Vegetation History and Archaeobotany

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 551–566 | Cite as

Evidence of ‘new glume wheat’ from the Late Neolithic (Copper Age) of south-eastern Hungary (4th millennium cal. b.c.)

Original Article

Abstract

In 2000, remains of an unknown Triticum species—later named ‘new glume wheat’ (NGW)—were identified in the archaeobotanical material of Neolithic and Bronze Age Greek sites. The presence of NGW was later reported from several other locations across Europe, from the seventh to the first millennium cal. b.c. During the systematic archaeobotanical survey of the multiperiod site of Hódmezővásárhely–Kopáncs I., Olasz-tanya (5310–2936 cal. b.c.) more than 2,000 cereal remains were recovered. During the morphological analyses, ten spikelet forks showed the distinctive traits of NGW, therefore morphometric analyses were conducted on the remains to reinforce the morphological identification. The results suggest that both approaches—morphological and morphometric—should be applied in parallel to securely separate the NGW remains from Triticum turgidum L. ssp. dicoccum (Schrank) Thell. (emmer) and T. monococcum L. ssp. monococcum (einkorn). All NGW glume bases were recovered from Late Copper Age features (3338–3264 cal. b.c.) of the settlement, which represent the Baden culture of the Great Hungarian Plain. Similarly to other Baden culture sites of the Carpathian Basin einkorn and emmer dominated the crop production of the settlement. The ratio of the NGW remains within the cereal assemblage was measured to be 0.48 %, which suggests that NGW did not have the status of a regular crop; still it may have been part of the accompanying weed flora of the cereal fields during the fourth millennium in the south-eastern Great Hungarian Plain landscape.

Keywords

Baden culture Plant macroremains Cereals Triticum Morphometric analysis 

Supplementary material

334_2013_405_MOESM1_ESM.xls (34 kb)
ESM 1List of NGW findings from different prehistoric periods in Europe and SW-Asia. For the geographical position of NGW occurrences see Fig. 1 (XLS 35 kb)
334_2013_405_MOESM2_ESM.doc (64 kb)
ESM 2Provenance of the NGW finds from the Baden culture features of Hódmezővásárhely–Kopáncs I., Olasz-tanya, including a list of sites in which we found morphological analogies for the spikelet forks recovered at our site (DOC 65 kb)
334_2013_405_MOESM3_ESM.xls (48 kb)
ESM 3List (raw data) of charred seeds and fruits as well as other identifiable plant parts (XLS 48 kb)
334_2013_405_MOESM4_ESM.xls (36 kb)
ESM 4The archaeobotanical parameters of the examined features of the Baden culture at Hódmezővásárhely–Kopáncs I., Olasz-tanya and their descriptive statistics. Features (n = 35) are listed according to their numbers; n = absolute values (raw data); P = presence; D = calculated density of the given feature expressed in number of remains [n] per processed soil litre [l]; U = ubiquity (frequency of occurrence) (XLS 36 kb)
334_2013_405_MOESM5_ESM.xls (30 kb)
ESM 5The archaeobotanical record and parameters of those features of the Baden culture at Hódmezővásárhely–Kopáncs I., Olasz-tanya, which yielded NGW remains. n = absolute values (raw data); D = density of the taxa calculated on the basis of feature’s soil material and expressed in number of remains [n] per processed soil litre [l] (XLS 31 kb)

References

  1. Andó M (1984) Hódmezővásárhely természeti földrajza. [Geography of Hódmezővásárhely] In: Nagy I (ed) Hódmezővásárhely története. A legrégibb időktől a polgári forradalomig I. [History of Hódmezővásárhely from the oldest times to the civil revolution] Hódmezővásárhely, pp 55–110Google Scholar
  2. Antolín F, Buxó R (2011) Proposal for the systematic description and taphonomic study of carbonized cereal grain assemblages: a case study of an early Neolithic funerary context in the cave of Can Sadurní (Begues, Barcelona province, Spain). Veget Hist Archaeobot 20:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakels C (1991) Tracing crop processing in the Bandkeramik culture. In: Renfrew JM (ed) New light on early farming. Recent development in palaeoethnobotany. University Press, Edinburgh, pp 281–288Google Scholar
  4. Barczi A, Sümegi P, Joó K (2003) Adatok a Hortobágy paleoökológiai rekonstrukciójához a Csípő-halom talajtani és malakológiai vizsgálatai alapján [Data to the palaeoecological reconstruction of the Hortobágy based on the pedological and malacological examination of the Csípő-halom kurgan]. Földtani Közlöny 133:421–431Google Scholar
  5. Bartosiewicz L (2005) Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas. In: Bailey D, Whittle A, Cummings V (eds) (Un)Settling the Neolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 51–63Google Scholar
  6. Bieniek A (2002) Archaeobotanical analysis of some early Neolithic settlements in the Kujawy region, central Poland, with potential plant gathering activities emphasized. In: Jacomet S, Jones G, Charles M, Bittmann F (eds) Archaeology of plants. Current research in archaeobotany. Veget Hist Archaeobot 11:33–40Google Scholar
  7. Bieniek A (2007) Neolithic plant husbandry in the Kujawi region of central Poland. In: Colledge S, Conolly J (eds) The origins and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 327–342Google Scholar
  8. Bieniek A, Licheli V (2007) Archaeobotanical studies at the Atskouri settlement (SE Georgia, 1st mill b.c.)—preliminary results. In: Bieniek A (ed) 14th Symposium of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany. 17–23 June 2007, Kraków, Poland. Programme and abstracts, p 120Google Scholar
  9. Bogaard A (2002) The permanence, intensity and seasonality of early crop cultivation in western-central Europe. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogaard A (2012) Plant use and crop husbandry in an Early Neolithic Village: Vaihingen an der Enz, Baden-Württemberg. Frankfurter archäologische Schriften 16. Habelt, BonnGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogaard A, Bending J, Jones G (2007) Archaeobotanical evidence for plant husbandry and use. In: Whittle A, (ed) The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21:421–445Google Scholar
  12. Bökönyi S (1968) Die Wirbeltierfauna der Siedlung von Salgótarján-Pécskő, Acta Archaeologica—Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Tomus XX. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 59–100Google Scholar
  13. Bökönyi S (1974) History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Akadémia Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  14. Bokorné Nagy K (1984) Az avar kaganátus. [The Avar Khaganate] In: Nagy I (ed) Hódmezővásárhely története a legrégibb időktől a polgári forradalomig [History of Hódmezővásárhely from the oldest times to the civil revolution] vol 1., Hódmezővásárhely, pp 229–256Google Scholar
  15. Borojević K (1991) Emmer aus Feudvar. Ber RGK 72:171–177Google Scholar
  16. Boros Á (1958) A magyar puszta növényzetének származása [Origin of the vegetation of the Hungarian ‘puszta’]. Földrajzi Értesítő 7:33–46Google Scholar
  17. Brecher Gy (1960) A magismeret atlasza (The atlas of seed identification). Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  18. Brombacher C, Jacomet S (1997) Ackerbau, Sammelwirtschaft und Umwelt: Ergebnisse archäobotanischer Untersuchungen. In: Schibler J, Hüster-Plogmann H, Jacomet S, Brombacher C, Gross-Klee E, Rast-Eicher A (eds) Ökonomie und Ökologie neolitischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee. Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 20:220–279Google Scholar
  19. Caneppele A, Heiss AG, Kohler-Schneider M (2010) Weinstock, Dill und Eberesche: Pflanzenreste aus dem Tempelbezirk der latènezeitlichen Siedlung Sandberg/Roseldorf. Archäologie Österreichs 21:13–25Google Scholar
  20. Cappers RTJ, Bekker RM, Jans JEA (2006) Digital seed atlas of the Netherlands/Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland. Groningen Archaeological Studies 4. Barkhuis, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  21. Charmet G (2011) Wheat domestication: lessons for the future. CR Biol 334:212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Colledge S, Conolly J (2007) The origins and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig OE, Chapman J, Figler A, Patay P, Taylor G, Collins MJ (2003) ’Milk Jugs’ and other myths of the Copper Age of Central Europe. Eur J Archaeol 6:251–265Google Scholar
  24. De Moulins D (1993) Les restes de plantes carbonisées de Cafer Höyök. Cahiers de l’Euphrate 7:190–234Google Scholar
  25. De Moulins D (1997) Agricultural Changes at Euphrates and Steppe Sites in the Mid-8th to the 6th Millennium b.c. BAR 683, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Fairbairn A, Asouti E, Near J, Martinoli D (2002) Macro-botanical evidence for plant use at Neolithic Çatalöyük, south-central Anatolia, Turkey. In: Jacomet S, Jones G, Charles M, Bittmann F (eds) Archaeology of plants. Current research in archaeobotany. Veget Hist Archaeobot 11:41–54Google Scholar
  27. Fischer E, Rösch A (2004) Archäobotanische Untersuchungen. In: Schier W, Drasovean F (eds) Vorbericht über die rumänisch-deutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, jud. Timiş, Rumänien. Prähist Zschr 79: 209–220Google Scholar
  28. Gy B (1980) Szikes puszták és növénytakarójuk [Salt affected steppes (‘puszta’) and their vegetation]. A Békés Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 6:29–50Google Scholar
  29. György L (2008) A Baden-kultúra telepe Mezőkövesd-Nagy-Fertőn. Die Siedlung der Badener-Kultur in Mezőkövesd-Nagy-Fertő. Herman Ottó Múzeum, MiskolcGoogle Scholar
  30. Gyulai F (2011) Archaeobotanical remains of the Late Copper Age from the Carpathian Basin. In: Pető Á, Barczi A (eds) Kurgan studies: an environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone. BAR Int Ser 2238. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 301–313Google Scholar
  31. Hajnalová M (2007) Early farming in Slovakia: an archaeobotanical perspective. In: Colledge S, Conolly J (eds) The origins and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 295–314Google Scholar
  32. Hansen JM (1991) The palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, fascicle 7). Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Horváth T (2006a) A badeni kultúráról–rendhagyó módon [On the Baden culture in an unconventional way] A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 48, pp 89–133Google Scholar
  34. Horváth T (2006b) Állattemetkezések Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő badeni lelőhelyen. Animal burials in the Late Copper Age Baden site: Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő. Somogy Megyei Közlemények 17:107–153Google Scholar
  35. Horváth T (2010) Transcendent phenomena in the Late Copper Age Boleráz/Baden settlement uncovered at Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő: human and animal depositions. http://www.jungsteinsite.unikiel.de/2010_horvath/2010_Horvath_high.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2012
  36. Horváth T (2012) Balatonőszöd–Temetői-dűlő őskori településrészei [Prehistoric settlement parts of Balatonőszöd–Temetői-dűlő]. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Régészeti Intézete, Budapest 2012, pp 563–572. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Könyvtárának Repozitóriuma. http://real.mtak.hu/ 2959/Accessed 28 Oct 2012
  37. Horváth F, Dobolyi KZ, Morschhauser T, Lőkös L, Karas L, Szerdahelyi T (1995) FLÓRA Adatbázis 1.2. Taxon-lista és attribútum-állomány. Flóra Munkacsoport MTA Ökológiai és Botanikai Kutatóintézete és MTM Növénytár, Vácrátót-BudapestGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacomet S (2006a) Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites, 2nd edn. Archaeobotany Lab, IPAS, Basel University, Basel, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  39. Jacomet S (2006b) Plant economy of the Northern Alpine Lake dwelling area—3500–2400 b.c. cal. In: Karg S, Baumeister R, Schlichtherle H, Robinson DE (eds) Economic and environmental changes during the 4th and 3rd Millenia b.c. Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the AEA Sept 2004 in Bad Buchau, Germany. Envir Archaeol 11:64–83Google Scholar
  40. Jacomet S (2013) Archaeobotany: the potential of analyses of plant remains from waterlogged archaeological sites. In: Menotti F, O’Sullivan A (eds) The Oxford handbook of wetland archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 497–514Google Scholar
  41. Járai-Komlódi M (1987) Postglacial climate and vegetation history in Hungary. In: Pécsi M, Kordos L (eds) Holocene environment in Hungary. Geographical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, pp 37–47Google Scholar
  42. Járai-Komlódi M (2000) A Kárpát-medence növényzetének kialakulása. In: Bartha D (ed) Válogatott Tanulmányok II. Tilia 9: 5–59Google Scholar
  43. Jones G, Valamoti S, Charles M (2000) Early crop diversity: a “new” glume wheat from northern Greece. Veget Hist Archaeobot 9:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kadereit A, Sponholz B, Rösch M, Schier W, Kromer B, Wagner GA (2006) Chronology of Holocene environmental changes at the tell site of Uivar, Romania, and its significance for late Neolithic tell evolution in the temperate Balkans. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N.F. 142:19–45Google Scholar
  45. Király G (2009) Új Magyar füvészkönyv. Magyarország hajtásos növényei. Határozókulcsok. [New Hungarian Herbal. The Vascular Plants of Hungary. Identification key.] Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, JósvafőGoogle Scholar
  46. Király G, Molnár Zs, Bölöni J, Vojtkó A (2008) Magyarország földrajzi kistájainak növényzete. [Plantgeography of Hungary’s microregions] MTA Ökológiai és Botanikai Kutatóintézete, VácrátótGoogle Scholar
  47. Knörzer KH (1974) Bandkeramische Pflanzenfunde von Bedburg-Garsdorf, Kreis Bergheim/Erft. Rhein Ausgrab 15:173–192Google Scholar
  48. Knörzer KH (1980) Pflanzliche Großreste des bandkeramischen Siedlungsplatzes Wanlo (Stadt Mönchengladbach). Archaeo-Physika 7:7–20Google Scholar
  49. Kohler-Schneider M (2001) Verkohlte Kultur- und Wildpflanzenreste aus Stillfried an der March als Spiegel spätbronzezeitlicher Landwirtschaft im Weinviertel, Niederösterreich. Mitt Prähist Komm 37. Österr Akad Wiss, WienGoogle Scholar
  50. Kohler-Schneider M (2003) Contents of a storage pit from late Bronze Age Stillfried, Austria: another record of the “new” glume wheat. Veget Hist Archaeobot 12:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kohler-Schneider M, Caneppele A (2009) Late Neolithic agriculture in eastern Austria: archaeobotanical results from sites of the Baden and Jevišovice cultures (3600–2800 b.c.). Veget Hist Archaeobot 18:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kohler-Schneider M, Heiss AG (2010) Archäobotanische Untersuchung der latènezeitlichen Siedlung von Michelstetten, Niederösterreich. In: Lauermann E (ed) Die latènezeitliche Siedlung von Michelstetten. Archäol Forsch Niederösterr 7: 116–147Google Scholar
  53. Korek J (1984) Az újkőkortól időszámításunk kezdetéig [From the Neolithic to the beginning of the Modern Times] In: Nagy I (ed) Hódmezővásárhely története a legrégibb időktől a polgári forradalomig. [History of Hódmezővásárhely from the oldest times to the civil revolution] vol 1, Hódmezővásárhely, pp 112–188Google Scholar
  54. 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. Veget Hist Archaeobot 14:237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kulcsár G, V Szabó G (1997) Kronológia—Kronologie. In: Havassy P (ed) Sie sahen die Tore von Ilion. Funde aus der Bronzezeit vom mittleren Theissgebiet. Gyulai Katalógusok 3, Gyula, pp 155–157Google Scholar
  56. Link B (2004) Archäobotanische Untersuchung der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage Kamegg, Niederösterreich. Diploma thesis, BOKU, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  57. Maier U (2001) Archäobotanische Untersuchungen in der neolithischen Ufersiedlung Hornstaad-Hörnle IA am Bodensee. In: Maier U, Vogt R (eds) Siedlungsarchäeologie im Alpenvorland VI. Botanische und pedologische Untersuchungen zur Ufersiedlung Hornstaad-Hörnle IA. Forsch Ber Vor- u Frühgesch Baden-Württ 74, Stuttgart, pp 9–384Google Scholar
  58. Marosi S, Somogyi S (1990) Magyarország Kistájainak Katasztere [Cadastre of Hungary’s microregions] Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Földrajztudományi Kutató Intézet, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  59. Nesbitt M, Samuel D (1996) From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and history of the hulled wheats. In: Padulosi S, Hammer K, Heller J (eds) Hulled wheat. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops 4. Rome, pp 40–99Google Scholar
  60. Pető Á, Cummings LS (2011) Palaeovegetational reconstruction of the Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom based on combined micropalaeobotanical analysis. In: Pető Á, Barczi A (eds) Kurgan studies: An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone. BAR Int Ser 2238. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 315–325Google Scholar
  61. Radics L (1998) Gyommaghatározó (Field guide to weed seeds.) Mezőgazda, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  62. Rottoli M, Pessina A (2007) Neolithic agriculture in Italy. In: Colledge S, Conolly J (eds) The origin and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 141–154Google Scholar
  63. Schermann Sz (1966) Magismeret I-II. (Seed identification I-II.) Akadémiai Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  64. Spataro M (2006) Pottery typology versus technological choices: an Early Neolithic case study from Banat (Romania). Anelele Banatului 14:63–78Google Scholar
  65. Stika HP, Heiss AG (2012/2013) Lebensweisen in Südosteuropa. Archäobotanische Untersuchungen am bronzezeitlichen Tell von Százhalombatta-Földvár an der Donau in Ungarn. Offa 69/70:411–427Google Scholar
  66. Sümegi P, Persaits G, Törőcsik T, Náfrádi K, Páll DG, Hupuczi J, Molnár D, Lócskai T, Mellár B, Cs T, Sz TG (2011) An analysis of the environmental history of Maroslele-Pana. In: Paluch T (ed) Maroslele-Pana: a Middle Neolithic Site at the Frontier of Cultures. Monographia Archaeologica II, Szeged, pp 205–246Google Scholar
  67. Szakmány Gy, Starnini E, Horváth F, Bradák B (2008) Gorzsa késő neolit tell településről előkerült kőeszközök archeometriai vizsgálatának előzetes eredményei (Tisza kultúra, DK Magyarország)—Investigating trade and exchange patterns in Prehistory: preliminary results of the archaeometric analyses of the stone artefacts from tell Gorzsa (Southeast Hungary). Archeometriai Műhely—Archaeometry Workshop 5: 13–26Google Scholar
  68. Tasić N (2004) Historical picture of development of Bronze Age Cultures inVojvodina. CTAPИAP 53-54/2003-2004:23–24Google Scholar
  69. Ulas B, Fiorentino G (2010) Recent identification of a new glume wheat type: a biometrical and morphological study of spikelet forks from the neolithic levels in Mersin-Yumuktepe (Turkey). In: Bittmann F (ed) 15th International Conference of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany. Terra Nostra 2010/2: 183. http://www.palaeoethnobotany.com/download/posters/ulas_poster_whv2010.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2012
  70. Valamoti SM (2002) Food remains from Bronze Age-Archondiko and Mesimeriani Toumba in northern Greece? Veget Hist Archaeobot 11:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Valamoti SM, Kotsakis K (2007) Transitions to agriculture in the Aegean: the archaeobotanical evidence. In: Colledge S, Conolly J (eds) The origins and spread of domestic plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  72. Van Zeist WA (1984) List of names of wild and cultivated cereals. Bull Sumer Agric 1:8–16Google Scholar
  73. Zach B (2012) Bronzezeitliche Getreide- und Hülsenfruchtvorräte vom Kathreinkogel, Kärnten. In: Spurensuche am Kathreinkogel. Archäologie Alpen Adria 5:131–141Google Scholar
  74. Zhukovsky PM (1928) A new species of wheat [T. timopheevi Zhuk.]. Bulletin of Applied Botany, of Genetics and Plant-Breeding (Trudy po Prikladnoi Botanike, Genetike i Selektsii) 19:59–66Google Scholar
  75. Zohary D, Hopf M, Weiss E (2012) Domestication of plants in the old World: The origin and spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied Research, National Heritage Protection CentreHungarian National MuseumBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental and Landscape ManagementSzent István UniversityGödöllőHungary

Personalised recommendations