, 1073–1084.Find this resource:
Jones, G., Charles, M., Colledge, S., & Halstead, P. (1995). Towards the archaeobotanical recognition of winter-cereal irrigation: an investigation of modern weed ecology in northern Spain. In H. Kroll & R. Pastemak (Eds.), Res Archaeobotanicae—9th Symposium IWGP (pp. 49–68). Kiel, Germany: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Christain- Albrecht-Universität.Find this resource:
Jones, G., & Rowley-Conwy, P. (2007). On the importance of the cereal cultivation in the British Neolithic. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Eds.), The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe (pp. 391–419). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Jones, A. M., & Sibbesson, E. (2016). Archaeological complexity: Materials, multiplicity and the transitions to agriculture in Britain. In B. Alberti, A. M. Jones, & J. Pollard (Eds.), Archaeology After Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory. London: Routledge.Find this resource:
Jouve, P. (1988). Quelques réflexions sur la spécificité et l’identification des systèmes agraires. Les Cahiers de la Recherche Développement, 20, 5–16.Find this resource:
Kirleis, W., Klooß, S., Kroll, H., & Müller, J. (2012). Crop growing and gathering in the northern German Neolithic: a review supplemented by new results. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 21, 221–242.Find this resource:
Kirleis, W., & Fischer, E. (2014). Neolithic cultivation of tetraploid free threshing wheat in Denmark and Northern Germany: implications for crop diversity and societal dynamics of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 23(1), 81‑96.Find this resource:
Kislev, M., Hartmann A., & Galili, E. (2004). Archaeobotanical and archaeoentomological evidence from a well at Atlit-Yam indicates colder, more humid climate on the Israeli coast during the PPNC period. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(9), 1301–1310.Find this resource:
Kislev, M. E. (1989). Origins of the cultivation of Lathyrus sativus and L. cicera (Fabaceae). Economic Botany, 43, 262–270.Find this resource:
Knörzer, K. (1971). Urgeschichtliche Unkräuter im Rheinland ein beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Segetalgesellschaften. Vegetation, 23, 89–110.Find this resource:
Knörzer, K. H. (1997). Botanische untersuchung von 16 neolitischen siedlungsplätzen im bereich der Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Düren und Aachen. In J. Lüning (Ed.), Studien zur neolitischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte und ihrer Umgebung (pp. 1–21). Bonn, Germany: Rheinland-Verlag GMBH.Find this resource:
Kreuz, A. (2007). Archaeobotanical perspectives on the beginning of agriculture north of the Alps. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Dirs.), The origins and spread of domestic plants in southwest Asia and Europe (pp. 259–294). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press/UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications.Find this resource:
Kreuz, A., Marinova, E., Schäfer, E., & Wiethold, J. (2005). A comparison of early Neolithic crop and weed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and the Bulgarian Neolithic cultures: Differences and similarities. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 14, 237–258.Find this resource:
Kreuz, A., Märkle, T., Marinova, E., Rösch, M., Schäfer, E., Schamuhn, S., & Zerl, T. (2014). The Late Neolithic Michelsberg culture – just ramparts and ditches? A supraregional comparison of agricultural and environmental data. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 89(1), 72–115.Find this resource:
Kromer, B. (2009). Radiocarbon and dendrochronology. Dendrochronologia, 27(1), 15–19.Find this resource:
Kunth, C. (1826). Recherche sur les plantes trouvées dans les tombeaux égyptiens par M. Passalacqua. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 8, 418–423.Find this resource:
Ladizinsky, G. (1998). Plant evolution under domestication. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Find this resource:
Larsson, L., & Broström, S.-V. (2011). Meeting for Transformation. A Locality for Ritual Activities during the Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker Culture in Central Sweden. Current Swedish Archaeoly, 19, 183–201.Find this resource:
Lespez, L., Tsirtsoni, Z., Darcque, P., Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H., Malamidou, D., Treuil, R., …, Oberlin, C. (2013). The lowest levels at Dikili Tash, northern Greece: A missing link in the Early Neolithic of Europe. Antiquity, 87, 30–45.Find this resource:
Lichardus-Itten, M. (2012). Un bâtiment exceptionnel du Néolithique ancien à Kovačevo (Bulgarie). Les nouvelles de l’archéologie, 127, 25–30.Find this resource:
Lichardus-Itten, M., Demoule, J-.P., Perničeva, L., & Grebska-Kulova, M. (2006). Kovacevo, an early Neolithic site in South-West Bulgaria and its importance for the European Neolithization. In L. Gatsov & H. Schwarzberg (Eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: The present state of research on the early Neolithic (pp. 83–94). Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 5.Find this resource:
Lundström-Baudais, K. (1986). Etude paléoethnobotanique de la station III. In P. Pétrequin (Ed.), Les sites littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs (Jura), I, Problématique générale, L’exemple de la station III (pp. 311–392). Paris: Ed. de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Find this resource:
McClatchie, M., Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Whitehouse, N. J., Schulting, R. J., Barratt, P., & McLaughlin, T. R. (2014). Neolithic Farming in North-Western Europe: Archaeobotanical Evidence from Ireland. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 206–215.Find this resource:
McClatchie, M., Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Whitehouse, N. J., Schulting, R. J., Barratt, P., & McLaughlin, T. R. (2016). Farming and Foraging in Neolithic Ireland: An Archaeobotanical Perspective. Antiquity, 90(350), 302–318.Find this resource:
Malmström, H., Linderholm, A., Skoglund, P., Storå, J., Sjödin, P., Gilbert, M.T.P., Holmlund, G., Willerslev, E., Jakobsson, M., Lidén, K., & Götherström, A. (2015). Ancient mitochondrial DNA from the northern fringe of the Neolithic farming expansion in Europe sheds light on the dispersion process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, 20130373.Find this resource:
Manning, K., Colledge, S., Crema, E., Shennan, S., & Timpson, A. (2016). The cultural evolution of Neolithic Europe. EUROEVOL Dataset 1: Sites, Phases and Radiocarbon Data. Journal of Open Archaeology Data, 5, e2.Find this resource:
Marinova, E. (2007). Archaeobotanical data from the early Neolithic of Bulgaria. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Eds.), The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe (pp. 93–109), Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Marinova, E., & Popova, T. (2008). Cicer arietinum (chick pea) in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Bulgaria: Implications for cultural contacts with the neighbouring regions? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17, 73–80.Find this resource:
Marinova, E., Tonkov, S., Bozilova, E., & Vajsov, I. (2012). Holocene anthropogenic landscapes in the Balkans: the palaeobotanical evidence from southwestern Bulgaria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 21, 413–427.Find this resource:
Marinova, E., & Valamoti, S. (2014). Chapter 3.2. Crop diversity and choices in the prehistory of SE Europe: The archaeobotanical evidence from Greece and Bulgaria. In A. Chevalier, E. Marinova, & L. Peña-Chocarro (Eds.), Plants and people: Choices and diversity through time (pp. 64–74). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Find this resource:
Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. (1997). Histoire des agricultures du monde. Du Néolithique à la crise contemporaine. Paris: Seuil.Find this resource:
Mazurié de Keroualin, K. (2003). Genèse et diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe. Agriculteurs, chasseurs, pasteurs. Paris: Ed. Errance.Find this resource:
Meier-Arendt, W. (1966). Die Bandkeramische Kultur im Untermaingebiet. Veroffentlichung des Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege im Regierungsbezirk Darmstadt. Bonn, Germany: Rudolf Habelt 3.Find this resource:
Merlin, M. D. (1984). On the trail of the ancient opium poppy. Rutherford, Madison, Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Find this resource:
Morales Hidalgo, J. I., Fontanals Torroja, M., Oms Arias, F. X., & Vergès Bosch, J. M. (2010). La chronologie du Néolithique ancien cardial du nord-est de la péninsule Ibérique. Datations, problématique et méthodologie. L’Anthropologie, 114, 427–444.Find this resource:
Oberdorfer, E. (1990). Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora für Deutschland und angrenzende Gebiete. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.Find this resource:
Oliveira, H. R., Campana, M. G., Jones, H., Hunt, H. V., Leigh, F., Redhouse, D. I., …, Jones, M.-K. (2012). Tetraploid wheat landraces in the Mediterranean basin: Taxonomy, evolution, and genetic diversity. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e37063.Find this resource:
Orton, D., Gaastra, J., & Linden, M. V. (2016). Between the Danube and the deep blue sea: Zooarchaeological meta-analysis reveals variability in the spread and development of Neolithic farming across the western Balkans. Open Quaternary, 2, 6.Find this resource:
Özdoğan, M. (2011). Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthropology, 52, S415–S430.Find this resource:
Peña-Chocarro, L., Pérez-Jordá, G., Morales Mateos, J., & Zapata, L. (2013). Neolithic plant use in the western Mediterranean region: Preliminary results from the AGRIWESTMED Project. Annali di Botanica, 3, 135–141.Find this resource:
Peña-Chocarro, L., Zapata, L., Iriarte, M. J., González Morales, M., & Straus, L. G. (2005). The oldest agriculture in northern Atlantic Spain: New evidence from El Mirón Cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria). Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 579–587.Find this resource:
Pérez Jordà, G., & Peña-Chocarro, L. (2013). Agricultural production between the 6th and the 3rd millennium cal bc in the central part of the Valencia region (Spain). In M. Groot, D. Lentjes, & J. Zeiler (Eds.), Barely surviving or more than enough? The environmental archaeology of subsistence, specialization, and surplus food production (pp. 81–100),. Leiden, The Netherlands: Sidestone Press.Find this resource:
Perlès, C. (1990). Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). T. II: Les industries du Mésolithique et Néolithique initial (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, fasc. 5). Bloomington-Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:
Perlès, C. (2001). The Neolithic in Greece: The farming communities in Europe. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Perlès, C., Quiles, A., & Valladas, H. (2013). Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece). Antiquity, 87, 1001–1015.Find this resource:
Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.-M., & Schaal, C. (2015). Chapitre 26. Introduction: Rythmes d’occupation des villages et agriculture céréalière. In P. Petrequin & A. M. Petrequin (Eds.), Clairvaux et le “Néolithique Moyen Bourguignon” (pp. 1129–1150). Cahiers de la MSHE C. N. Besançon: Ledoux, Besançon, PUF et CRAVA.Find this resource:
Price, P. T., & Bar-Yosef, O. (2011). The origins of agriculture: New data, new ideas. Current Anthropology, 52(S4), S163–S174.Find this resource:
Rasse, M. (2008). La diffusion du Néolithique en Europe (7000–5000 av. J.-C.) et sa représentation cartographique. M@ppemonde, 90, 1–22.Find this resource:
Redden, R., Yadav, S. S., Maxted, N., Dulloo, M. E., Guarino, L., & Smith, P. (2015). Crop wild relatives and climate change. John Wiley and Sons.Find this resource:
Reed, K. (2015). From the field to the hearth: Plant remains from Neolithic Croatia (ca. 6000–4000 cal bc). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 24, 601–619.Find this resource:
Revelles, J. (in press). Archaeoecology of Neolithisation. Human-environment interactions in the NE Iberian Peninsula during the Early Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.Find this resource:
Robinson, D. E. (2003). Neolithic and Bronze Age Agriculture in Southern Scandinavia – Recent Archaeobotanical Evidence from Denmark. Environmental Archaeology, 8(2), 145–165.Find this resource:
Rottoli, M., & Castiglioni, E. (2009). Prehistory of plant growing and collecting in northern Italy, based on seed remains from the early Neolithic to the Chalcolithic (c. 5600–2100 cal B.C.). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 18, 91–103.Find this resource:
Rottoli, M., & Pessina, A. (2007). Neolithic agriculture in Italy: An update of archaeo-botanical data with particular emphasis on northern settlement. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Eds.), The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe (pp. 141–153). California: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Rovira, N. (2007). Agricultura y gestión de los recursos vegetales en el Sureste de la penín- sula Ibérica durante la Prehistoria reciente. PhD diss. Universitad Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.Find this resource:
Rowley-Conwy, P. (2004). How the west was lost. A reconsideration of agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology, 45(S4), S83–S113.Find this resource:
Rowley-Conwy, P. (2011). Westward ho! The spread of agriculture from Central Europe to the Atlantic. Current Anthropology, 52, S431–S451.Find this resource:
Rowley-Conwy, P., Gourichon, L., Helmer, D., & Vigne, J.-D. (2013). Early domestic animals in Italy, Istria, the Tyrrenian Islands, and southern France. In S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning, & S. Shennan (Eds.), The origins and spread of domestic animals in Southwest Asia and Europe (pp. 161–194). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Salavert, A. (2010). Le pavot (Papaver somniferum) à la fin du 6e millénaire av. J.-C.en Europe occidentale. Anthropobotanica, 1, 1–14.Find this resource:
Salavert, A. (2011). Plant economy of the first farmers of central Belgium (Linearbandkeramik, 5200–5000 B.C.). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 20, 321–332.Find this resource:
Salavert, A., Bosquet, D., & Damblon, F. (2014a). Natural woodland composition and vegetation dynamic during the Linearbandkeramik in north-western Europe (central Belgium, 5200–5000 B.C.). Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 84–93.Find this resource:
Salavert, A., &, Dufraisse, A. (2014b). Understanding the impact of socio-economic activities on archaeological charcoal assemblages in temperate areas: A comparative analysis of firewood management in two Neolithic societies in Western Europe (Belgium, France). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 35, 153–163.Find this resource:
Saqalli, M., Salavert, A., Bréhard, S., Bendrey, R., Vigne, J.-D., & Tresset, A. (2014). Revisiting and modelling the woodland farming system of the early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (LBK), 5600–4900 B.C. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 23(1), 37–50.Find this resource:
Schlumbaum, A., Tensen, M., & Jaenicke-Després, V. (2008). Ancient plant DNA in archaeobotany. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17, 233–244.Find this resource:
Schultze-Motel, J. (1979). The prehistoric remains of the opium poppy (P. somniferum) and the theory of the species. Kulturplanze, 27, 207–216.Find this resource:
Shennan, S. J. (2013). Demographic continuities and discontinuities in Neolithic Europe: Evidence, methods, and implications. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(2), 300–311.Find this resource:
Sørensen, L., & Karg, S. (2014). The expansion of agrarian societies towards the north – new evidence for agriculture during the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Southern Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 98‑114.Find this resource:
Stadler, P., & Kotova, N. (2010). Early Neolithic settlement from Brunn-Wolfholz in Lower Austria and the problem of the origin of (western) LBK. In J. K. Kozłowski & P. Raczky (Eds.), Neolithisation of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starčevo culture (pp. 325–348). Kraków, Poland: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.Find this resource:
Stika, H.-P. (2005). Early Neolithic agriculture in Ambrona, Provincia Soria, central Spain. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 14, 189–197.Find this resource:
Tanno, K-I., & Willcox, G. (2006). The origins of cultivation of Cicer arietinum L., & Vicia faba L.: Early finds from Tell el-Kerkh, north-west Syria, late 10th millennium b.p. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 15, 197–204.Find this resource:
Thiébault, S. (1988). L’homme et le milieu végétal au Tardi et Postglaciaire dans les préalpes sud-occidentales. Document d’Archéologie Française 15. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Find this resource:
Thomas, D. S., Knight, M., & Wiggs, G. F. (2005). Remobilization of southern African desert dune systems by twenty-first-century global warming. Nature, 435(7046), 1218–1221.Find this resource:
Thomas, J. S. (2008). The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain. In J. Pollard (Ed.), Prehistoric Britain (pp. 58-89). Blackwell: Oxford.Find this resource:
Tresset, A. (2015). Moving Animals and Plants in the Early Neolithic of North-Western Europe. In C. Fowler, J. Harding, & D. Hofmann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe (pp. 121–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Unger, F., Lesquereux, L., & Hruschauer, F. (1851). Über die im Salzberge zu Hallstatt im Salzkammergute vorkommenden Pflanzentrümmer. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Find this resource:
Valamoti, S., & Kotsakis, K. (2007). Transitions to agriculture in the Aegean: The archaeobotanical evidence. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Eds.), The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe (pp. 75–92). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Valamoti, S. M., Moniaki, A., & Karathanou, A. (2011). An investigation of processing and consumption of pulses among prehistoric societies: Archaeobotanical, experimental and ethnographic evidence from Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 20, 381–396.Find this resource:
Vaquer, J., & Ruas, M.-P. (2009). La grotte de l’Abeurador, Félines-Minervois (Hérault): Occupations humaines et environnement du Tardiglaciaire à l’Holocène. Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine (pp. 761–792), Toulouse, France: Archives d’Ecologie Préhistorique.Find this resource:
Vavilov, N. I. (1951). The origin, variation, immunity, and breeding of cultivated plants. New York: Stechert-Hafner.Find this resource:
Vigne, J. D. (2007). Exploitation des animaux et néolithisation en Méditerranée nord-occidentale. In J. Guilaine, C. Manen, & J.-D. Vigne (Eds), Pont de Roque-Haute (Portiragnes, Hérault). Nouveaux aperçus sur la néolithisation de la France méditerranéenne (pp. 221–301). Toulouse, France: Centre d’Anthropologie.Find this resource:
Vigne, J.-D., Briois, F., Zazzo, A., Willcox, G., Cucchi, T., Thiébault, S., …, Guilaine, J. (2012). First wave of cultivators spread to Cyprus at least 10,600 y ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8445–8449.Find this resource:
Warner, T. T. (2004). Desert meteorology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E., Clare, L., Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, O., …, van Andel, T. (2006). Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean Quaternary Research, 66, 401–420.Find this resource:
Willcox, G. (2005). The distribution, natural habitats and availability of wild cereals in relation to their domestication in the Near East: multiple events, multiple centres. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 14, 534–541.Find this resource:
Willcox, G. (2007). The adoption of farming and the beginnings of the Neolithic in the Euphrates valley: cereal exploitation between the 12th and the 8th millennium bc cal. In S. Colledge & J. Conolly (Eds.), The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe (pp. 21–36). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Find this resource:
Whitehouse, N. J., Schulting, R. J., McClatchie, M., Barratt, P., McLaughlin, T. R., Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Marchant, R., Gaffrey, J., & Bunting, M. J. (2014). Neolithic Agriculture on the European Western Frontier: The Boom and Bust of Early Farming in Ireland. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 181–205.Find this resource:
Woodbridge, J., Fyfe, R. M., Roberts, N., Downey, S., Edinborough, K., & Shennan, S. (2014). The impact of the Neolithic agricultural transition in Britain: a comparison of pollen-based land-cover and archaeological 14C date-inferred population change. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 216–224.Find this resource:
Zapata, L., Peña-Chocarro, L., Pérez-Jordá, G., & Stika, H.-P. (2004). Early Neolithic agriculture in the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of World Prehistory, 18, 283–325.Find this resource:
Zilhão, J. (2014). Early food production in southwestern Europe. In C. Renfrew & P. Bahn (Eds.), The Cambridge world prehistory. Vol. 3. West and Central Asia and Europe (pp. 1818–1834). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Zohary, D. (1996). The mode of domestication of the founder crops of Southwest Asian agriculture. In D. R. Harris (Ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia (pp. 142–158). London: University College London Press.Find this resource:
Zohary, D., Hopf, M., & Weiss, E. (2012). Domestication of plants in the Old World. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource: